Economic Statistics with links to official sources, rev 2/2/19

# Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Nonfarm Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Federal employees (includes postal workers, excludes military): http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001

{#} Job Loss and Creation - Nonfarm Employment At the bottom all post-WWII presidents with completed terms are compared

Factoids (official sources are at the bottom of the page):

# To Do: Make some tables to help make this mass of numbers more coherent.

# Note that an annual revision (upward) of payroll jobs, announced Feb 1, 2019 has been included in the official statistics and in the below.

# Under Obama there were 83 straight months of private sector job growth (since the February 2010 job market bottom), totaling 16.0 million private sector jobs. Total job growth during this period is 15.8 million jobs ( 0.2 million government jobs were lost ).

# The economy Bush handed to Obama lost 4.2 million jobs during the last 10 months of the Bush administration. Furthermore, at the end of the Bush administration the rate of job losses was accelerating -- losing 2.26 million jobs just in his last 3 months -- an average of 753,000 lost jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency).

The official sources for all these statistics are at the bottom of the page

# If some rightie says that Bush inherited an economic train wreck from Clinton, you can point out that that the economy (real GDP) was still growing in the last quarter of the Clinton administration at a 2.4% annual rate (Q4 2000), as opposed to the last quarter of the Bush II administration -- it was contracting at an 8.9% annual rate (Q4 2008). Real GDP quarterly percentage change figures are at: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls.

And that in the last 3 months of the Clinton administration 329,000 jobs were created -- yes a slowdown, but not a meltdown. Contrast that to the meltdown in the last 3 months of the Bush administration when 2.3 million jobs were lost.

The numbers for the last 10 months of the Clinton administration: 1.1 million jobs were created. Contrast that to the last 10 months of the Bush administration when 4.3 million jobs were lost.

# 14.5 million nonfarm payroll jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur) and only 5 months since Obama took office). Bush only created 1.3 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency.

(See posting EF-3 below for more on this recession thing -- roughly speaking, economists define the end of the recession as when the economy hits bottom, and the faintest signs of economic growth begins -- not when people start singing Happy Days Are Here Again. In other words, the recession is over when we're at the very bottom of the pit and beginning to tentatively claw our way upward. While that's nothing to gurgle ecstatically about, that's still better than falling falling falling like we were under Bush).

# 14.8 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)

# Bush's entire 8 year record: 1.3 million payroll jobs were created - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.5 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: Total: 1,347, Govt: 1,744, PrivateSector: -397, updated 1/31/18 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.

# Obama's entire 8 year record (including the 4.3 million jobs lost during his first 13 months that was a momentum carry-over from the massive job losses during Bush's last several months): 11.5 million payroll jobs were created - by cutting 0.3 million government jobs and creating 11.8 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: Total: 11,488, Govt: -268, PrivateSector: 11,756, updated 1/31/18 ).

(#.) And then there is this - Romney justifying his poor job creation record at the 3 1/2 year point of his administration as Massachusetts Governor -- by blaming the economy he inherited from his predecessor for the fact that his (Romney's) job numbers kept falling during the first 11 months of his administration -- and touting the number of jobs created (50,000) after his job numbers finally stopped falling. Note this is ironic considering how Romney and the Republicans have spent this campaign blaming Obama for doing the same thing -- pointing to the lousy economy he inherited and pointing to job growth figures since the turn-around. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125198174

Back to Romney's Massachusetts record (see above link for details): that 50,000 post-turnaround job creation record was a poor showing on a per-capita basis compared to the national average at the same time period, or the Obama record during the similar post-turnaround job-recovering period of the Obama administration. And consider that during Romney's entire 4-year term as governor, Massachusetts was 47th in job creation (in percentage increase terms) -- yes, only 3 states had a worse job-creation record.

.-------------------------------------------.

# The Clinton economy created 22.9 million payroll jobs of which 21.0 million were in the private sector [updated above on 5/6/16]

# Federal workforce If some rightie claims that Obama increased the federal workforce (as if that was bad), well actually that is true, but tiny: Under Obama the federal workforce increased by 31,000 employees which is a 1.1% increase (over 8 years), far below the rate of U.S. population increase. And note that Romney as governor increased the number of Massachusetts state employees by 5.5% (over 4 years). Also note that Bush II increased the federal workforce by 1.3% (over 8 years)

. . # Source of the Romney figure: "Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22", ABC News, 6/6/12 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
. . # Source of the Obama and Bush II figures: BLS data series: Federal employees, seasonally adjusted: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001
. . . . It includes postal workers, and it excludes the military
. . . . Jan 2009: 2,786,000 , Jan 2017: 2,817,000 (preliminary) , increase: 31,000 (this is a 1.1% increase -- far below the growth in U.S. population)

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents, Average Annual % Increases :

(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue.)

Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.2% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican -- that is, until Obama, who inherited an economy that was losing several hundred thousand jobs a month And actually, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.

Post-WWII Presidents ranked by Average Annual Percentage Increase In Jobs (the last column):
. . (updated 2/2/19 after new jobs report released - it has revisions going back decades.)





Trump beats 4 or the 6 previous post-WWII RepubliCON presidents in average annual percentage increase in jobs (he falls between Ford and Reagan). But he beats only one Democratic president: Obama.

Remember, Obama inherited the deepest recession since World War II, which lost 4.2 million jobs in the last 10 months of his predecessor, and in the last 3 months of his predecessor was losing 753,000 jobs a month. With that momentum, job losses continued for the first 13 months of the Obama presidency -- through February 2010 -- totalling 4.3 million jobs lost during those 13 months.

Anyway, despite the 4.3 million jobs lost in his first 13 months because of the Bush crash, Obama still beats 3 of the last 7 post-WWII Republican presidents (the count of 7 post-WWII Republican presidents includes Trump).

In the above table, the average annual % increase in jobs (the last column) is a much fairer way to compare presidents than just the raw job creation figures in thousands because the latter is unfair to the earlier presidents who were working with much smaller labor forces to begin with. For example the number of job holders at the beginning of Truman's administration was only 38% as many as at the beginning of Clinton's administration, and 31% as many as at the beginning of G.W. Bush's administration. So Truman's pathetic-looking 93,570 jobs/month creation record turns out to be even better than Clinton's 238,521 jobs/month record when adjusted for the size of the labor force at the beginning of their terms.

In raw thousands of jobs created per year, both Reagan and Nixon beat Truman. But when adjusted for the size of the labor force -- again, by looking at average annual percentage increases in jobs -- Truman beats them both.

Official sources of information for the above:

# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left

The United States Unemployment Rate. Every Time The Democrats Fix It, The Republicans F*CK It Up (1960-2016)


This one USED TO compare all post-WWII presidents on a term by term basis, with and without an 8 month lag:

"The monthly statistics are quoted from January, as U.S. presidents take office at the end of that month, and from September (bold), as this is the last month of the federal fiscal year."

Unfortunately, they recently got rid of the 8-month lag figures. Also the numbers for Obama are a little bit out of date, my guess is that it doesn't incorporate the annual revisions the BLS makes to the past numbers. They show 145,554,000 payroll jobs at the end of Obama's presidency whereas I see 145,696,000 in January 2017 ( https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 ), a difference of 142,000 jobs (although not a big whoop though when looking at average job creation over a 96 month presidency). And that might change again when the BLS makes their annual revision to past numbers again on 2/1/19, sigh.

The loss of the 8 month lag especially hurts Obama (3.8 million jobs were lost during the first 8 months of the Obama administration, thanks to carry-over of the Bush housing bubble burst recession -- 3.8 million jobs (coincidentally) were lost during the last 8 months of the Bush administration.

Anyway, an interesting page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms


Current Employment Statistics Highlights - Detailed Industry Employment Analysis (employment changes by industry -- a summary followed by 4-5 year charts)

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate

# Unemployment Rate, from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Labor Force Participation Rate from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# Labor Force Participation Rate, Prime Age (Ages 25-54) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060
# Employment-To-Population Ratio, Prime Age (Ages 25-54) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060
# Labor Force Participation Rate, Double Prime Age (Ages 25-34) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300089
# Employment-To-Population Ratio, Double Prime Age (Ages 25-34) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300089

(on all of the above, you can change the "From" and "To" dates to whatever you want at the top center pulldown boxes)

# Regional and state employment and unemployment http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

# Unemployment rate, seas adjusted of recent presidents

All values are the unemployment rates, specifically Jan 1989, Jan 1993, Jan 2001, Jan 2009), with the exception of the current unemployment rate under Obama, which is the end of last month.

(If you get into discussions about Obama's unemployment rate, it is worthwhile to point out that if one starts from June 2009, when the recession ended according to the NBER (the official arbiter of economic turning points, NBER.org), and just 5 months after Obama took office, then the unemployment rate has been cut by 4.7 percentage points. Obama cannot be blamed for the job losses in his first 5 months, given that the economy Bush handed him was losing 753,000 jobs PER MONTH in his last 3 months, and it takes many months to enact and implement new policies and for them to take effect.)

Unemployment rates:

Bush I: 5.4% to 7.3%, Change= + 1.9%
Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%, Change= - 3.1%
Bush II: 4.2% to 7.8%, Change= + 3.6%

Obama's first 5 months: 7.8% to 9.5%, Change= + 1.7% (Jan '09 - May '09)
Obama thereafter: 9.5% to 4.8%, Change= - 4.7% (Jun '09 - Jan '17)
Obama entire term: 7.8% to 4.8%, Change= - 3.0% (Jan '09 - Jan '17)

Trump so far: 4.7% to 4.0%, Change= - 0.7% (Jan '17 - Jan '19)

(June 2009, just 5 months after Obama took office, is when the recession ended, per NBER.org)

# Under Bush II, the unemployment rate rose by 3.6 pp (percentage points) while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate fell 1.5 pp: from 67.2% to 65.7% (had the participation rate stayed the same, the unemployment rate would have risen even further.

Contrast Bush's record to Clinton's, where the unemployment rate dropped 3.1 pp while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate rose by 1.0 pp.

Secret information: Under Obama the unemployment rate decreased by only 3.0 percentage points, from 7.8% to 4.8%, while the civilian labor force participation rate fell 2.8 percentage points, from 65.7% to 62.9%.

However, the more important Employment to Population Ratio fell by a much lesser 0.7 percentage points, from 60.6% to 59.9, thanks in large part to the aging of the population and boomer retirements.

Looking at the prime working age population (ages 25-54), their Employment to their Population Ratio ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 ) during Obama's presidency has increased a bit (1.0 percentage points), from Jan 2009 (77.0%) to January 2017 (78.2%). Not much considering we're talking about over 7-1/2 years that began deep in the Great Recession (Obama took office 13 months after the start of the Great Recession, and 13 months before the job market bottom was reached in February 2010). And no retiring aging boomers to blame since we're talking about the age 25-54 workforce, not the entire age 16+ workforce.

BLS.GOV: "The labor force is the number of people ages 16 or older who are either working or looking for work. It does not include active-duty military personnel or the institutionalized population, such as prison inmates".

One reason for the decline in the labor force participation rate during the last several years is the retirement of large numbers of baby boomers. Remember that the population being counted is everyone 16 and over -- no matter how old (again excepting active duty military and institutionalized populations). Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Americans aged 62 and over increased by 21% while the U.S. population as a whole increased by 9.7%, according to the Population Connection Reporter 12/2012

In the 2000 Census, the number of Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so within a few years -- was about 20 million. But thanks to the Baby Boomers, the number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, almost a 50 percent increase --Poltifact 10/8/12 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/08/american-future-fund/ad-says-workforce-smaller-under-barack-obama-any-t/

Already, 1 in 5 boomers have retired, according to AARP The Magazine, February 2014.

Some point out that the labor force participation rate (LFPR) of elderly Americans is higher than in recent years. People erroneously conclude from that factoid that baby boomer retirements can't be contributing to the overall labor force participation rate decline. How can baby boomer retirements cause the overall LFPR to decline when the retirement age population's LFPR is increasing?

Answer: because the retirement age population is increasing so rapidly that it is an ever larger share of the age 16+ population (see above). And although the retirement age population has a higher LFPR than before (its been on a general rising trend since 1985 - hey, thanks Reagan!), still, their LFPR is far less than that of the non-elderly population. For example, the LFPR (not seas adjusted) for age 65+ was 19.6% in December 2018, and indeed it is up considerably from the 14.1% rate in December 2003 ( LNU01300097 ). But that LFPR is still far far below the average for the entire 16+ population (seas adj): 63.1% in December 2018 ( LNS11300000 )

In short, the rapid proportional increase in the age 65+ population (a population with less than 1/3 the LFPR of the rest of the population) overwhelms the effect of the increasing of the 65+ population's LFPR.

One quantitative estimate I've run across of the impact of baby boomer retirements is this from Marilyn Geewax from NPR National Public Radio, 1/21/14 ( http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/01/21/business/whats-behind-the-falling-unemployment-rate ):

"Many economists say retirements are causing about half of the labor force shrinkage. Others say it's 60 percent, and yet others believe it's more like 40 percent."

In other words, 50% +/- 10%. Lets call it about half.

According to a July 2014 analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers, speaking of the 3.1 percentage point decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate from the final quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2014, "About half of the decline (1.6 percentage point) is due to the aging of the population. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in participation when workers enter their early 60s."

For more on that, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

Update 8/1/14: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/08/01/employment-situation-july

The Commissioner of Labor Statistics at the Bureau of Labor Statistics also said the boomer retirements and aging workforce accounts for about half the drop in the LFPR. And about 1/4 due to the recession and 1/4 due to long term trends that preceded the recession ... sounded like she is on the same page as the Council of Economic Advisers and maybe she is using their analysis. - interviewed by Leslie Marshall around 1230a 7/23/14 (probably Dr. Erica L. Groshen - http://blogs.bls.gov/blog/commissioners_biography/ , http://blogs.bls.gov/blog/ ),

To be sure, the increasing of the retirement age population is not the only reason for the declining LFPR (it's about half the reason according to the above). For example, the LFPR of the age 25-34 year old population (seas adj) changed only slightly from 82.5% in December 2003 (and 83.1% in December 2007) to 82.9% in December 2019 ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300089 ) while their Employment To Population Ratio ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300089 ) changed from 77.6% in December 2003 (and 79.0% in December 2007) to 79.7% in December 2018 (well, its up only 2.1% from December 2003 to December 2018. But I discount or ignore comparisons to December 2007 as that was the height of the housing bubble-produced hyper-job market. Actually I'm pleased to see this statistic is up somewhat compared to December 2003 -- a point I chose as kind of a midpoint between the end of the dot-com crash and the beginning of the housing mania).

LATER, 2/2/19 - I'm going to have to rewrite all of the above. The LFPR and Employement-to-Population Ratio (ETPR) of the age 25-34 demographic had long been below their 2000 and 2007 peaks. But they have both essentially recovered:

The ETPR of the 25-34 demographic is at 79.8% in January 2019. This is slightly down from the 80.0% housing bubble high in 2007, and 2.5% below the dotcom bubble high of 2000. It essentially matches the only other peak, 80.1% in 1989. Before 1989, the ETPR was considerably lower than these levels because the female workforce participation was less than in recent decades. Anyway, the take-away is that the ETPR of this 25-34 age demographic is well above the average of the 1989-2019 period, even leaving aside the Great Recession crash and recovery years.

The LFPR of the age 25-34 demographic, 83.0% in January 2019, is only 1.0% down from its Housing Bubble high (84.0% in early 2008), and 2.3% down from the dotcom bubble high in 2000. It's down 1.4% from the 1989 peak (84.4%).

(I deliberately selected a young population in the above paragraph because one hears a lot about the extra difficulty the young are having finding jobs. At the same time, I also chose a population that is for the most part well above college age because a population with a significant portion of high school and/or college age people would add to the complexity of the analysis and explanation when there exists a good productive choice other than work).

For convenience the links to the labor force particpation rate and the employment to population ratio are:
LFPR, age 25-34: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300089
ETPR, age 25-34: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300089

For the graphs, a good start date to pick is 1987 -- before 1987 the LFPR and ETPR were much lower due to generally lower female workforce participation rates.

I'll have to do much more analysis before I can determine what part of the overall LFPR decline is due to the increasing proportion of elderly people. The best way to find data series (that I have found) is this tool: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln


Unemployment rates, by ethnicity (white, Hispanic, black), age, and gender

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm (race, then sex, some age)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t03.htm (continuation of t02.htm)

Unemployment rate: U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6 - Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutitlization
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Definitions: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
See U-1 thru U-6 together, each line a different color (scroll down to Chart # 20 ): http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

. # U-1, U-2: U-1 is http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13025670 and U-2 is http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14023621 if anyone cares

. # U-3 Unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted (this is the headline official unemployment rate number) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

. # U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civalian labor force plus discouraged workers, seasonally adjusted http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327707

. # U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, seasonally adjusted
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327708

. # U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, seasonally adjusted. This is the BLS's broadest measure of unemployment. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709


{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Insurance Claims

# Unemployment insurance initial claims: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

# It peaked at 667,000 initial claims 3/28/09 (2 months after Obama took office) and since then it has shown a steady improvement excepting relatively minor bumps until about December 2011. Since December 2011 it has been inching down slowly, but steadily, for example -- the average of the 4 weeks with ending dates in December 2011 was 377,000; while the last 4 weeks through week ending October 1, 2016 averaged 253,500. That is the lowest since December 8, 1973, almost 43 years ago). Since then, it has been pretty flat at very low levels (very near the lows of 1973, and remember this statistic is not adjusted for population size). In the 4 weeks ending January 26, 2019, it averaged 220,250.

# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa when a RepubliCON is in the White House).

# Fact: The count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official national unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the national unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance" ) or Google the below line::
"How the Government Measures Unemployment" cps_htgm.htm
and search the page for the word "insurance"

People in the survey are counted as unemployed (and thus part of the official (U3) unemployment rate) if they are jobless and looked for work some time in the past 4 weeks. They are counted as unemployed in the U4, U5, and U6 statistics if they looked for work some time in the past 12 months. It has nothing at all to do with whether they are collecting unemployment benefits or not, or how long they have been unemployed.

However, unemployment insurance data is used as one of the inputs for determining state and substate unemployment rates --

"because the CPS survey of 60,000 households nationwide is insufficient for creating reliable monthly estimates for statewide and substate areas, LAUS (Local Area Unemployment Statistics) uses three different estimating procedures, each being the most appropriate for the level of geography being estimated. In general, estimates for the states are developed using statistical models that incorporate current and historical data from the CPS, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program, and regular state unemployment insurance (UI) systems. These model-based state estimates are also controlled in "real time" to sum to the not seasonally adjusted national monthly CPS totals."

(also from the above http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm link).

Note the last part -- that the state totals are adjusted to sum up to the national total. So on average, any undercount bias resulting from using (in part) state unemployment insurance (UI) data is eliminated by adjusting the state totals to sum up to the national CPS result (which doesn't use state UI data at all)

---------------------------
However, over the longer term, undoubtedly a cut-off in benefits will affect the unemployment rate numbers, for example:

# People who lose benefits will be more likely to take any job out there, no matter how far below their education, training, and experience, thus lowering the unemployment rate (since they are no longer unemployed).

# Some people who were making some effort to look for work only in order to continue to receive unemployment benefits (looking for work is a requirement to receive benefits) will drop the charade of looking for work when their benefits are cut off. This will also lower the unemployment rate (people who have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not counted as unemployed (U-3) or the last 12 months (U-4 - U-6) ). It will also lower the labor force participation rate (officially the labor force is those employed or who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks).

(People in the above category are not necessarily "cheats" in my book -- for example people who may not really be looking right now because they are completing coursework in order to earn a certificate in order to improve their chances of getting a job that utilizes their education and experience is not Reagan's "welfare queen" IMHO)

{#} JOLTS - Job Opening and Labor Turnover Survey

# Job Openings and Labor Turnover SUMMARY - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

# Job Openings and Labor Turnover Table of Contents - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.toc.htm

# This Mahatmakanejeeves thread (JOLTS report for October 2015 that came out December 8) has a graph of Job Openings, Hires, and Quits from January 2001 on, as well as a graph of Reasons Why People Leave Jobs ( Layoffs, Voluntary Quits, Other Separations ) from 2001 on -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141283919

# This Mahatmakanejeeves thread (JOLTS report for January 2016 that came out March 17) has a graph of Job Openings, Hires, and Quits from January 2007 on -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141283919

# 1/29/18 - I've done some searching for finding newer versions, without luck, but I'd Google "Josh Zumbrun job openings". I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal though

{#} Multiple JobHolders

Table A-9: Multiple Jobholders: January 2019: 7,850,000 Percent of employed: 5.0%. -- So according to this and Politifact, it is a myth that most people are working 2 or 3 jobs.
. . . http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

See Table A-9 ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm ) and Table A-16 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm ). Table A-16 has a breakdown into 4 categories: primary job full-time, secondary job part-time, etc. etc. Also by men and women.

# Multiple Job holders, thousands, seasonaly adjusted -
. . . https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12026619
. . . http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026619

# Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed, seasonally adjusted
. . . https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12026620
. . . http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026620

# Multiple Job Holders - Fred -- several breakdowns, each with their BLS timeseries numbers, e.g. LNS12026620
. . . https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/32450

# http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm -- is only by year, e.g. 2014, 2015. lots of breakdowns -- by age, by race/ethnicity

# Myth: "But the real unemployment rate is 15% (or 24% or whatever) and it keeps going up":

# Facts: The broadest measure of unemployment rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes is the U-6 -- Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, seasonally adjusted http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
( Definitions of alternative meausres of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm )

U-6 counts as unemployed all who have looked for a job sometime, even just once, in the past year, and who are not employed and say they want a job now. And part-time workers who want full-time work. (Whereas the headline official (U-3) unemployment rate counts only those who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks, and counts all part-timers as employed).

The U-6 unemployment rate was 15.4% in January 2009 when Bush left office and Obama took office.
When Obama left office and Trump took office, it was 9.4% (January 2017).
Recently it was 8.1% in January 2019. It had been on a fairly steady decline since about April 2010 (when it peaked at 17.2%). ( LNS13327709 )

There are even broader measures of unemployment to be found on the Internet (where just about anything can be found and dressed up as reasonable) such as the Shadow Stats series unemployment rate. My understanding is that the BLS's U-6 includes people who have looked for a job sometime, even just once, in the past 12 months ( http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm ). I don't see any particular reason to broaden the definition of unemployment rate to those, who although they say they want a job now, haven't bothered to do any job-hunting for over a year. How far should we extend it?

Should we also count as unemployed the house spouse in a one-high-income household -- or the happily retired person -- who, if an ideal dream job came up, would consider it? See the next item on what if you counted everyone who says they want a job.

If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years...

More specifically if you counted every jobless person who answers "yes" to the question "do you want a job" and every part-time worker that answers "yes" to the question, "do you want a full time job?" (even if they have made no effort to find a job in years), then the unemployment rate is 10.1% as of January 2019 -- This is 1.8 percentage points higher than the BLS's January U-6 unemployment rate of 8.1% ). .

Paul Solman of the Newshour created this "U-7" indicator.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/a-disjointed-jobs-report-and-u-7-month-two.html

I don't know how to easily find the latest and past values of this indicator, but try this first: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/solman-scale/ .

If that doesn't work out, to find the latest value, go to the PBS Newshour's "Making Sense" page ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense ) and scroll down until you find an article about unemployment and jobs that was posted on the Friday that the jobs report comes out (usually the first Friday of the month). There will be a big graphic of several jobless and job indicators, that includes this "U-7" (later: well, lately the big graphic has been dropped, darn).

For the June 2015 report, I came close (12.80%) to duplicating Paul Solman's U-7 (12.73%) as follows:

(a1.) Unemployed: 8,299,000 (Table A-1) -- these are officially unemployed because they are jobless and looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks

(a2.) Persons not in labor force but who currently want a job: 6,076,000 (Table A-1) - these are not counted among the officially unemployed because they haven't looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks

(a3.) Part time for economic reasons: 6,505,000 (Table A-8) -- these are people who are working part-time who want a full-time job

(a4.) Expanded Unemployed: The sum of a1 + a2 + a3 above
` ` ` = 8,299,000 + 6,076,000 + 6,505,000 = 20,880,000

(b1.) (Official) Labor force: 157,037,000 -- this is the employed + officially unemployed

(b2.) Expanded Labor Force = (Official) Labor Force + a2
` ` ` = 157,037,000 + 6,076,000 = 163,113,000
(Note that a3 (part-time for economic reasons) is already included in the (Official) Labor force, so it is included in the above Expanded Labor Force too.

(c1.) Expanded unemployment rate that includes all who want a job, including part-timers who want full time work = Expanded Unemployed / Expanded Labor Force = 20,880,000 / 163,113,000 = 12.80%

(Update: For the August 2015 report, I calculated U-7 as 12.54%, while Solman's number is 12.48%. For the December report, I calculated U-7 as 12.10%, while Solman's number is 12.03%. In July 2016, I calculated 11.86%, while Solman's number is 11.8%. Generally my calculation of U-7 has been a bit higher than Solman's, but less than 0.1% higher. ).

So those who tell you that the "real" unemployment rate is 23% or something like that are pulling your leg. Particulary when someone tries to charge you $89 in order to gain access to web pages where he MIGHT tell you how he comes up with his number.

# Myth: There are 94 million involuntarily unemployed, so the real unemployment rate is about 40%

Using rhetorical gamesmanship, some people (including Trump during the 2016 campaign, but not since becoming president) cite the BLS statistic, "Not In The Labor Force" -- which in September 2016 was a bit over 94 million -- as being "94 million jobless Americans" or "94 million unemployed"; usually in the context of discussing those who have given up looking for work in desperation.

Even though the vast majority of these don't want a job now (or ever in some cases). I guess some people just don't think people should ever be full-time students or ever voluntarily retired or ever full-time homemakers or ever take some time out for other pursuits.

That statistic comes from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

and counts every jobless person 16 and over who has not looked for work in the past 4 weeks. Yes, including full time students. And yes, including the elderly, even centenarians.

There is another statistic that is far more relevant: Not In The Labor Force, Wants Job Now

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639

In January 2017 (Obama's last month):
94,389,000 Not In Labor Force
5,735,000 Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now
6.1% Percentage of those not in the labor force who wants a job now

In January 2019
95,010,000 Not In Labor Force
5,254,000 Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now
5.5% Percentage of those not in the labor force who wants a job now

Note that under Trump, Not In Labor Force INcreased by 621,000 (so that's why Trump and the Trumpanzees never mention that number anymore. In the 2016 Trump campaign rhetoric, those were all "jobless Americans" )

(While the more important number, Not In Labor Force Wants Job Now decreased by 481,000 )

These statistics are available in Table A-1: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
---or as noted above, from---
# Not In Labor Force: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000
# Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639

# Myth: In 1994, during the Clinton administration, they stopped counting the long-term unemployed, or the "long term discouraged worker". If we calculated the unemployment rate now the way we did before 1994, the unemployment rate would be double, triple (or whatever. One claimed that the unemployment rate in January 2015 calculated by the old method would be 23% instead of the officially reported 5.7%). This official government document describes the changes made during the Clinton administration: http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

# Facts: First, the changes described in the above document actually increased the official unemployment rate (today's U-3) by about 0.2 percentage points (compared to the old official unemployment rate, then called U-5).

The big changes were in the more lenient alternative definitions of unemployment. The one that is most popular in the media both in the old days and the new days is the most lenient of the alternative ones -- U-7 in the old survey, and U-6 in the new one. (The other alternative measures barely seem to get any attention outside of academia).

Per that document, the definition change of discouraged workers cut the number of officially counted discouraged workers by about 50% in the new U-6 compared to the old U-7, and also decreased the number of part-time workers for economic reasons (part-time workers who want full time work) by about 20%.

I tried to emulate the old U-7 with today's data (well, this was back in early February 2015 using the January 2015 jobs report data) (I doubled the number of marginal workers and increased the part-time for economic reasons by 20%) and found it to be at most 13.4% (I made some simplifications that result in a high-side estimate), compared to the current U-6 at 11.3% (again these are January 2015 jobs reports numbers). So it's not like there is a humongous dramatic difference between the old measure and the new on this most lenient of the unemployment measures.

(January's official unemployment rate (U-3) and alternatives (U-1 thru U-6) are in Table A-15 in http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf )

( Definitions of alternative measures of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm )

Anyway, its worth emphasizing again that the official unemployment rate (now U-3) was barely altered, actually slightly increased, compared to the old U-5 official definition. And that the changes did not all that dramatically reduce U-6 compared to its old survey U-7 counterpart.

Even counting everyone who says they want a job, period (including part-time workers who want full-time work), the January unemployment rate was 13.5%, based on Paul Solman's U-7 number for the January 2015 jobs report, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/higher-unemployment-rate-may-good-news-economy/ . Update: for January 2019, Paul's U-7 number is 10.1% (my calculation), and the BLS's U-6 number is 8.1%)

More detail about the 1994 Clinton era changes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141009906#post67

# Myth: most jobs created during the "so-called recovery" are part-time, especially after Obamacare became law:

# Fact:

Since the bottom of the jobs market in February 2010 (coincidentally one month before Obamacare was passed and signed) through the end of the Obama administration:

Part-time workers increased by 264,000 while full-time workers increased by 13,847,000

And no, Obamacare (signed into law March 2010, and first going into effect on a mass scale in January 2014) did not cause a noticable shift from full-time to part-time work.

Part time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
Full time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

Under G.W. Bush, Part-time workers increased by 2,954,000
while full-time workers increased by 1,556,000

Under Obama, Part-time workers increased by 986,000 (Jan '17 minus Jan '09)
while full-time workers increased by 8,807,000 (Jan '17 minus Jan '09)

Seems like if anyone was the part-time president, it was G.W. Bush.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Using the BLS's Table A-9 part-time and full-time numbers http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
Part-time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
Full-time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

Under Trump, Part-time workers DEcreased by 633,000 thru Jan 2019
while full-time workers increased by 5,246,000 thru Jan 2019

-------------------------------------------------
By the way, the BLS's definition of full-time workers is 35 or more hours/week, while the Obamacare employer mandate for providing healthcare insurance is 30 hours/week. So if all that many employers were moving away from full-time to part-time jobs, it would show up in the above BLS statistics, but sure doesn't seem to. Also, involuntary part-timers has been falling for years ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194 ).

# Myth: "Those payroll job creation numbers the corporate media reports are just that: jobs created. They don't mention all of the jobs that were lost. To get the true picture, they should report the NET jobs created: jobs created less jobs lost":

# Facts: The number headlined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the media is the NET jobs created.

You can see a count of total nonfarm employment in thousands -- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
So for example in March 2015 the table displayed at the above link shows there were 141,178 thousand (i.e. 141.178 million) nonfarm employees, and in April there were 141,365 thousand (i.e. 141.365 million). The media reports the difference (141,365 thousand - 141,178 thousand) = 187,000 as the total jobs created in April. So this is a net number.

At the same link, you can see the monthly differences by clicking on the "More Formatting Options" big blue link near the upper right of the page, and in the box in the upper left side of the page that appears, you will see the "Original Data Value" checkbox checked. Additionally, check the "1-month Net Change" checkbox. Then click the "Retrieve Data" button below it.

On the page that appears, you will see the table described in the paragraph above (the total number of nonfarm employees in thousands) followed by a table of the monthly changes in these numbers. For example, it will show the April 2015 employee count change as being 187,000 -- that is 187,000 employees higher than in March.

# Myth: "The unemployment rate is low because so many people are working two or more jobs, and working 60,70,80 hours a week ":

# Facts: The unemployment rate is not based on comparing the working age population to the number of jobs. Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households (comprising an average of about 110,000 individuals age 16 and over -- with no upper limit in age, e.g. even centenarians are included). The age-16-and-over individuals are asked a series of questions, from which their employment status is determined, e.g. employed (and whether holding multiple jobs, and whether part-time or full-time), or unemployed, or not in the labor force, etc.

See: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment, Politifact, 7/18/18 ( https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/ )

When the BLS determines the unemployment rate, a person is counted as employed as long as they have at least one job. They don’t get counted twice if they have two jobs. So Ocasio-Cortez is wrong in saying multiple job holding and long hours affect the unemployment rate.

The number of multiple job holders is only a small fraction -- about 5% -- of the total number of employed.

Table A-9: Multiple Jobholders: January 2019: 7,850,000 Percent of employed: 5.0%.
. . . http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

# Multiple Jobholders Level (thousands): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026619
# Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Total Employed: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026620

See also the "Multiple JobHolders" section above.

For more details, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics' "How the Government Measures Unemployment" ( https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm )

{#} Recessions and Expansions - Official NBER.org

# URL: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.org), the official arbiter of recessions and expansions:

# Recent economic peaks occurred in March 2001 and December 2007
# Recent economic troughs occurred in November 2001 and June 2009
# The first G.W. Bush recession was March 2001 to November 2001
# The following G.W. Bush expansion was from November 2001 to December 2007
# The second G.W. Bush recession was December 2007 to June 2009, ending just 5 months after Obama took office.
# The Obama expansion began June 2009 (about 5 months after he took office) and continues to this day

Other resources:

# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
# You can interactively compare recessions and recoveries at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

Per the NBER ( http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html ), recessions (contractions) begin at the peak of the economy and end at the trough (bottom) of the economy. And expansions (recoveries) begin at the trough of the economy and end at the peak of the economy. The NBER does not try to determine when in a month the peak or trough occurs. So, for example, when one reads that the most recent trough of the economy was in June 2009, and consequently that the recession ended in June 2009, and the expansion began in June 2009, do not assume this turning point occurred at the beginning of the month or at the end of the month or mid-month, but merely that it occurred some undetermined time in June 2009.

Please note that the end of a recession is the point when the economy hits bottom, and the faintest signs of economic growth begins -- not when people start singing Happy Days Are Here Again. In other words, the recession is over when we're at the very bottom of the pit and beginning to tentatively claw are way upward. But that's better than falling falling falling like we were under Bush).


{#} GDP - Gross Domestic Product (the size of the economy)

# Current-dollar and "real" GDP, Excel .XLS http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
# Percent change from preceding period, Excel .XLS http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
# Don't like Excel? Below are some options.
# To see the latest GDP number (in billions of dollars), go to the latest news release at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
and search for the "Current-dollar GDP" (don't forget the hyphen).

One can find GDP data (both the billions of dollars level and the percent change numbers for the last several quarters (back about 2-3 years) by going to the above gdpnewsrelease.htm link, and then on the right hand side clicking on "Full Release and Tables (pdf)" or "Text Full Release and Tables (text)". The latest GDP level in billions of dollars is most conveniently found in the last column of Table 9.

But as far as I know, only the Excel tables and the Interactive tables go back beyond 3 years.

To get to the interactive tables: Go to the above gdpnewsrelease.htm link and on the right hand side click on "Interactive Tables" and then click on the big "Begin Using The Tables" button, then click on "Section 1 - Domestic Product and Income" and then click on "Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product" or "Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product". In either case, to look back further than about 2-3 years, click on the "Options" button and select "First Year" and "Last Year".

By the way, the headline quarterly GDP changes, e.g. "the economy grew at a 1.9% rate (or pace) in the 1st quarter" are always the "real", i.e. inflation-adjusted growth rates on an annualized basis. Many news broadcasts and even newspaper reports leave off the "rate" (or "pace" ), giving one the incorrect impression in the above example that the economy grew 1.9% in just one quarter (meaning that if all 4 quarters came out the same, then the growth for the year would be 4*1.9% = 7.6% (or more technically accurately (1.019^4 - 1)*100% = 7.8%). Nope, sorry, it means the economy grew at an annual rate of 1.9% in the first quarter, and if that growth rate continues throughout the year, the economy will have grown 1.9% for the entire year. (Sometimes, when a Republican president is in the White House, a RepubliCON will try to claim the higher figure).

The other thing that sometimes happens is a rightie will pooh pooh a 1.9% annualized growth rate, saying that that's not even keeping up with inflation. Well, again, these percentage growth numbers that you read or hear in news reports are already inflation adjusted. You can just direct the rightie to, for example, the gdpnewsrelease.htm link above which will patiently explain it to him or her.

And now some GDP factoids relevant to the message board wars (or just general information):

# The GDP in Bush's last full quarter (Q4 2008) fell at a 8.9% annual rate

# At least Obama stabilized the economy, even grew it some, so that it is now considerably higher than it was at the peak in 2007 before the crash. (AGAIN, that's inflation adjusted).

# The latest GDP number (2017 Q4 final release) as of 1/31/18 is $19,739 Billion (there are normally 3 releases)
2/2/19 note: this will be updated in a few days to the latest. The GDP report was supposed to come out January 30, 2019, but is delayed until the week of February 4 because of the shutdown.

# To do: explain the 3 releases: about when do they come out. Is release 3 final, or is there also an annual revision? The release dates are at the bottom of http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm [s: Current-dollar GDP]

Doug Short at Advisor Perspective produces several interesting GDP graphs
# Real GDP Per Capita: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-GDP-Per-Capita.php
# Real GDP- Current Release: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/GDP-Current-Release.php
# Real GDP Components: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/GDP-Components.php

{#} St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/STLFSI

{#} U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average

Tired of hearing the righties insist that, during the Obama years, companies were "too uncertain" to make investments? Well, the investor and business community sure seemed to like Obama, judging from the stock market. During the Obama administration, the S&P 500 index rose up 166% (that's more than a doubling). (It declined 37% during G.W. Bush's 8 years of supposed business friendly and resolute firmness and certainty).

# Current value / last close of Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, Nasdaq, Oil, Gold, 10-year treasury bond, the Euro : the top of the page at http://finance.yahoo.com

# Historic daily closing values of the Dow and S&P 500 from many many decades ago to the present:
. . # S&P 500: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC+Historical+Prices
. . # Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices

# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001; Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009; and Trump at noon, Jan 20, 2017)

# When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the S&P 500 index was at 1343.
# When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the S&P 500 index was at 850.
# When Obama left office and and Trump took office, the S&P 500 index was at 2264.
# Thus under G.W. Bush, the S&P 500 index DROPPED 37%, from 1343 to 850.
. . While under Obama, the S&P 500 index rose from 850 to 2264, an INCREASE of 166% (a doubling plus an additional 66%, or 2.66 X)
# As of Thursday 1/31/19 close, the S&P 500 index is at 2704, an increase of 19% under Trump so far (and down 6% over the past 12 months).

(Total returns - which includes dividends - are higher than the index gains by about 2% / year).

(I use the S&P 500 index rather than the Dow Jones Industrial Average index (DJIA) because it is a much broader index of U.S. stocks, containing about 75% of the total U.S. stock market by capitalization. I would rather use the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index (^ DWC (without the space between the ^ and the D) but its history extends only back to 2004). Other U.S. total market indexes also extend back only a few years.

If you want to use the Dow Jones Industrials Average index (a silly legacy price-weighted average of 30 stocks), ticker ^ DJI (without the space between the ^ and the D), it is:
. . Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices

Jan 19, 2001 10,587 Last Dow close under Clinton

Jan 16, 2009 8,281 Last Dow close under Bush (a 22% DECLINE under Bush)

Jan 19, 2017 19,732 Last Dow close under Obama (a 138% INCREASE under Obama -- that's a doubling plus an additional 38%, or 2.38 X)

As of Thursday 1/31/19 close, the Dow is at 25,000, an increase of 27% under Trump so far (but a decline of about 6% over the past 12 months).

(Total returns - which includes dividends - are higher than the index gains by about 2 to 3 percent per year)

{#} Stock market gains 1929-2011: much higher under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents

Democrats: +460%, Republicans: +110% (in nominal dollar terms)
Democrats: +300%, Republicans: 0% (in inflation-adjusted terms)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/live-chart?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/gopsmacked

{#} National Debt

# URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

# Under Reagan the debt nearly tripled (2.87 X)

# Under Bush I the debt increased by 56% (1.56 X)

# Under Bush II the debt nearly doubled (1.86 X)

# The debt under the two Bushes together nearly tripled -- it increased 1.56 * 1.86 = 2.89 X

# The last 3 Republican presidents (Reagan and the two Bushes) increased the national debt by 2.87 * 1.56 * 1.86 = 8.3 times, yes they more than octupled the national debt in their combined 20 years of office.

# Under Clinton the debt only increased 37% (1.37 X)

# Secret information: Under Obama the national debt increased 88%. You might see claims that he that he has doubled it -- if so, they are talking about the "debt held by the public" which is one of two components of the national debt. The other component is the Intragovernmental Debt: what one part of the federal government owes to another part of the government -- mostly the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds. [ Note to myself: I have the below at normal.xls Sheet 2 ]

National Debt in Billions of Dollars
Date ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` Public IntraGov Total
1/20/2009 ` `` ` ` ` 6,307 4,320 10,627 ` Obama inaugurated
1/20/2017 ` ` ` ` ` 14,404 5,544 19,947 ` Trump inaugurated
Obama % Increase ` 128% ` 28% ` 88%

1/20/2019 ` ` ` ` ` 16,094 5,861 21,955 ` Trump 2 year anniversary
Trump % Increase `` 11.7% 5.7% `10.1% ` Not bad percentage-wise, but consider
. . . that he was handed an economy with nearly the lowest unemployment rate and inflation rate in decades

* Public: debt held by the public. Intragov: Intragovernmental debt
* The annoying backquote symbols (`) are used for spacing, because DU compresses multiple spaces into one. Please try to ignore

# URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

# Factoid number two is when comparing the debt to GDP version of different countries to each other, economists don't usually include intragovernmental debt {citation needed}. So when some rightie says that Obama ran us up to almost a 100% debt to GDP ratio -- approaching that of some of the in-trouble European countries, point out that the equivalent debt for comparison is the Publicly held debt: 16,094 B$. The latest GDP number (2017 Q4, 1st estimate) as of 1/31/18 is 19,739 B$ (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product , click on the "Current Release" button, and then on the page that comes up, search the page for "Current-dollar GDP" and include the hyphen). Thus the debt to GDP ratio on this basis is: 14,813 / 19,739 = 75%. (Using the total national debt, the debt to GDP ratio is 20,493 / 19,739 = 104%).
* February 2, 2019 note: I will update the above when the GDP report comes out - it was due to come out January 30, but because of the government shutdown, it has been delayed until sometime in the week of February 4.

See the back of The Economist magazine where they compare Debt / GDP ratio of several countries (and many other statistics). I can't find those numbers at the Economist site online (I didn't look real hard) but I found a graph at http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-8 (click on the GOVERNMENT tab)
as I read the graph for the U.S. it is 80%, so I'll have some figuring out to do (why is it not closer to the 73% I calculated by the above methodology at the time -- the Economist link above is dated Sept 2012).

# Uncomfortable Factoid To be Aware Of - The national debt during the Bush II administration increased from 5,728 B$ to 10,627 B$, an increase of 4,899 B$ (86%). The debt during the Obama administration increased from 10,627 B$ to 19,947 B$, an increase of 9,320 B$ -- a larger dollar increase ($4.4 trillion more) in Obama's 8 years than in G.W. Bush's 8 years.

However, under G.W. Bush, the accumulation of debt was totally unnecessary and pointless -- the last 4 years under his predecessor (Clinton) were all years of budgetary surplus. Bush quickly returned us to budget deficits and debt accumulation via massive tax cuts, 2 wars (one based on lies about weapons of mass destruction), and the Medicare Part D drug benefit (which was written by and for the insurance and drug companies and forbid Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug companies!!) -- all of which were totally unpaid for (unlike Obamacare which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- the official arbiter of the fiscal cost of legislation -- scores as creating a slight 10-year surplus through cuts elsewhere and to a wide assortment of fees and taxes). Whereas the debt increase under Obama was to stop the plunging economy he inherited (4.3 million jobs lost in the last 10 months of the Bush admimistration) and to get the economy pointed in the right direction.

National Debt as Percent of GDP
January 1, 2001: 56.8 % (19 days before Clinton left office and Bush took office)
January 1, 2019: 106.3 % ( 21,974 / 20,660 )
* February 2, 2019 note: I will update the above when the GDP report comes out - it was due to come out January 30, but because of the government shutdown, it has been delayed until sometime in the week of February 4. However, I won't wait too long following the release of the GDP report for this graph to be updated.

In 18 years the debt AS A PERCENT OF GDP has almost doubled (1.87 X)
Italy with a debt to GDP ratio of 120% (Feb. 26, 2013) is one of the five "PIIGS" countries of the European debt crisis. Thanks to the unpaid-for tax cuts and 2 wars on the national credit card, the Medicare Part D give-away to the pharmaceutical companies and the Great Recession, G.W. Bush! And Trump's unpaid for $1.5 Trillion+ tax cut mostly for the wealthy

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S?cid=5
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDEGDQ188S.txt

National Debt as Percent of GDP
62.7% 1993 Q1 - When Bush I left office and Clinton took office
54.9% 2001 Q1 - When Clinton left office and Bush II took office
77.4% 2009 Q1 - When Bush II left office and Obama took office
103.6% 2017 Q1 - When Obama left office and Putin/Trump took office
104.2% 2018 Q3 - latest on this graph
* February 2, 2019 note: I will update the above when the GDP report comes out - it was due to come out January 30, but because of the government shutdown, it has been delayed until sometime in the week of February 4. However, I won't wait too long following the release of the GDP report for this graph to be updated.


The Debt Held By The Public (as a % of GDP) superimposed on a chart of which party held the presidency, the House, and the Senate

Visible URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png



Unfortunately, it only goes through 2010, so I'll update, and also I'll include below all the way back to 1977 (Jimmy Carter's first year) for convenience of reference, and it's easier to read because one doesn't have to turn one's head sideways and squint.
(BOLD is Democratic, FAINT is Republican) :

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Carter) <- 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980

Dem House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Reagan) <- 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986
Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (Reagan) <- 1987, 1988

Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (Bush I) <- 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Clinton) <- 1993, 1994
Rep House, Rep Senate, Dem President (Clinton) <- 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

Rep House, Dem Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2001, 2002
Rep House, Rep Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2007, 2008

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2009, 2010
Rep House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Rep House, Rep Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2015, 2016

Rep House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Trump) <- 2017, 2018
Dem House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Trump) <- 2019, 2020

And at the end of 2018, the debt to GDP ratio was 104.2%

Another going back to 1790 and projected to 2038:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#mediaviewer/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png

The "debt doesn't matter" folks will point to the World War II peak and say -- see, we managed much more debt (relative to GDP) than today, no big deal. What they leave out is that after World War II, the U.S. had no serious competition in manufacturing -- former competitors Europe and Japan were devastated, and the Soviet Union was uncompetitive in world markets. Contrast that to today where most of the rest of the world are serious competitors.

Wikipedia on History of the U.S. Public Debt (more graphs and tables)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt


The Last 3 Republican Presidents (before Trump) Have Accounted For $9.2 Trillion Of The Increase In The National Debt
Source of this section: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html

Every President, from Truman to Carter, steadily paid down the staggering debt that was run up in our fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That pattern came to a screeching halt with Reagan/Bush and Bush II. Clinton’s fiscal policy was a brief respite during this orgy of deficit spending.

Clinton's economic policies balanced 5 budgets, which is 5 more balanced budgets than the last 5 Republican presidents combined. {see next section - I count 4 balanced (actually surplus) budgets -Progree}

As for Trump, in his first two years, he's added $2.0 Trillion more:

1/20/2017 ` 19,947 ` Trump inaugurated
1/20/2019 ` 21,955 ` Trump 2 year anniversary
Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

{#} Budget Deficits and Surpluses

# The U.S. Federal Deficit By Year - There were surpluses in the last 4 Clinton years: FY 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 (well, the last 8 months of FY 2001 fell into the G.W. Bush administration). Anyway G.W. Bush inherited a string of surpluses and managed to turn that around into 8 straight years of deficits and to nearly double the national debt.
# URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
. . # Table 1.1 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

Note: although there were 4 straight years of surpluses during the last 4 Clinton years, the national debt went up every year, thanks to (I think) trust funds accounting, -- FFI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111621802#post12

Some righties telling you that Obama doubled the last Bush deficit, from less than 500 B$ to more than a trillion dollars?

They are trying to make you think that the last Bush year was Fiscal Year 2008. Actually, the last Bush budget (FY 2009) contained a projected deficit of $1.2 Trillion. Fiscal Year 2009 covers 10/1/08 - 9/30/09 -- the last 3 2/3 months of the Bush Administration plus the first 8 1/3 months of the Obama administration. The budget for FY 2009 was signed into law by Bush. It contained a projected $1.2 trillion deficit according to FactCheck.org:



{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2018, in $Billions

Fiscal year 2018 ended September 30, 2018. Similarly for all the other fiscal years.

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget.




And yes, the above numbers include payroll tax receipts (including Social Security) and Social Security benefits expenditures, since the above are unified budget numbers.

Source:
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54647 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-11/54647-MBR.pdf . . . See also
. . . https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/hist01z1.xls <-doesn't work 1/26/19
. . . (Table 1.1) for receipts, outlays, and surplus
. . . . . . https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/hist01z1-fy2019.xlsx
(Historic tables are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals ).

Source for the 2008 numbers (and 2009 thru 2012 except a couple of the later years were revised by the document above):
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43698 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf


Aside: how it was spent (good read): https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


Regarding Obama's 8 years: FY 2017 federal spending is 463 B$ (13.2%) more than FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year).

Since the nominal (current dollar) GDP increased by 35.5% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2017 (see next paragraph), while federal spending increased 13.2%, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 8 years -- from 24.46% of GDP to 20.42% of GDP (calculations below). Something to keep in mind when some rightie rants and raves about the socialist Obama spending us into the poor house.

Note: I am including FY 2017 as part of Obama's legacy because he signed the FY 2017 budget spending bills. FY 2017 runs from Oct. 1, 2016 thru Sept. 30, 2017 -- 3 2/3 months while Obama was president, and 8 1/3 months while Trump was president). Just like I assigned FY 2009 to Bush

In Current Dollars: GDP FY 2009 (2009 Q3) = $14,384.1 billion . GDP FY 2017 (2017 Q3) = $19,495.5 billion -- an increase of 35.5% over FY 2009.

Source of GDP figures: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
where FY 2009 = Q4 2008 through Q3 2009. And FY 2017 = Q4 2016 through Q3 2017.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/14384 = 24.46% . FY 2017: Spending / GDP = 3981/19496 = 20.42%

See the previous section that explains that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush, and how the CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

{#} The FY 2017 deficit (666 B$) is less than half of what Obama inherited (1413 B$)

Reasons for deficit reduction (July 7, 2013): https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/market-and-economic-insights/us-federal-deficit-shrinking?ccsource=email_weekly


{#} Fiscal year 2017 deficit: $666 billion, a $79 billion increase over FY 2016's 585 B$ deficit (a 13.5% increase), 10/20/17

DU posting: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141894319

AP story: https://apnews.com/cdad0f0a5cba432587bd08c6b8617c19/Budget-deficit-hits-$666B,-an-$80B-spike-for-the-year

{#} Fiscal year 2018 deficit: $779 billion, a $113 billion increase over FY 2017's 666 B$ deficit (a 17.0% increase),


{#} Some interesting national debt graphs / tables

Foreign Debt from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Series FDHBFIN, Federal Debt Held by Foreign & International Investors (Calendar Years)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN?cid=5
(To see data: click "Last 5 Observations" ) just above the graph. Or click "View Data" from the top left-side menu)
National debt, $millions: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN

The U.S. Debt Clock page has the latest estimated foreign ownership of the national debt figure -- left-most column, 3rd from the bottom
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
As well as their up-to-the minute estimate of the national debt (top left).
On 1/26/19 it was:
. . US national debt: $21.9615 Trillion
. . US debt held by foreign countries: $6.1699 Trillion
. . . As percentage of the national debt: 28.1%

Foreign ownership of the U.S. national debt in March 2015 is $6.18 Trillion, per AP, 5/16/15
# China: $1.26 Trillion, Japan: $1.23 Trillion
# Foreign governments, primarily through their central banks, account for two-thirds of the foreign holdings.
# A group of oil exporting nations, which includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, Venezuela and Nigeria: $297.3 billion, the third largest holding, after China and Japan.
# Caribbean banking centers, a group that includes the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands: $293 billion, the fourth largest holding.

For an up-to-date listing by country of ownership of the U.S. national debt (but unfortunately it isn't nicely categorized as in the above), see: http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

The top 8 holders in November 2017 are (the link above shows the top 40 or so):
China, Mainland: 1176.6 B$ (that's 1.1766 Trillion $)
Japan 1084.1 B$
Ireland 328.7 B$
Cayman Islands 269.4 B$
Brazil 265.3 B$
Switzerland 250.9 B$
United Kingdom 237.9 B$
Luxembourg 218.3 B$

Foreign ownership is $6.22 Trillion in Q3 2018

2018 Q3 (i.e. 9/30/2018):
. . Foreign ownership of U.S. national debt: $6,223.9 Billion, per {1} below
. . National debt: $ 21,516.1 Billion, per {2} below
. . Percent of national debt foreign owned: 6,223.9/21,516.1 = 28.9%

{1} https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN?cid=5
{2} https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=9&startDay=30&startYear=2018&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear


Table OFS-2 at Treasury.gov shows foreign ownership of the federal debt (33.6% of 18,151)
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/treasBulletin_home.htm
Click on Current Issue
Click on Ownership of Federal Securities ==>
` ` ` https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/b2018-4ofs.doc [I have this saved]
` ` ` 6/30/2018: Total public debt: 21,195 , Foreign and International: 6,212 ( =29.3% of 21,195 )
` ` ` 9/30/2018: Total public debt: 21,516 , Foreign and International: Not Available

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt (GFDEBTN) (Calendar Years)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN?cid=5
(To see data: click "+ more" after the "Observation" on the left side just above the graph on the left side. Or click "View Data" from the top left-side menu)


Why the National Debt Matters

The interest that the government pays on the debt -- which mostly goes to foreigners and the top 1% in the U.S. -- sucks up a lot of tax revenue, leaving less for spending on programs that help the rest of us.

See below on the interest on the national debt.

Beyond a certain point, of course, like with the PIIGS nations and Puerto Rico, investors will demand higher returns, which could lead to a death spiral if the growth of debt relative to the size of the economy continues.

{#} Interest on the national debt

In fiscal year 2000 it was $362 Billion, and in FY 2017 it was $459 Billion (apparently including interest to government trust funds like Social Security) per
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

This one -- counting only the debt held by the public (i.e. excluding government trust funds), said the interest on that part of the federal debt in 2016 was $240 billion, or 6% of the federal budget. The below is a good read, by the way, on all aspects of federal spending. It is periodically updated. On 1/25/2018 it went up through Fiscal Year 2016
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

****THE BELOW ARE IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER - MOST RECENT AT THE TOP****

Interest on the public debt shot up by $65 billion, or 14%, in fiscal year 2018, which ended September 30, 2018 - MarketWatch, 10/15/18

The increase was in part because the Treasury had to increase the principal on its inflation-protected securities. Rising interest rates and a bigger debt also played a role.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142179484
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-jumps-to-779-billion-2018-10-15

Under current law, national debt held by the public projected to expand from 78% of GDP currently to 152% of GDP by 2048 (30 years from now). By 2048, interest on the debt is projected to nearly quadruple as a percent of GDP (from 1.6% in 2018 to 6.3% of GDP in 2048) and reach the same level as spending on Social Security - CBO 6/26/18

In the CBO's projection, Social Security remains at promised levels even after the trust funds run out, so this is one exception to the "under current law" (i.e. the CBO assumes that Congress does something to prevent the SS benefit cuts that will otherwise result after the SS trust funds are exhasuted)
Sources: (1) The 2018 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, 6/26/18 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53919
(2) Director’s Statement on The 2018 Long-Term Budget Outlook (it's just 1 page) - https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54107
(3) Projected Social Security expenditures and net interest in Fig 2 of https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/recurringdata/51119-2018-06-ltbo.xlsx (later: link went bad, am having trouble finding a good link)
(4) Projected interest rates on the publicly held debt - Fig 10 of above bad link (sigh)

Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says - Washington Post, 4/9/18

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142033147
The actual 2017 deficit: $665 B. Projected for 2018: $804 B, a 21% increase. ((Later Edit: the 2018 deficit officially came in at $779 B in 2018, but would have been $823 billion except for a fortuitous calendar (1) )). The tax cut plus the extra $300 billion in spending over the next 2 years approved in March 2018 is together expected to add $1.6 T to the deficits over the next decade

(1) Outlays in 2018 were reduced by a shift in the timing of certain payments; those payments were instead made in fiscal year 2017 because October 1, 2017 (the first day of fiscal year 2018), fell on a weekend. If not for that shift, the deficit in 2018 would have been $823 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP.
-- Source: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-11/54647-MBR.pdf

"The U.S. will spend more on interest payments than on the military by 2027, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office" ((that's just 9 years from now!! -Progree))

Source: "By Adding to the Debt, Tax Cuts Could Complicate Next Downturn", Wall Street Journal, 1/21/18
https://www.wsj.com/articles/by-adding-to-the-debt-tax-cuts-could-complicate-next-downturn-1516549269

# Yes, the WSJ article is paywalled. There are no more details or source information about this quote in the article than what it in the quote. I did find a March 2017 CBO report with information that was consistent with the above quote. Note the March 2017 CBO report does not include the effects of the $1.5 trillion tax cut enacted in December 2017.
[ [ Note to myself: see 18.AAY a2.d for that ] ]


The CBO foresees federal interest payments rising from 1.4 percent of GDP this year to 2.9 percent in 2027, AP, via Yahoo News, 11/6/17

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-debt-gop-tax-cuts-204005245.html (this does not include any impact from the then-proposed Republican tax cuts)

U.S. debt held by public to reach 150 percent of GDP in 30 years: CBO, Reuters, 3/30/17

## Expects the interest cost on the national debt to be 1.4% of GDP in 2017 and 6.2% in 2047 (30 years from now)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbo-says-u-debt-reach-150-percent-gdp-140959250--business.html

National Debt On Track To Hit 141% Of GDP As Outlook Worsens -- CBO ((actually the debt held by the public to hit 141% of GDP by 2046, up sharply from last year's forecast of 111%. Its currently at 75.4% per the article)), IBD 7/12/16.

## Annual deficits to increase from 2.9% of GDP this year to 8.0% of GDP in 2046.
## Interest payments to shoot up from 1.4% of GDP now to 5.8% of GDP in 2046.
## Social Security Trust Fund exhaustion date: 2030 per CBO, just 14 years from now (2034 per SS Trustees) ),
Source: Investors Business Daily, 7/12/16 http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-nations-debt-crisis-just-got-a-whole-lot-worse/

National debt burden could increase by almost $10 trillion in the coming decade - CBO 3/24/2016.

After a $96 billion increase in the deficit this fiscal year, the U.S. will go deeper and deeper into the red to pay for Social Security and Medicare, projections from the Congressional Budget Office show. The public debt burden could swell by almost $10 trillion in the coming decade as a result ( https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384 ).

As debt maturities loom, U.S. needs to extend (the average maturity of federal government debt is only 5.2 years) - Reuters, 9/1/11 (followed by a September 2017 update where the situation is virtually unchanged)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-bonds-debt-extension-idUSTRE7803QD20110901
The average maturity of marketable U.S. debt ($9 Trillion) is only 5.2 years. 70% of bonds mature in less than 5 years. We're financing long-term liabilities with short-term debt. With such short average maturity, a substantial rise in overall market interest rates will be followed relatively quickly by a substantial rise in interest on the national debt.

==========================================================

Apparently investors are worried about going out 30 years, at least more so than a few years ago -- as of 5/2/16 the yield gap between 10 year and 30 year bonds is 0.83 percentage points, up from 0.20 percentage points in mid 2007. Later, 1/2/19: but the spread has gone down to 0.31%.

Treasury Yields: 5/2/16: 10 Year: 1.88%, 30 Year: 2.71%, difference: 0.83%
` ` ` `` ` ` ` ` 1/2/19: 10 Year: 2.66%, 30 Year: 2.97%, difference: 0.31%
. . https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

I think the maturity information in the Reuters article above comes from the below link, which I updated to September 2017}}

Federal Debt (Word document) - Obtained from:
. . https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/treasBulletin_home.htm
. . Click on Current Issue
. . Click on Federal Debt ==> https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/b2018-4fd.doc

Per this link, from Table FD-5, In September 2018, 69.7% of the $12.881 Trillion in privately held interest-bearing marketable debt has a maturity of less that 5 years, and 88.7% has a maturity of less than 10 years. The average maturity was 65 months (5.4 years).

CBO: Interest on federal debt will triple over coming decade (Washington Post Wonk Blog 1/26/15)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/26/cbo-interest-on-federal-debt-will-triple-over-coming-decade/

Interest payments are also poised to rise, both because of an expected rise in interest rates from the recent historic lows and because of a rising government debt, which the CBO said would hit 100 percent of GDP in 25 years ((talking about just the publicly held portion of the debt -Progree)). The interest payments ((on the publicly held debt)) alone are expected to hit $227 billion this year, more than double to $480 billion by 2019 and more than triple to $722 billion by 2024.

It said that federal spending would rise from 20.3 percent of GDP in 2015 to 22.3 percent in 2025 largely because of the aging population and increases in Social Security and Medicare programs.

But it said that there would be “a significant projected decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy.” Unless Congress chooses to alter spending caps in current budget law, that would result in a squeeze on a variety of programs including defense, education, homeland security and a host of other areas. ((So the CBO is apparently assuming in its projections that the sequester budget caps will remain in effect))

Interest on the national debt to rise from 1.0% of GDP to 3.0% by 2023 (in just 4 years!), per CBO, says CEPR.net, 3/6/13

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/has-npr-joined-peter-petersons-crusade-against-social-security-and-medicare? - one thing that caught my eye is that net interest is slated to rise from 0.5% or 1.0% of GDP to 2.8% or 3.0% of GDP, according to the CBO (the upper figure in each case is the nominal amount, the lower figure deducts the amount of interest paid to its own accounts, so its the amount of interest actually paid externally.)

{#} U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)

This is the value of a dollar compared to a weighted basket of foreign currencies
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/historical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Dollar_Index
# Problem: on 9/8/12, I found the above link only goes back to about 2007.
# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001, Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009)
. . # When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 110.66 (1/19/01 close).
. . # When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 85.37 (1/19/09 close).
. . # When Obama left office and Trump took office, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 101.17 (1/19/17 close)
. . # As of 1/26/19, with Trump in office for 2 years and 6 days, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 95.81.
. Democratic Presidents are in BOLD, Republican presidents are in FAINT in the below
. . # Thus under G.W. Bush, the dollar index FELL 22.8%, from 110.66 to 85.37 (1/19/09 close).
. . # Under Obama, it ROSE 18.5% from 85.37 to 101.17 (1/19/17 close).
. . # Under Trump, it has FALLEN 5.3% from 101.17 to 95.81 (1/26/19 close).

(You often hear right-wingers saying that Obama and the Fed is destroying our currency by out-of-control spending and printing trillions of dollars. Well, doesn't seem so, considering the rise of the dollar under Obama compared to other currencies, and the lowest inflation since the 1930's)

FRED Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Major Currencies (DTWEXM), beginning January 1, 1973 (indexed to Jan 1973 = 100)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=DTWEXM

{#} Oil Prices

NYMEX Crude Oil Front Month
http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=CL.1:NYM

Below are some key values I chose. Remember that the data here is weekly closings, so actual peaks and valleys based on daily closes -- let alone interday values -- likely are higher and lower respectively than shown.

Later, 1/27/19 -- the above link doesn't provide data (other than the latest close), just a graph. And one has to read the graph. So I used the FRED link below to get a value I was missing.

West Texas Intermediate Crude
7/04/08 $145.08 -- highest weekly closing value (also the Bush era high)
1/16/09 $ 36.51 -- lowest weekly closing value
4/29/11 $113.93 -- highest weekly closing value under Obama
2/24/12 $109.77 -- highest weekly closing value in 2012
9/06/13 $110.53 -- highest weekly closing value in 2013
6/2014` $107.26 -- Peak price of 2014 - it occurred in June, according to a Bloomberg 12/11/14 article
1/20/17 $52.33 -- Inauguration Day. Obama left office, Trump took office.
1/26/19 $53.69 -- the latest as of this writing. (see link above, or the top of http://finance.yahoo.com )


Also this: FRED data - "Crude Oil Prices: West Texas Intermediate (WTI) http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DCOILWTICO/
by default a graph is displayed, it goes back all the way to 1/2/1986. To see the data, look just above the left side of the graph and it will have the latest "Observation". Click on the " (+ more) " next to the data and then click on the blue "View All" button.

Also this: Barchart.com - has commodity graphs for several commodities, including oil, out to 25 years. On the left side links, about 10 lines down from the top, just below the "Enter ticker symbol" box, see the "Select a commodity" box.

Here's another: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/crude-oil/all/
Will look some more. The above shows a peak of $116 in late August 2013 ( its probably the Brent oil price, not the West Texas Intermediate Crude price that is more commonly quoted in the U.S., so I'm not using it in the below )

Note: The inequality section has been moved to new page EF-9, and includes some income measures

Some of the content below may be placed on the earlier pages -- EF-1 through EF-6. These are sections I'm working on ... I was wishfully hoping that some may have found this useful before the election so I "rushed it to print".


{#} Presidencies and House and Senate (when Republicans and Democrats held the presidency and had control of the House and Senate) from 1901-2010 (Chart). Bonus: the federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP is superimposed on it


(One complaint is that the federal debt held by the public is only one component of the federal debt. The other component of the federal debt aka the national debt is the trust fund debt -- what the federal government owes to the Social Security and Medicare and other trust funds. Please see EF-5. above for that breakdown).

From Wikimedia Commons (the link followed by the displayed graphic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png



Here's a more detailed view of who controlled Congress from 1798 - 2015:
"Party divisions of United States Congresses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
"United States Presidents and control of Congress" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidents_and_control_of_congress

Unfortunately, it only goes through 2010, so I'll update, and also I'll include below all the way back to 1977 (Jimmy Carter's first year) for convenience of reference, and it's easier to read because one doesn't have to turn one's head sideways and squint.
(BOLD is Democratic, FAINT is Republican) :

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Carter) <- 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980

Dem House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Reagan) <- 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986
Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (Reagan) <- 1987, 1988

Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (Bush I) <- 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Clinton) <- 1993, 1994
Rep House, Rep Senate, Dem President (Clinton) <- 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

Rep House, Dem Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2001, 2002
Rep House, Rep Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
Dem House, Dem Senate, Rep President (BushII) <- 2007, 2008

Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2009, 2010
Rep House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Rep House, Rep Senate, Dem President (Obama) <- 2015, 2016

Rep House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Trump) <- 2017, 2018
Dem House, Rep Senate, Rep President (Trump) <- 2019, 2020

Actually, in Obama's first term, with Republicans filibustering everything they could, Democrats had control of Congress for about 2 months (when Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1643195
So if any rightie tells you Obama had 2 years of Democratic control of Congress to fix the economy, you can point them to the above link.


{#}Democratic Presidencies better than Republican Presidencies


# Obama's Accomplishments -- A compilation LIST of links regarding President Obama, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022255

# Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, Plus Kennedy, Average Annual % Increases. -- Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue. Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican -- that is, until Obama, who inherited an economy that was losing several hundred thousand jobs a month.

Also, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.

(updated 2/2/19 after new jobs report released - it has revisions going back decades. Unfortunately, Ford edges out Obama on average annual percentage job increase by 0.01% (1.09% to 1.08%)




Remember, Obama inherited the deepest recession since World War II, which lost 4.2 million jobs in the last 10 months of his predecessor, and in the last 3 months of his predecessor was losing 753,000 jobs a month. With that momentum, job losses continued for the first 13 months of the Obama presidency -- through February 2010 -- totalling 4.3 million jobs lost during those 13 months.

Anyway, despite the 4.3 million jobs lost in his first 13 months because of the Bush crash, Obama still beats 3 of the last 6 post-WWII Republican presidents.





# Real annual corporate profit growth 3X higher under Obama than under Reagan, even when measured from the 2008 peak. (both Bushs oversaw profit declines in case you were wondering).
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/

Corporate profits: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/24/the-best-presidents-for-the-economy.aspx

Also at the above fool.com link - Stock market performance, Average annual real GDP growth per capita, Inflation (average annual change in the Consumer Price Index), Change in unemployment rate during their presidencies,

Adam Hartung, a contributor at Forbes Magazine: Democratic presidents beat Republican ones: Disposable income, GDP, profits, stock market, national debt,... at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021593080

(There is a disclaimer at the top of the Forbes article saying "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own", so it is dishonest to make it sound like it is the opinion of Forbes Magazine, or even "according to Forbes Magazine". Just like Fox News, Forbes Magazine has one or two token liberals so as to appear "fair and balanced" )

The stock market gained 166% under Obama -- 166% above where it was at the last close before inaugural day (speaking of the S&P 500. That's a doubling plus an additional 66%, or 2.66 X) (GW Bush's 8-year record: Minus 37% -- yes, It declined 37% from the beginning of the GW Bush presidency to the end of the Bush presidency.). Details: EF-4. at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post4

Corporate profits? Stock market? How is that relevant to regular Americans?

Well, the main reason to include these aspects is if some rightie calls Obama a socialist and/or says that businesses and investors lack confidence in him, you can point out his record on the stock market and corporate profits.

The other reason, is that given that many tens of millions of Americans have a substantial part of their nest eggs in stocks -- through direct ownership or via pension funds -- do you really wish for the opposite - a severe decline in stock prices?

And if there isn't much trickle-down of corporate profits, at least there is potential there (via higher taxes on top earners and closing corporate tax loopholes).

”While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are. Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance."
-Source: Bob Deitrick in http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

Consider also that the Great Depression began with a stock market crash in 1929. When those 2/3 of Americans become fearful of their future prospects and cut back on their spending, and when businesses likewise hold back on business investments and hiring, that affects everyone.

This was last updated January 2018 and is good for comparing the Obama presidency to his predecessor. And it takes some shots at Mitt Romney's Massachusetts record.

I'll have to work on something comparing Trump's presidency so far (2 years) with Obama's ... but won't be able to get at it in time for the February 1, 2019 jobs report (which marks 24 months under Trump).

On Facebook or comments on news articles at news.yahoo.com, one constantly faces a barrage of negative comments about how the economy was handled by "Oblamer" or "Obuhmuh" or "Obummer". (And on DU too, though without the name calling and direct blaming, but still with a lot of hand-wringing and laminations about the current economy)

Here are some canned responses to CONNEDservatives which I draw from and have used on such websites --

Do we really want to hand the keys back to the people who drove the economy off the cliff? When Bush left office, he handed Obama an economy that had already shed 4.3 million jobs in Bush's last 10 months, and the GDP was contracting at a 8.9% annual rate (Q4 2008). At the end of the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percentage points higher than when he began his presidency.

Obama's entire 8 year record (including the 4.3 million jobs lost during his first 13 months that was a momentum carry-over from the massive job losses during Bush's last several months): 11.5 million payroll jobs were created - by cutting 0.3 million government jobs and creating 11.8 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: Total: 11,488, Govt: -268, PrivateSector: 11,756, updated 1/31/18 ).

Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency - ironically by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs

Ruinous Republican policies also drove the U.S. stock market (S&P 500) down 37% during those 8 Bush years -- from 1343 to 850. As an investor, I'd rather go with Obama -- it closed at 2264 on Obama's final full day in office, up 166% since he took office (that's somewhat more than a doubling -- 2.66 X). (Google: Historical Prices - Yahoo Finance S&P 500 ). Clearly the business and investor community has a lot more confidence in Obama than it did in Bush.

Now it may seem like Romney, the Great Successful Businessman, would do so much better if he had been given the chance. But you had no idea what Governor Etch-A-Sketch would do, as he radically shifts his positions all the time. For all we know, he would have jammed RomneyCare down your throat. What you do know is that as governor of Massachusetts, the state was 47th out of 50th in job creation (it ranked much better than that under his predecessor). And he moved the state from #2 in per-capita debt to #1. Oops, wrong direction. Oops, not a #1 ranking one wants to have.

He was talented at creating jobs in China. Not so well in Massachusetts. Great at outsourcing jobs. Never insourced any.

Romney's plan for $5 trillion in tax cuts via marginal rate reductions, and a $2 trillion increase in core defense spending, all paid for somehow by reducing some unspecified deductions and a huge helping of magic supply side fairy dust didn't sound like a plan for the economy but rather a plan for winning over the gullible in the 2012 election. I forget, how did that election thing work out? Kind of a 1-day story and then it was Petraeus and Benghazi and fiscal cliff this and fiscal cliff that and fiscal cliff some more day in and day out.

(When you are tired of arguing with statistics and facts, you can just post this):

Hey, TEA PARTY fanatics, google "Koch Brothers" if ya wanna see who's really behind your so-called "grass roots" movement.....it's really an "astro turf" job.....do you REALLY think rich corporations and rich people in general actually care about you, do you think they want to hang out with you? You guys are being used, but you're too dopey to even realize it.....the rich are laughing at you; while you champion their lower taxes/no taxes, they're laughing all the way to the bank....When was the last time YOU were able to have a good laugh????

To Do

Write rebuttals to:

# The economy was just fine until the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.
# The CRA and Clinton / Democratic policies caused the housing bubble (CRA = Community Reinvestment Act)
# The Trump economy is Making America Great Again.

Contents

{#} Poverty Rate
{#} Inequality
{#} Consumer Price Index - CPI-U
{#} Producer Price Index - PPI
{#} Median Household Income
{#} Average Household Size
{#} Minimum Wage
{#} BLS Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Workers
{#} BLS Occupational Employment and Wages Summary - Mean and Median Hourly Wages of Hundreds of Occupations
{#} BLS figures on average hourly earnings
{#} Social Security Admin on Median and Average Annual Wage
{#} Personal Income (BEA, Commerce Dept)
{#} That one that comes with the quarterly productivity report (BLS)
{#} That one that comes with the Employment Cost Index (BLS)
{#} Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (BLS)


{#} Poverty Rate

Fact Check: Is it Obama's fault that poverty has grown? Danielle Kurtzleben, NPR, Aug 17, 2015
` ` http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/08/17/npr-fact-check

The poverty rate of 14.5% in 2013 (the latest poverty figures as of August 2015), is higher than in 2008: 13.2% (but it is down from 15.1% in 2010).

Before Bush took office, it was 11.3%, when he left, it was 14.3%. (So the latest poverty rate, 2013: 14.5% is 0.2% higher than the 14.3% rate when Obama took office)

Poverty statistics don't include benefits like EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) or SNAP (aka Food Stamps) (it does however include Social Security and unemployment insurance), so the EITC and SNAP increases in Obama's 2009 stimulus are not counted in the poverty rate - unfair to Obama's record.

But an alternative measure of poverty that includes EITC and SNAP still finds the poverty rate higher under Obama's presidency

The poverty rate is based on the cost of food in 1963

The next poverty estimates are due in September).

The article has many links to articles / reports that explain or document many of the above assertions

{OLD, OLD} Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2014, Census Bureau, 9/16/15 -- see the following entry for the 2015 report that came out 9/13/16
` ` http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2014 was 14.8 percent, which means there were 46.7 million people in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from 2013 estimates. This marks the fourth consecutive year in which the number of people in poverty was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate.

The highest poverty rate by race is found among Blacks (26%), with Hispanics (of any race) having the second highest poverty rate (24%). Whites had a poverty rate of 10%, while Asians had a poverty rate at 12%.

Median household income in the United States in 2014 was $53,657, not statistically different in real terms from the 2013 median income. This is the third consecutive year that the annual change was not statistically significant, following two consecutive annual declines.

The percentage of people without health insurance coverage for the entire 2014 calendar year was 10.4 percent, down from 13.3 percent in 2013. The number of people without health insurance declined to 33.0 million from 41.8 million over the period.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2015, Census Bureau, 9/13/16
` `http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.pdf

Big happy report: 5.2% increase in real (meaning inflation-adjusted) median household income from 2014 to 2015. But still slightly below the 2000 and 2007 levels. But those were both unsustainable unstable bubble economies.

The poverty rate fell from 14.7% to 13.5%.

More at this excellent report (excellent except for one flaw -- they don't say that the median household incomd figures they cite are inflation-adjusted, but they are)
` `http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/13/news/economy/median-income-census

For more up-to-date figures of real median household income (updated monthly), see Sentier Research's report:
` `http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Household-Income-Update.php
See the "{#} Median Household Income" section below for more on this.

**Note to myself: put in more detail, and get rid of the 2014 entry above

**Put something in the Median Household Income section below about the Census Bureau report -- that section only covers the advisorsperpectives one. Note also the Rick Newman article talks about some differences between the Census Bureau methodology and the Sentier Research methodology

{#} Inequality

The top 10% receive half the nation's income, leaving the remaining 90% of us to make-do with the other half
Back in the 1970's the top 10% received only about 33% of the nation's income, leaving 67% for the remaining 90% of us.



95% of all economic gains since the recovery began have gone to the top 1%, according to Emmanuel Saez -- Robert Reich, The Nation 5/26/14

The richest 400 individuals now possess half the nation's privately owned wealth, per Emmanuel Saez - Washington Spectator 12/1/2013


################################################################################
################################################################################

Real (i.e. Inflation-Adjusted) Mean Household Incomes Of Quintiles And Top 5% (1967 - 2014)



Real (i.e. Inflation-Adjusted) Mean Household Incomes Of bottom 20%, median, 80th percentile, and 95th percentile indexed to 100 in 1973 (1947 - 2014)

Unfortunately I don't know how to embed the graph here. But the article link below has the graph near the top, and I like it even better than the graph above because it goes back all the way to 1947, and it clearly shows that all groups shown gained at pretty much the same rate from 1947 until 1977, and then began to diverge from that point on, until we have the great inequality of today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jamie-dimon-supports-an-earned-income-tax-credit-for-low-skilled-low-paid-workers-153029135.html


################################################################################

11 Other Inequality Charts, most through 2012

http://www.businessinsider.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-charts-2014-11?op=1

FRED's Gini Ratio, last 40 years

Inequality Gini Ratio by county, map of U.S.

Gini Indexes of OECD countires, compared (we're 4th worst after Chile, Mexico, and Turkey)

Top 10% income share -- with and without capital gains, 1917-2012

Income share of top 10% to 5%, top 5% to 1%, and top 1%

Top 0.01% income share -- with and without capital gains, 1913-2012

Percent change in real income, 1980-2012 top 0.01% and bottom 90%

Top 0.1% wealth share in the U.S., 1913-2012

Savings rate by wealth class -- top 1%, top 10 to 1%, and bottom 90%, 1917 - 2012

Inequality (percent of wealth owned): "Estimated" - how bad people think it is, vs. "Ideal" - what they think it should be, vs. "Actual" - how bad it actually is

Intergenerational mobility - a couple of charts

################################################################################

Here is a graph of growing productivity and stagnant wages and household incomes (indicating that virtually none of the productivity gains are going to average Americans) (yes, I know, this graph is sadly out of date as is most of the inequality section:


URL for above (replace the beginning Gttp with http): Gttp://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg
To do list - see if I can shrink this monster.

See also post # 28 in the following thread for Corporate profits and wages as percent of economy http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=75268

Virtually all of the productivity gains since 1979 have flowed to the top 1% of income earners. - David Frum, Newsweek 7/2/12

The Top 1% and percent and their share of the nation's income: 1928: 23.9%, Late 1970's: 8 to 9%, 2007: 23.5% (includes capital gains) - The Nation 7/19/10

The Newsweek 1/13/12 article by Niall Ferguson has very similar, is probably the source of the above: "According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the share or total income going to the top 1% of families has more than doubled since 1979, from below 10% to a peak of nearly 24% in 2007 (it has since fallen, but not by much). The share going to the super-rich -- the top 0.01% -- has risen by a factor of 7."

(David Frum is the former Bush adviser or somesuch that has turned lefty in the last year or two or so. Its odd that Niall Ferguson would write about growing inequality {he wrote the Newsweek cover story hit piece on Obama 3 or so weeks before}

Average HOUSEHOLD Income (2007 $) -- post-transfer and post-tax incomes.
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Year 1979 2007 %increase

[] Formulas:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

{#} Formulas


All the below terms apply to the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over. So for example, the terms below like "unemployed", "labor force", "population", "not in labor force" and so on do not include anyone under 16, nor anyone in the military, in prison, or in nursing homes, to name a few institutionalized populations.

All of the below statistics can be found at the top of Table A ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm ) and Table A-1 ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm )

Unemployed: Jobless but who have actively sought work in the last 4 weeks. This is the numerator in the U-3 measure of the unemployment rate.

Labor force = Employed + Unemployed. ` Think of it this way: Employed + "looking", where "looking" here means have actively sought work in the last 4 weeks. (also called the Civilian Labor Force in Table A).

Population is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over

Population = Labor Force + Not in Labor Force

Not in Labor Force = Population - Labor Force

Unemployment Rate = Unemployed / Labor Force . This is the official (U-3) measure

Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) = Labor Force / Population

Employment To Population Ratio (ETPR) aka Employment Rate = Employed / Population


The BLS timeseries numbers - e.g. Population is at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS10000000
[font face = courier new]
Seas Adj ` `Not Seas Adj
LNS10000000 LNU00000000 Population (seas adj and seas not adju are identical)

LNS11000000 LNU01000000 Labor Force

LNS12000000 LNU02000000 Employed

LNS13000000 LNU03000000 Unemployed

LNS11300000 LNU01300000 Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)

LNS14000000 LNU04000000 Unemployment Rate

LNS13327709 LNU03327709 U-6 Unemployment Rate (not included in any of the formulas above, but here for quick reference


[] Unemployment Measures (U-1 through U-6)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

{#} Unemployment Measures (U-1 through U-6)

[font color = red]I'm still working on formatting this section[/font]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Definitions: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks.

U-1 through U-3: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13025670&series_id=LNS14023621&series_id=LNS14000000

U-4 through U-6: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327707&series_id=LNS13327708&series_id=LNS13327709

In the below, I also include the Not seasonably adjusted equivalent series number at the end like this, for example for U-1: (NSA: LNU03025670)

Numbers in () are July 2016 numbers

U-1 (2.0%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13025670 (Seas) Unemployed 15 Weeks & over, as a percent of the civilian labor force (NSA: LNU03025670)

U-2 (2.3%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14023621 (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force; (NSA: LNU04023621)

U-3 (4.9%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (Seas) total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the official unemployment rate, and the "headline" unemployment rate used in the media. To be counted as unemployed by this measure, one must be jobless and have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks); (NSA: LNU04000000)

U-4 (5.2%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327707 (Seas) Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers (NSA: LNU03327707)

U-5 (6.0%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327708 (Seas) Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers (in other words: total unemployed plus all marginally attached workers), as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers (NSA: LNU03327708)

U-6 (9.7%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709 (Seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers (NSA: LNU03327709)

See U-1 thru U-6 together, each line a different color (scroll down to Chart # 20 ): http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

Labor force: are Employed people + Unemployed people by the U-3 definition above (jobless but have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks). I think of the labor force as "Employed + Lookers".

Table A-16 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm
Sorry: this data is only available as NOT Seasonally Adjusted

The indentation in the table below indicate subsets. For example, the "Persons who currently want a job" is a subset of "Total not in labor force", so this is not all people who currently want a job, but rather people not in the labor force who currently want a job. By parsing the definition of labor force, the below "Persons who currently want a job" category boils down to those jobless people who want a job but have not looked in the last 4 weeks (because you are counted as being in the labor force if you have looked in the last 4 weeks)

[font face = courier new]
Total Not in Labor Force and its subsets
Total not in the labor force Total: LNU05000000 Men: LNU05000001 Women: LNU05000002
...Persons who currently want a job Total: LNU05026639 Men: LNU05026640 Women: LNU05026641
......Marginally attached to the labor force Total: LNU05026642 Men: LNU05026643 Women: LNU05026644
.........Discouraged workers Total: LNU05026645 Men: LNU05026646 Women: LNU05026647
.........Other persons marginally attached to the labor force Total: LNU05026648 Men: LNU05026649 Women: LNU05026650
......Wants a job but hasn't looked in the last 12 months: persons who currently want a job minus the marginally attached
...Doesn't want a job, jobless (Progree calc)


July 2016: (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED:
Table A-1 gives seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted for the first 3 below. Table A-16 gives only not seasonally adjusted for the last 3 items below (there are no seasonally adjusted numbers for these anywhere). For consistency I am showing all of the below as NOT seasonally adjusted. Below are in THOUSANDS, NOT Seasonally Adjusted
.... 8,267 Unemployed (the officially unemployed -- have looked for work in the last 4 weeks)
.... 92,916 Not in labor force (jobless, haven't looked for work in the last 4 weeks)
....... 6,244 Persons who currently want a job (6.7% of those not in the labor force)
.......... 1,950 Marginally attached (want a job, looked in last 12 months but not last 4 weeks)
.............. 591 discouraged workers (those marginally attached who also cite in some form that don't think jobs are available)
.............. 1,359 other marginally attached persons (cites reasons such as family responsibilities, ill health,....)
.......... 4,294 Wants a job but hasn't looked in the last 12 months (Progree calc)
....... 86,672 Jobless and doesn't want a job, (Progree calc)
[/font]

The indentation in the table below indicate subsets

Persons who currently want a job is a subset of those NOT in the labor force (if you looked for work in the last 4 weeks, you are counted as being in the labor force, so "Persons who currently want a job" in the above table are people who say they want a job but have not looked in the past 4 weeks).

Marginally attached workers are those who want a job and are available for work, and looked in past 12 months but not in past 4 weeks) - Table A-16 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm - 1.950 million, down by 23,000 from a year ago (not seas adj)

Discouraged workers are a subset of marginally attached workers. They want and are available for work, and looked in past 12 months but not in past 4 weeks. Additionally, unlike some marginally attached workers, they said they didn't look for work because they don't think jobs are available for them - Table A-16 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm - 591,000, down by 77,000 from a year ago (not seas adj)

Other persons marginally attached to the labor force - it’s the other subset of marginally attached workers. It is all marginally attached workers except for Discouraged workers. Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as school or family responsibilities, ill health, and transportation problems, as well as a number for whom reason for nonparticipation was not determined. - Table A-16 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm -

[] Other economic reports, e.g. Housing Starts, ..
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

{#} Other Economic Reports, e.g. Housing Starts,...

{} Housing Starts, Building Permits, Commerce Dept (odd that the website is census.gov)
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf
http://www.census.gov/starts
Yo Mama discussion of February 2015's figures (highly analytical, excellent) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1041722

{} Census Bureau Economic Indicators
Something to explore some day: http://www.census.gov/economic-indicators/

{} Net worth Households and Nonprofit Organizations, Federal Reserve survey
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-federal-reserve-has-good-news-for-hillary-clinton-195941999.html

FRED: Households and Nonprofit Organizations; Net Worth, Level (TNWBSHNO) - This is *NOT* inflation adjusted
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TNWBSHNO

Doug Short - Households and non-profit net worth
# Nominal
# Real ("real" means inflation-adjusted)
# Real per capita
# All these graphs are below, including with exponential regression lines
# Sadly, no indication of how much of the wealth is held by say the bottom 90%. So while it looks great, it doesn't tell you anything about its distribution
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Net-Worth

{} See EF-9 Incomes and Inequality section for many more

[font color = red]Please don't reply directly to this #11 posting[/font]- that way any new pages that I add will be in a chain of pages at the top. You can reply to any of the other pages without disturbing the chain of EF postings at the top, and you are most welcome to.

retirements.

I had felt bad about the 'percentage of workforce' numbers until you gave me the salient point about retirements

content).

NM District 2 -- I read that is pretty much the entire southern half of New Mexico, containing the great cities of Roswell and Las Cruces. I lived in Roswell for 3 years -- New Mexico Military Institute. Decades ago.

I see its been a "red" district as far as congressional representation since 1980, with the exception of 1/2009 - 1/2011. Also "red" in presidential elections, though only by a point in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico's_2nd_congressional_district

I'm "MNDemDist5" - Keith Ellison's district of Minneapolis and its first ring suburbs. First Muslim in Congress. Democrat. And he's (hoarse whisper, tiny font) [font size=1]black[/font]

i've got major heartburn still over that ass and the way the party handled the primaries here

i think we might go blue this year in the presidential, but no way the house is going back. Steve Pearce is a bumbling idiot (and i mean stupid as a box of hammers here) but he's hooked into all the oil guys so he's got a fat campaign war chest and lots of name recognition.

I don't have enough time (or bandwidth) to tell you all the ways Teague was a nightmare, he was better than Pearce by about a nano

but it did help the house leadership to change, so i held my nose and gave him a vote

not a lot of incentive here to go blue, our unemployment is at about 3.5% and if you can pass a drug test you've got a job around here.

I work with a bunch of tree-huggers, but hubby is chipping away at Romney in his job and has had a couple successes

we'll see......

recommended, bookmarked.

here's an article from Bloomgerg that points out Dems lead in job creation by wide margin over Repubs

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html

Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.




http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=isqi31tjaZFo

The "red blue" table in EF.1. near the bottom is another confirming view showing that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican (all the way back to Truman). It is ranked on a percentage job increase basis to get rid of the issue that the economies and labor forces of the earlier presidents were much smaller than that of the later presidents. So for example, Truman's wimpy looking 93,570 / month average job creation is actually the 3rd best of all post-FDRoosevelt presidents on a percentage increase basis. (The labor force at the beginning of the Truman admin was only 31% the size of GW Bush's, so 93,570 jobs/month went a long way back then)

Thanks also much for the recommendation and kind words. This EF.0 - EF.6 agglomeration, which I laughingly call my "magnus opus", embarrasingly sat with a goose egg in the "Rec" column for 5 days until yesterday. And yes, it was a heck of a lot (many dozens of hours) of work over several months -- I kept building up the info as a result of the message board wars in, mostly the news.yahoo.com article comments sections. The monthly updates (after the job numbers come out the first Friday of the month) take at least 2 hours.

I'll be working on the formatting to make it easier to read. Plus will include rebuttals to rightie talking points like how great the Bush economy was until the Dems took over Congress in January 2007. Or that the 2007-2009 financial collapse was because of over-regulation -- nasty big mean government forced the banks to lend to poor people (those irresponsible 47%-ers).

CabCurious's Facts about the economy -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175

September jobs reports (payroll jobs and unemployment rate) that came out 10/5/12. Yes the one with the 7.8% unemployment rate.

I have a bit of a wish list that might be a bit arcane:

US Crude oil prices, is that EF 6?

Infrastructure dollars spent per annum since 1933. Nominal & adjusted.

I have one for ya, number of income tax brackets

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

[font color=blue]US Crude oil prices, is that EF 6? [/font]

Yes, I'm 95% sure. The oil price we hear and read all the time from the media is really a futures price, it seems, for example back in late June, it was the price for August delivery. Anyway, for the media-quoted oil price I look at the "Oil" at the top of the http://finance.yahoo.com page. And as EF 6 says about historic oil prices, I haven't found anything better than the weekly closing prices.

But to reduce the confusion, in EF 6. I replaced the topic line from "Oil Futures" to "Oil Prices". Thanks for the question.

[font color=blue]Infrastructure dollars spent per annum since 1933. Nominal & adjusted. [/font]

I have no idea where I would start to look for that.

[font color=blue]I have one for ya, number of income tax brackets
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets [/font]

That's really something! Very interesting. I'm glad we don't have as many tax brackets as we used to have. Whew!

I have to give a note of caution though about the Tax Foundation - they are a RW greed-banger organization. Though that wouldn't (or shouldn't) be a problem for that table, I cringe at some of their policy recommendations and "studies" like that 60% of the cost of Romney's tax plan will be paid for by the greater economic growth it will create (higher economic growth generates higher tax revenues). The old magic supply side fairy dust that worked so well under Bush. As for it working under Reagan -- a. they usually leave out that payroll taxes were massively increased and b. the national debt nearly tripled - so the economic growth under Reagan was more the result of classical Keynesian deficit-spending pump priming than it was the result of an overall modest federal tax cut.

describing a geometric curve necessary to make a progressive tax that allows the working classes to keep what they earn , I want at least 12-15. Adding 6 more for the top .33%.

!930's we spent - depending who you listen to, between 5% and 7% of GDP on the New Deal. 5% of GDP was SOP for year, I believe that declined starting in the 80's.

The reason its important to me is that I have a thesis, policies that created jobs in the US were removed, starting mainly in the 1980's. Infrastructure spending and tax policies giving deductions for domestic investment.

Might have been a total of 6%-7% of GDP, spent on jobs, since the late 80's 3 recessions each have more breadth and depth, each with the so called jobless recovery.

In a 15 trillion dollar economy, spending 7% is 1 trillion. This would create between 20 and 25 million jobs. Gee whiz, U6 is just about 22 million...........

Last year we spent about 1.3% of GDP on infrastructure. About 195 billion.

ANd oil rising from $11 to $17 1989-90, leading to the 90 recession. I thought Bush would not get re elected with oil dampening economic growth.

But much info places oil in '81-'82 much higher 50-55, buts its expressed in lets says 2009 dollars.

Definitely a need for nominal and adjusted, they srve different purposes.

Thanks for putting it together!

Great resource.

A+ for effort, so far!

... they're meaningless, except in an academic sense.

Example: sky is blue; fact. Good info, but it's more meaningful to understand why the sky appears blue.

Ditto on employment; GDP; equality; you name it.

So if we're treading water on job creation, which we are. If 61% of new jobs being created are low-paying, which they are. How do we remedy it. Is Obama doing the sorts of things needed to remedy it? And as Democrats (the base Obama serves, directly) are we demanding change, or merely looking for stats that allow us to feel good about how he's preforming?

And writing some new sections -- see "Recent Topic Updates" in EF-0.

And writing a monthly summary of the most recent jobs report (see EF-0).

As the crucial mid-term elections approaches, I hope some people can draw on the information here to correct the misimpression that Obama is a disaster for the economy. No, it's not a robust economic recovery, but vastly much better than what we had under G.W. Bush. By most measures, in the right direction (albeit slowly), instead of the wrong direction, for one thing.

And this despite a united Republican campaign of obstruction in the House, which they've held since January 2011 (hint hint: midterm elections are important).

EF-0 (the OP) contains a summary of the latest 2 jobs reports.

I'm "late" in doing this update because I got embroiled in some myth destroying -- "most (even all) the new jobs are part-time" seems to be the meme of the month. Please read EF-0 for some perspective on that.

Three other myths destroyed -- all in the bottom half of EF-0

"They don't count the long-term unemployed in the unemployment rate"

"People who run out of unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed in the unemployment rate statistics."

"Wages are about the same as 30 years ago, meanwhile the cost of living has gone way up"

All the other 8 pages -- EF-1 to EF-8 -- have been updated as well. There's no new material in any of these pages, just updated numbers.

Before, the EF-0 page had the latest jobs summary and the previous 2 or 3 job summaries -- that made the page confusing and probably nobody but me care about the older summaries.

Anyway, I spend a lot of time puttting together the job report summary in EF-0, so hopefully some will find it interesting and useful.

All the other pages -- EF-1 thru EF-8 have been updated (although admittedly some sections, like the inequality section of EF-7, are getting old).

It also needs a wages and income section.

It also needs a section with the BLS time series links (example U-6 unemployment data series -- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709 ), as it is pretty hard to find some of them. And a bag of tricks for finding them.

All pages updated 9/5/15 (I update EF-0 monthly but update the other pages only quarterly - next update is early December)

EF-0 has been reorganized so that the parts most people want to see is at the top -- what happened in the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in February 2010. The Household Survey numbers are wildly volatile from month to month, so it is important to have the context of looking at the full year as well.

Incomes and Inequality and Consumer Prices and Poverty got its own page -- EF-9.

This is also new: EF-10. Definitions, Links (In Progress)

I update page EF-0 monthly, on the Friday that the monthly jobs report comes out (usually the first Friday of the month). Or the following Saturday at the latest.

However, the other pages (EF-1 through EF-10) have grown so much that I've given up trying to update them all every month. So I've generally been updating every 3 months. I went 4 months this time because doing taxes got in the way of my usual 3 month update in early April.

EF-5 (National Debt, budget, deficits) has long been a laggard in that it had some numbers that were years old. There still are some, but I've updated a lot of these numbers. To mention one example, I've finally added fiscal year 2015 federal income, expenditures, and deficit.

And a kick to keep it from falling into the archives.

As a sample, here are two of the key tables:

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents, Average Annual % Increases :

(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue.)

Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican. That is, until Obama, who inherited an economy that was losing several hundred thousand jobs a month And actually, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.

Presidents ranked by Average Annual Percentage Increase In Jobs:
. . (updated 2/2/18 after new jobs report released - it has revisions going back decades. Unfortunately, Ford edges out Obama on average annual percentage job increase when more decimal places are shown: Ford: 1.0911%, Obama: 1.0855%)



Remember, Obama inherited the deepest recession since World War II, which lost 4.2 million jobs in the last 10 months of his predecessor, and in the last 3 months of his predecessor was losing 753,000 jobs a month. With that momentum, job losses continued for the first 13 months of the Obama presidency -- through February 2010 -- totalling 4.3 million jobs lost during those 13 months.

Anyway, despite the 4.3 million jobs lost in his first 13 months because of the Bush crash, Obama still beats 3 of the last 6 post-WWII Republican presidents.

More on the EF-2 page http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

================================================================================================
================================================================================================
2nd Table ----

{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2017, in $Billions

Fiscal year 2017 ended September 30, 2017. Similarly for all the other fiscal years.

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget.



It's been in the news recently that the CBO projects a Fiscal Year 2018 deficit of $995 Billion ...

And yes, the above numbers include payroll tax receipts (including Social Security) and Social Security benefits expenditures, since the above are unified budget numbers.

More on the EF-5 page http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5