Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:24 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
EF-0. Economic Stats wi links to original sources. Links to LBN jobs threads thru 1/6/23Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2023, 12:17 AM - Edit history (150)
1/6/23 - Added the December 2022 Jobs report link that came out 1/6/23
Kick note, 10/8/22 - I have to Kick this about every 2 1/2 years in order to keep it from falling into the archives. See the Updates page for a list of updates. While most numbers aren't up to date, I do keep adding links, e.g. inflation, prime rate, FedFunds rate, Treasury bills/note/bonds rate. The collection of hundreds of economic links is the main feature of this megathread, that I find personally quite handy. Given the number of views (150-250 a month), I suspect quite a number of others are finding it useful too. I also post a link every month to the latest Jobs reports thread (non-farm payroll employment, unemployment rate, and all that) at the top of this OP. ==== end Kick Note =============================== LBN Threads that discuss the latest monthly jobs reports (the one with the unemployment rate and the payroll jobs numbers that usually comes out the first Friday of the month, but sometimes the second Friday) For December 2022 jobs report (dated 1/6/23) , see: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143015534 Archives of all Bureau of Labor Statistics Reports (BLS), -- besides the first Friday jobs report (called the "Employment Situation" ) that is the main subject of this megathread, there is also the CPI and Producer Price Index, Employment Cost Index, Productivity and Costs, Real Earnings, U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes, Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JOLTS), and much much more -- https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ In the list up at the top, under Major Economic Indicators, select Employment Situation for the jobs report or whatever else for other reports. For a list of updates (besides adding the link to the latest Latest Breaking News job report above), please click this link: EF-U. Updates List Handy key links to BLS data series / graphs pages, some with the latest year or two of monthly numbers: (1/6/23) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143015534#post6 I won't be doing monthly updates, but rather annual updates of the jobs number, so if the job statistics are somewhat out of date in the future, I hope people will read "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there". The other pages (EF-1 through EF-10) also has information about the economy that is still relevant or relatively timeless. I also make occasional changes to some of the other pages, particularly the debt and deficit information on the EF-5 page http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5 and EF-9 Income and Inequality pages http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post9 . Again, please check out the EF-U. Updates List Another key purpose of this page is to provide links to the official sources of economic statistics and other resources for people to use in the message board / social media wars with the righties (and each other) about the economy. Almost all sections have where to find the original-source numbers, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Treasury.gov, or widely cited non-partisan sources. Hopefully people will find these pages a useful reference for finding information. These are the numbers that are cited, and which virtually all analysis of the U.S. economy derive from. The rest is pretty much anecdotal (like "the prices in my grocery store have doubled in the past year" ) There are some amazingly distorted presentations of what their numbers are and what they mean that you find on the web, and yes, DU too. Please see the "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" section in the bottom half of this page for examples of what I mean by distorted presentations of BLS statistics. I don't claim that the BLS and other government sources are inerrant, or even unbiased, e.g. whoever came up with some of the definitions like the official (U-3) unemployment rate being a count of jobless people who looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks. And it is obvious that most of the Household Survey numbers have a lot of statistical error, considering how they wildly bounce around from month to month. I'm just saying all of this is a presentation of the actual BLS and Commerce Department numbers (for the most part) with links to the statistics being discussed, so that you can check it out for yourself. Most of what you read about economic statistics, including those skeptical of the BLS and Commerce Dept numbers (e.g. GDP), rely on these same statistics, since there aren't many comprehensive non-governmental sources of economic statistics available. In other words, they use these statistics to criticize these statistics. So by giving you the links, you can see the full context -- as many polemicists cherry pick here and there to give a misleading picture. Again, see the "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" section in the bottom half of this page for examples of what to watch for. Unfortunately, a lot of the formatting has been lost because of the May 2017 hack of the DU website. For the latest version at archive.org -- WHICH SHOWS THE ORIGINAL FORMATTING -- see: https://web.archive.org/web/20160411173355/http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439 Unfortunately the latest archive.org snapshot that shows the original formatting is April 2016. Oh well. There is a way to ask archive.org to save a current snapshot ... the "Save Page Now" feature at https://archive.org/web. But unfortunately any snapshots made after the May 2017 hack of the DU website appear the same as what you are looking at -- with only selected formatting restored. For more on what formatting does and does not work at DU, see https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=13211 Here is a table of contents of this thread: {#} EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources (this post) {#} EF-1. Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Employment. At the bottom all post-WWII presidents with completed terms are compared {#} EF-2. Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Insurance Claims {#} EF-3. Recessions and Expansions - Official (NBER.org). Also GDP (Gross Domestic Product) {#} EF-4. U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Avg {#} EF-5. National Debt. Budget Deficits and Surpluses {#} EF-6. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Oil Prices {#} EF-7. In Progress (mostly Dem presidencies v. Repub presidencies. Also Inequality) {#} EF-8. In Progress - Some canned excerpts to use in the message board wars {#} EF-9. Incomes and Inequality and Consumer Prices and Poverty (in progress) {#) EF-10. Definitions, Links (In Progress) {#) EF-U. Updates List I use facts from these in mixed message boards and in comments on news articles such as at news.yahoo.com. Be aware that I have included a few statistics that are not so pleasant as far as Obama's record, ones that anyone debating with others should be aware of because occasionally you will see these points or they will come back at you with these statistics (forewarned is forearmed). ################################################################################## ################################################################################## Here are some key jobs reports links that I used to use for my reports: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NUMBERS IN THE TABLES BELOW (if any) ARE SEASONALLY ADJUSTED unless otherwise stated. The links to the data below in the "over the last year" etc. tables # Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey), https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 monthly change # . . . the raw (not seasonally adjusted numbers) are at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001 monthly change # INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031 # Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000 monthly change # Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000 monthly change # . . . the raw (not seasonally adjusted numbers) are at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000 monthly change # Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000 monthly change # ETPR (Employment-To-Population Ratio) aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000 # LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 # Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 # U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709 # NILF -- Not in Labor Forcehttp://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000 monthly change # NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639 monthly change # Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194 monthly change # Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000 monthly change # Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000 monthly change # Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed (Table A-9) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026620 monthly change # Civilian non-institutional population https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS10000000 monthly change Some statistics by age group The ones beginning with "LNS" are seasonally adjusted (SA). The ones beginning with "LNU" are not seasonally adjusted (NSA) 16+ is the default one that the BLS and the media report. 16+ means every civilian non-institutionalized person age 16 and over, including centenarians. So it is misleading -- the population is aging and there are about 10,000 boomer retirements a day (which comes to 3.6 million/year). That's why I show other age groups. Age 25-54 is what the BLS calls the "prime age". It isn't contaminated by a lot of voluntary retirements. By default, the graphs are 10 - 11 years, specifically they begin in the January of the year that was 10 years ago -- meaning in this case they begin January 2009 (which happens to be near the bottom of Great Recession job market -- well actually the job count fell for another 13 months to its lowest point in February 2010) You might want to set the start date of the calendar back to, oh, whatever. 1989? 1979? 1969? In order to get a more historic view. 1989 is about when the rapid growth of female workforce participation began to level off LFPR - Labor Force Participation Rate for some age groups The LFPR is the Employed + jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks (and say they want a job and are able to take one if offered). All divided by the civilian non-institutional population age 16+. SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted 16+: SA: LNS11300000 NSA: LNU01300000 25-34: SA: LNS11300089 NSA: LNU01300089 25-54: SA: LNS11300060 NSA: LNU01300060 55+: SA: LNS11324230 NSA: LNU01324230 65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: LNU01300097 ETPR - Employment to Population Ratio for some age groups SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted 16+: SA: LNS12300000 NSA: LNU02300000 25-34: SA: LNS12300089 NSA: 25-54: SA: LNS12300060 NSA: LNU02300060 55+: SA: LNS12324230 NSA: LNU02324230 65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: LNU02300097 Aren't most of the new jobs part-time? No. This excellent post from early July 2015 show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves What kind of Wages? INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average WEEKLY Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past year and the past three years (the past three years coincides with the Trump presidency. LATER, 2/8/20: there isn't a detailed narrative this time. Just a couple sentences in the "Commentary" after the "Over the Last THree Years" section ABOVE. ######################################################################## FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf Table of Contents as of 1/31/19 The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf [font color = brown] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy-jobs/ (find this at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea ) The Council of Economic Advisors is a Trump admin propaganda organ now. Do not confuse it with the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) which is supposed to be a non-partisan statistics-gathering government agency. On the other hand, the Council of Economic Advisors are all appointed by the president -- more specifically, the chairman is nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. The members are appointed by the president . Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov BumRushDaShow / Mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material. (In the January 2020 jobs report which came out on February 7, the thread was hosted by BumRushDaShow). https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142430036 Detailed Discussion mm/dd/yy - Nothing much more to add to the above. Usually I'm verbose as most job reports are a mix of good-and-bad when compared to the prior month. But I'm not doing monthly comparisons anymore since the monthly changes in the Household Survey numbers are mostly statistical noise. Instead, I have been, and will be doing annual updates in early February after the January jobs report comes out (namely detailing the changes over the past 12 months, and since February 1, 2017 which is the beginning of the Trump administration's first full month in office). However, I do update the non-jobs pages when new information comes out. See the "EF-U. Updates List" post below http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post37 for updates. ################################################################################## ################################################################################## Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there, such as right-wingers slamming any gains the economy made under Obama (thanks in large part to Republican obstructionism in Congress, and Republican policies in the many states they control). NOTE: MANY OF THE BELOW EXAMPLES WERE WRITTEN DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHEN RIGHT-WING GREEDBANGERS WERE DISPARAGING ANY PROGRESS THE ECONOMY WAS MAKING.. Of course they are making the opposite kinds of arguments now that the King of the Magats is president. But the techniques are the same. I have chosen not to spend an extraordinary amount of time re-writing all of the many examples below to illustrate how Magats would try to make the economy look better than it really is. Tricks of the polemicists include: (1). Highlighting adverse one-month or other short-term changes in some highly volatile component, and making it seem like it's the story of the whole Obama administration's job record such as, for example, the monthly changes in the civilian labor force, age 16+, seasonally adjusted. Here for example are the monthly changes for 2012 in thousands: (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000?output_view=net_1mth ): [font face = "courier new"] Jan Feb Mar. Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct. Nov Dec 401 498 -15 -246 381 188 -164 -301 349 489 -228 206 (labor force, thousands) [/font] Needless to say, whenever the president is Democratic, our good friends on the right highlight the drops in the labor force in the months when it drops, and make no mention of the rises when it rises. This is also known as cherry-picking the bad statistic of the month. As you may know, under Obama, the righties and the media loved to pooh pooh any drop in the unemployment rate when the labor force drops, explaining that the unemployment rate dropped mostly because people gave up looking for work and left the labor force, and so are not counted. But how often have you heard them bring up a rise in the labor force in a month when it rose? Another example: full-time jobs: [du/10026642259] Awk! 252,000 full-time jobs were LOST in April! (April 2015, a month where the media was touting the 223,000 gain in payroll employment) (2). Cleverly mixing seasonally adjusted data with unadjusted data (without making that clear of course) Or using exclusively seasonally unadjusted data if that paints the picture they want to paint (2a). Implying that a number is not seasonally adjusted -- for example disparaging a November or December payroll employment report of a good 250,000 increase in payroll employment by saying that's a paltry gain since there should be a lot of Christmas shopping season hiring going on. (Uh, no, like almost all BLS statistics reported in the media, the payroll employment numbers are seasonally adjusted. And, by the way, actually December is almost always a month when more jobs are lost than gained -- the raw (not-seasonally adjusted) payroll employment numbers are at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001?output_view=net_1mth ) Another example - saying a big increase of 0.5% in consumer spending in December is not a big deal, and ought to be way higher since December is after all the big Christmas spending month. (Uh, no, again, the numbers are seasonally adjusted) (2b). Related -- using NOT seasonally adjusted numbers when that better makes their case, and saying that the unadjusted numbers are "the real numbers" untarnished by bureaucratic "adjustments" and "manipulations" A great example is comparing not-seasonally-adjusted numbers for December and January, and making an enormous hoo-hah about the decline of the job count in January (when of course much of the extra Christmas season help is laid off, but the polemicists don't mention that explanation). (3). Cleverly mixing statistics from the household survey (CPS) and the establishment survey (CES) (without making that clear of course). The CPS survey of households ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/ ) produces the unemployment rate, the labor force participation rate, the number employed, and innumerable other statistics. The CES ( http://www.bls.gov/ces/ ), a completely separate survey of businesses, produces a number of statistics, most notably the headline payroll employment numbers (widely regarded as a better indicator of job changes than the CPS's Employed number because of the larger sample size among other reasons). Because of statistical noise and volatility, these 2 surveys often come up with seemingly incompatible results. Needless to say, right-wing polemicists mix and match statistics from both surveys to produce nonsense. (4).Cherry-picking the start and end points of some data series This is a generalization of item (1.) except that instead of highlighting the latest month of an adverse statistic, they may pick another starting point that is an outlier. For example in October 2013, someone mentioned that the latest U-6 unemployment measure is no better than it was in March 2013, 7 months ealier. True, but March was at a noisy zag low; its clear to see from the graph that there is a downward trend, not a 7-month plateau. U-6: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709 Here are the 2013 values (the 2012 values are all above 14.4% BTW, it was 15.1% in January 2012) [font face = "courier new"] Jan Feb. March Apr. May. June July Aug. Sept Oct. 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 (2013, U-6 in percent) . . . . . . ^-March: the cherry-picked low starting point the RW'er chose[/font] (The U-6 unemployment rate (sometimes dubbed the underemployment rate) is now (January 2020) 6.9% by the way, down 1.1 percentage points in the last 12 months (and down 2.3 percentage points in the last 36 months). It is the broadest measure of unemployment that the BLS produces -- it includes part-time workers wanting full-time positions. It also counts as unemployed any jobless person who wants a job and has looked for work at any time in the past 12 months (whereas the headline U-3 unemployment rate counts those who have looked any time in just the last 4 weeks). It's like global warming when the righties always pick 1998 -- an anomalously hot year because of a strong El Nino -- as their starting point to argue that there has been very little warming since. That is why seeing the whole data series is so important, and not just accepting the time period and the statistic that a right-wing polemicist dishes out. However, finding the data series number is often quite a challenge, and something that in my experience involves a large bag of tricks. It is my intent to write more about how to find the data series you need. But for now, if there is one trick to mention, this one is the most helpful: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln (5). Comparing the current statistics to 2007's statistics, as if 2007 was a normal economy we should get back to - I see this all the time. Yes, today's economic statistics just about across the board suck compared to 2007's. But keep in mind that 2007 was not a normal economy. It was a very sick bubble economy with a very high fever -- people using their houses as ATMs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Anybody could get a mortgage, virtually no questions asked. The belief that housing prices never go down, at least not on a national average scale (thus the theory that a geographically diversified bundle of mortgages was always a safe bet). The same for comparisons to 2000 -- that too was a very sick economy -- astronomical price/earnings ratios in the stock market, day trading and momentum investing. The belief that Alan Greenspan had mastered the "Goldilocks" economy (not too cool, not too warm) and that, now that we understood how to use the Fed's powers to control the economy, we will never have a recession again. That tech companies with huge negative earnings and no business plan were great investments. That we were all going to the moon, and we were all going to the stars (speaking of the economy and the stock market). Well, I'm extremely very sorry to have to tell you -- we don't want to get back to the very sick high-fever bubble economies of 2000 or 2007. So quit the whining about how things now are so much worse than back then -- no they aren't when you consider the sickness and unsustainability of those economies back then. (6). Talking about inflation-adjusted numbers as if they were not, e.g. "wages have been flat (or dropped) for the last 20 (or whatever) years while we all know that prices just keep going up" -- leaving off the word "real" or "inflation-adjusted" qualifier on wages (which takes into account rising prices). Nominal wages, i.e. raw wage numbers unadjusted for inflation have definitely been rising for years and decades, whereas real wages (meaning adjusted for inflation) have indeed been roughly flat. For example: (nominal, i.e not inflation adjusted) Average Hourly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, total private, seasonally adjusted: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008 (real, i.e. inflation adjusted) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032 -- to get the long view, set the time period's beginning point from the default value a decade ago to 1964 - the earliest one can set it. The pull-down boxes for setting the time period is near the top, where it sets "Change Output Options". Be sure to check the "include graphs" checkbox, and then click the little dark blue "go" button (7). Using government statistics and trickery (see above techniques) to make some point, and when you call them on the trickery, and give them the correct information, they tell you they don't trust government statistics! In other words, they are fine with government statistics (or studies that are derived from government statistics, which they all are) if they can twist them to fit their viewpoint, otherwise, they don't trust them! ---------------------------- As for postings by DU members, always check the source of the article they posted, for example one perhaps unintentionally posted a bunch of crap from a right-wing polemicist (Peter Morici) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251259885#post3 (that's post #3 -- interestingly the poster was PPR'd about 4 months later). Note that sometimes the publication might be an OK mainstream source, but you should still check out the author. SEE ALSO THE "MYTH:" SECTIONS IN THE PAGES BELOW. For example, the EF-2 page has a lot of myths about the job numbers, such as the myth that they don't count the jobless people that have exhausted their jobless insurance benefits in the unemployment numbers. Just search on the following and include the colon: MYTH: Here is a listing of Myth topics as of 1/25/2019
END of "Beware the tricks" lecture ######################################################################## General notes from previous deleted job summaries - to be reorganized and refiled I'm working on the wages things brought up in earlier DU posts -- for now, See: Real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings, all employees (total private), 1982-1984 dollars, Seas Adj: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000012 And of production and non-supervisory workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031 Note on statistical noise: As an example: non-farm employment increased by 113,000 in January 2014 in the establishment survey. But according to the household survey, employment that month increased by 638,000. Just goes to show how wild the statistical noise is, and not to get excited one way or another with any one month's particular numbers. On statistical noise, I found this BLS technical note on sampling error -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm . Based on what it says, there is a 90% probability that the Establishment Survey's non-farm employment increase is within +/- 120,000 of the stated number. And a 10% chance that it is off by more than 120,000. Again, this is just the sampling error. There are other errors besides sampling error. Correspondingly, again based on sampling error alone, there is a 50% chance that it is within +/- 49,200. So for example for a reported job gain of 200,000, there is a 50% chance that it is between 150,800 and 249,200, and a 50% chance that it is outside that range based on sampling error alone. Note there are errors other than sampling error that add to the uncertainty {1} And in the Household Survey, there is a 90% chance that the monthly unemployment change is +/- 300,000 of the stated number (note this is 2.5 times the Establishment Survey's nonfarm employment's sampling error). Also, that there is a 90% chance that the unemployment rate is about +/- 0.2% of the stated number. The above only covers sampling error. There are also many other sources of error (search the above link for "non-sampling error" ) The individual components that go into these numbers have an even larger sampling error. As explained above, right-wingers love to find the aberrant statistic or two of the month and make it out to be the story of the Obama administration, rather than what it really is -- just one month's number in a very statistically volatile data series. {1} 90% of the area under the normal curve is between +/- 1.645 standard deviations. 50% of the area under the normal curve is between +/- 0.675 standard deviations. Thus if there is a 90% chance that it is within +/- 120,000, then there is a 50% chance that it is within +/- 49,200 (0.675/1.645 * 120,000 = 49,240 , then round to 49,200 ).
|
38 replies, 33504 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
progree | Sep 2012 | OP |
progree | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
progree | Oct 2012 | #20 | |
progree | Dec 2012 | #23 | |
progree | Oct 2014 | #31 | |
progree | Oct 2014 | #32 | |
progree | Oct 2014 | #33 | |
progree | Feb 2020 | #37 | |
NMDemDist2 | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
NMDemDist2 | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
Bill USA | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
progree | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
progree | Oct 2012 | #12 | |
FogerRox | Oct 2012 | #13 | |
progree | Oct 2012 | #15 | |
FogerRox | Oct 2012 | #16 | |
FogerRox | Oct 2012 | #17 | |
FogerRox | Oct 2012 | #18 | |
Hugin | Oct 2012 | #14 | |
beac | Oct 2012 | #19 | |
progree | Nov 2012 | #21 | |
Dark n Stormy Knight | Nov 2012 | #22 | |
progree | Mar 2013 | #24 | |
progree | Aug 2013 | #25 | |
Koios | Aug 2013 | #26 | |
FogerRox | Aug 2013 | #27 | |
progree | May 2014 | #28 | |
progree | Jul 2014 | #29 | |
progree | Sep 2014 | #30 | |
progree | Sep 2015 | #34 | |
progree | May 2016 | #35 | |
progree | Feb 2018 | #36 | |
progree | Oct 2022 | #38 |
Response to progree (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:24 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
1. EF-1. Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs
Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2021, 12:05 PM - Edit history (40) # Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 monthly change
# Nonfarm Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001 monthly change # Federal employees (includes postal workers, excludes military): http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 monthly change # Manufacturing employees: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001 monthly change {#} 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 (downard by 514,000 in the year ending March 2019) of payroll jobs, announced Feb 7, 2020 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 : 12/13/20 UPDATE: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214706690#post4 THE BELOW WAS CREATED IN EARLY FEBRUARY AT NEAR THE PEAK OF THE PRE-COVID ECONOMY. Even so, it shows that Trump was a less-than-median job creator even at his high point. Now, according to the latest jobs report that came out October 2, Trump has lost 3.907 Million jobs since January 2017 when Obama left office, whch comes to 89,000 jobs lost per month during these 44 months. This of course, puts Trump last in the table as the only post WW-II loser (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 2/7/20 after new jobs report released - it has revisions going back decades.) ![]() THE ABOVE WAS CREATED IN EARLY FEBRUARY AT NEAR THE PEAK OF THE PRE-COVID ECONOMY. Even so, it shows that Trump was a less-than-median job creator even at his high point. Now, according to the latest jobs report that came out October 2, Trump has lost 3.907 Million jobs since January 2017 when Obama left office, whch comes to 89,000 jobs lost per month during these 44 months. This of course, puts Trump last in the table as the only post WW-II loser (Actually, the true jobs peak of the Trump economy was in February 2020 -- he gained another 251,000 jobs in February, which would make his 37 month record at the end of February 184,054 jobs/month, which comes to 1.52% average annual increase in jobs -- only trivially better than the 182,194 and 1.50% numbers shown in the table (which are at the end of January), and certainly doesn't affect his ranking from what is shown in the table). 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 4 of the last 7 post-WWII Republican presidents (the count of 7 post-WWII Republican presidents includes Trump). Of these Republican presidents, only Nixon, Reagan, and Ford had better records than Obama, and Ford only edged him out by 0.01 percentage points. 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 |
Response to progree (Reply #1)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:25 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
2. EF-2. Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Insurance Claims
Last edited Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:44 PM - Edit history (45) {#} 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:
# 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. Update: 47% are in retirement according to this 4/9/2019 CNBC.com article https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/09/baby-boomers-face-retirement-crisis-little-savings-high-health-costs-and-unrealistic-expectations.html 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 20.3% in January 2020, 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): 63.4% in January 2020 ( 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 83.8% in January 2020 ( 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 80.7% in January 2020 (well, its up only 3.1% from December 2003 to January 2020. 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, 2/8/20 - I'm going to have to rewrite a lot 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: 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 LFPR, age 25-54: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060 ETPR, age 25-54: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 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. The ETPR of the 25-34 demographic is at 80.7% in January 2020. This is slightly down from the 80.0% housing bubble high in 2007, and 2.5% below the dotcom bubble high of 2000. It exceeds 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. The current level is a bit above the highs of 1990 and the housing bubble high. But well below the dot-com bubble high. It looks like it’s a little bit above the 1987-2008 average. Anyway, the take-away is that the ETPR of this 25-34 age demographic is well above the average of the 1989-2020 period, even excluding the Great Recession crash and recovery years. The LFPR of the age 25-34 demographic, 83.8% in January 2020, is only 0.2% down from its Housing Bubble high (84.0% in early 2008), and 1.5% down from the dotcom bubble high in 2000 (85.3%). It's down 0.6% from the 1989 peak (84.4%). Anyway, the take-away is that the LFPR of this 25-34 age demographic is about the same as the average of the 1989-2020 period, excluding two outlier periods: the 1996-2002 Dot-com peak years and excluding the Great Recession crash and recovery years. (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). # Like the age 25-34 LFPR and ETPR, the age 25-54 LFPR and ETPR are considerably lower before 1987 due to less female workforce participation. # 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 A broader look at unmployment rates, by president, 1948-2016, and then with a graph of each presidency's unemployment rate with a mini-explanation of each https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president 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) . . Here's a fascinating one showing the above over time: snapshots of 1998, 2008, 2018; and 2028 projection . . . . https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.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 civilian 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 # This week's unemployment insurance claims report: https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf # Unemployment insurance initial claims, week by week: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp Initial claims (FRED): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICSA # 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 was 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 1969, and remember this statistic is not adjusted for population size). In the 4 weeks ending February 1, 2020, it averaged 211,750 (down 8,500 from a year ago). # Continued Claims (Insured Unemployment) (CCSA) (FRED): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCSA # 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"How the Government Measures Unemployment" cps_htgm.htm {#} JOLTS - Job Opening and Labor Turnover Survey # Job Openings and Labor Turnover SUMMARY - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm {#} Multiple JobHolders Table A-9: Multiple Jobholders: January 2020: 8,152,000 Percent of employed: 5.1%. -- So according to this and Politifact, it is a myth that most people are working 2 or 3 jobs. # 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 # 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. (Incidentally, during the course of Trump's presidency, this number has increased from 94.4 million in January 2017 to 94.9 million in January 2020, but of course you don't here anything about this number anymore from Trump or the administration) ( links just below the next paragraph ) # 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). # 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: # 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. # 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. # Myth: "The ADP jobs numbers are much more reliable than the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers because the ADP are actual payroll numbers, whereas the BLS numbers are 'just a survey' " The ADP numbers cover only about 20% of the nation's private workforce. [/10142506142] # Myth: "There was a big 225,000 increase in nonfarm payroll jobs, and yet the unemployment rate went up. This proves they are cooking the books, and the corporate media is playing along with their game" The two can diverge because the nonfarm payroll jobs ( https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth ) and the unemployment rate ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 ) come from two different surveys. |
Response to progree (Reply #2)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:26 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
3. EF-3. Recessions and Expansions - Official (NBER.org). Also GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
Last edited Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:47 PM - Edit history (34) {#} 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, December 2007, and February 2020 # Recent economic troughs occurred in November 2001 and June 2009 and April 2020 # 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 ended February 2020 with the coronavirus shutdowns # Beginning February 2020 we are currently in a recession Other resources: # NBER.org Business Cycle Dating - https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating # 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 our 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 .XLSX https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xlsx # . . Found at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product --> Supplemental and Additional Data -> Current-dollar and "real" GDP # Percent change from preceding period, Excel .XLSX https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx # . . Found at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product --> Supplemental and Additional Data -> "Percent change from preceding period" # 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 --> Current Release --> 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. (THIS MIGHT BE OLD: ) 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". # Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1), FRED - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1 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 (2019 Q1 First release) as of 5/1/19 is $21.06 Billion (there are normally 3 releases) # To do: explain the 3 releases: about when do they come out -- they come out late each month, for example the Quarter 2 ends 6/30. In 2019, the GDP Q2 "Advance estimate" was released 7/26. The release date of the 2nd revision: 8/29, 3rd revision (final): 9/26 . 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 {#}# Forecast of the upcoming GDP by Atlanta Federal Reserve, "GDPNow" https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow {#} St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/STLFSI |
Response to progree (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:27 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
4. EF-4. U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Indus Avg
Last edited Fri May 1, 2020, 10:18 AM - Edit history (35) {#} 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's a 2.66-fold increase). (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. 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 {#} Stock market gains 1929-2011: much higher under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents Democrats: +460%, Republicans: +110% (in nominal dollar terms) S&P 500 performance under 6 presidents beginning with Reagan https://twitter.com/rickwtyler/status/1161740031012352000 |
Response to progree (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:28 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
5. EF-5. National Debt. Deficits and Surpluses
Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2022, 02:24 AM - Edit history (46) {#} 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% 1/20/2020 ` ` ` ` ` 17,181 6,030 23,211 ` Trump 3 year anniversary Trump % Increase `` 19.3% 8.8% `16.4% ` Not bad percentage-wise, but consider . . . that he was handed an economy with nearly the lowest unemployment rate and inflation rate in decades, and yet increased the debt by $3.26 Trillion in just 3 years * Public: debt held by the public. Intragov: Intragovernmental debt * The annoying backquote symbols (`) are used for spacing, because DU compresses multiple spaces into one. Please try to ignore # URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np # Factoid number two is when comparing the debt to GDP version of different countries to each other, economists don't usually include intragovernmental debt {citation needed}. So when some rightie says that Obama ran us up to almost a 100% debt to GDP ratio -- approaching that of some of the in-trouble European countries, point out that the equivalent debt for comparison is the Publicly held debt: 17,181 B$. The latest GDP number (2019 Q4, 1st estimate) as of 2/8/20 is 21,730 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: 17,181 / 21,730 = 79%. (Using the total national debt, the debt to GDP ratio is 23,211 / 21,730 = 107%). 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 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, 2020: 106.8 % ( 23,201 / 21,730 ) In 19 years the debt AS A PERCENT OF GDP has almost doubled (1.88 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 ($2.0 trillion when interest is included) 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 105.5% 2019 Q3 - latest on this graph as of 2/3/20 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 ![]() ![]() Here's a more detailed view of who controlled Congress from 1798 - 2021: "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 Here is a textual view starting from 1977 (Jimmy Carter's first year) through 2020 that is easier to read. (BOLD is Democratic, FAINT is Republican) : Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President (Carter) |
Response to progree (Reply #5)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:29 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
6. EF-6. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Also, Oil Prices
Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2020, 07:16 PM - Edit history (30) {#} 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 2/3/20 close, with Trump in office for 3 years and 2 weeks, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 97.88. . 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 3.3% from 101.17 to 97.88 (2/3/20 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. 2/03/20 $51.04 -- 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 ) |
Response to progree (Reply #6)
Sun Oct 28, 2012, 11:33 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
20. EF-7. In Progress (mostly Dem presidencies v. Repub presidencies)
Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2020, 07:09 PM - Edit history (33) 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 - 2021: "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 Here is a textual view starting from 1977 (Jimmy Carter's first year) through 2020 that is easier to read. (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, 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 2/7/20 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 with completed terms. ![]() # 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. |
Response to progree (Reply #20)
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:09 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
23. EF-8. In Progress - Some canned excerpts to use in the message board wars
Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2020, 07:03 PM - Edit history (25) 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 (3 years) with Obama's ... but won't be able to get at it in time for the February 7, 2020 jobs report (which marks 36 months (3 years) 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. |
Response to progree (Reply #23)
Sun Oct 5, 2014, 02:24 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
31. EF-9. Incomes and Inequality, Poverty, Inflation, Consumer Confidence
Last edited Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:52 PM - Edit history (24) Contents
{#} Poverty Rate {#} Inequality {#} Inflation - Consumer Price Index - CPI-U, CPI-W, CPI-E {#} 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, also Consumer Spending (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) {#} Consumer Confidence, Sentiment {#} Prime Rate {#} Federal Funds Rate {#} Treasury Interest Rates {#} Poverty Rate {Latest until 9/2020} Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2018, U.S. Census Bureau, 9/10/19 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/income-poverty.html # Official powerty rate: 11.8%, 0.5 percentage points lower than in 2017, and lower than in 2007 - the year before the most recent recession. OLDER POVERTY INFO 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). {OLDER, 9/2016} 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. {#} Inequality US income inequality grows to its highest level in 50 years, Census Bureau, MSN.com, 9/26/19 # https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/us-income-inequality-grows-to-its-highest-level-in-50-years/ar-AAHRBWn?ocid=HPCOMMDHP15 Historic Asset Boom Passes by Half of Families, Wall Street Journal, 9/1/19 . . . https://www.democraticunderground.com/111686429 . . . https://www.wsj.com/articles/historic-asset-boom-passes-by-half-of-families-11567157400 (pay wall) # The bottom half of families have recently regained the wealth they lost in the 2007-2009 recession, but still have 32% less wealth, adjusted for inflation, than in 2003 (in other words, they are finally about break-even compared to 2007, but are still behind 32% compared to 2003, after adjusting for inflation) 20% of American wealth is controlled by the top 0.1% of taxpayers - or about 170,000 families. The top 1% control about 39% of the country's wealth, and the bottom 90% hold only 26%. The bottom half of Americans combined have a negative net worth - 5/26/19 . . . https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212132556 . . . https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/one-brutal-sentence-captures-what-a-disaster-money-in-america-has-become/ar-AABOnO4?li=BBnbfcN 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. (DATE?) ![]() The top quintile owns 93% of all stocks (including those held via mutual funds) - Paul Krugman, 12/25/17 The wealthiest 10% of households own 84% of all stocks per Edward Wolff, MarketWatch, 11/9/19 and that includes pension plans, 401(k) accounts and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans. That means 90% of American households own the remaining 16% of all stock 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 ################################################################################ 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. Year 1979 2007 %increase Top 1% (P1) 350,000 1,300,000 271.4% Mid 60% (Q2+Q3+Q4) 44,000 57,000 29.5% Bottom 20% (Q5) 15,500 17,500 12.9% Lane Kenworthy, using data from the Congressional Budget Office The top 0.1 percent of households account for about half of all capital gains - Robert Lenzner, Forbes, Nov 20, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html The following is a pithy summary of much of the above for the message board wars: In inflation-adjusted dollars, after taxes and after transfers -- From 1979 to 2007 the top 1% increased their income by 271% while the middle 60% increased by only 30%. Virtually all the productivity gains since 1979 have gone to the top 1%. Their share of the nation's income has increased from about 9% to 24%. Inequality - See Also Federal Reserve Survey Of Consumer Finances, September 2014 -- some dour statistics. All dollar amounts are in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars (see "Box 1" in the below link, and search for "inflation" ), so if you read that between 2010 and 2013 some group's income declined by 3%, realize that is in inflation-adjusted, aka "real" dollars. In this example, the actual nominal dollar amount of the income went up, but missed keeping up with inflation by 3%. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf America’s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record, Pew Research, 12/17/14. Based on the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/ A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-giant-statistical-round-up-of-the-income-inequality-crisis-in-16-charts/266074/ 74. Inequality - a collection of graphics - Money Masters, Created by: ForensicAccounting.net at http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175#post74 Income Inequality May Take Toll on Growth, excerpted from the New York Times. (Of the first 8 replies in the thread, #1 is the only one that has more information on inequality -- a set of graphs at inequality.org) http://www.democraticunderground.com/111624262 {#} Consumer Price Index - CPI-U Most of the incomes in the following sections are adjusted for inflation, and I make it clear which are and aren't. Still, it is useful to also see what the consumer price index is doing. |
Response to progree (Reply #31)
Sun Oct 5, 2014, 02:25 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
32. EF-10. Definitions, Links
Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2022, 02:30 AM - Edit history (8) [] 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).
[] 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 {} Retail Sales - U.S. Dept of Commerce (yes, they are seasonally adjusted too. No, they are not adjusted for inflation) https://www.census.gov/retail/index.html https://www.census.gov/economic-indicators/#retail_sales https://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf {} 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 |
Response to progree (Reply #32)
Sun Oct 5, 2014, 02:27 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
33. #11 - Reserved for expansion and reordering n/t
[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.
|
Response to progree (Reply #3)
Sun Feb 9, 2020, 09:19 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
37. EF-U. Updates List, Updated 9/1/22
Last edited Thu Sep 1, 2022, 10:01 PM - Edit history (5) Recent topic updates
# 2/2/18 - All pages (except EF-8 and EF-9) updated -- they were more than a year out of date # 2/2/19 - ALL PAGES UPDATED TO AT LEAST SOME EXTENT 2/2/19 to mark the 2nd year of the Benedict Donald Trump administration # 2/8/20 - ALL PAGES UPDATED TO AT LEAST SOME EXTENT 2/8/20 to mark the 3rd year of the Benedict Donald Trump administration. The changes to the many pages are too much and too many to enumerate, or I may do that later. Some pages still have some outdated information. Some page-by-page updates made 2018-2022, latest 9/1/22 # EF-0 - . . . Added 12/10/18: given that there is a 90% chance of the payroll jobs increase is between +/- 120,000 , therefore there is a 50% chance that it is within +/- 47,200 . . . 1/25/19: Added a Myths Table of Contents -- a table of contents of common myths . . . 5/4/19: Added LFPR and ETPR for several age groups. . . . 6/27/19: Added Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed . . . 9/19/20: Introductory paragraphs modified to point to the latest Latest Breaking News (LBN) threads on the monthly jobs reports # EF-1 - . . . 10/2/20: Updated Presidential Jobs Table # EF-2 - . . . 6/12/18: Added Regional and state employment and unemployment http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm . . . 6/27/19: Added Erik Sherman's opinion (a Forbes contributor) why the BLS may be underestimating the number of mutliple job holders. . . . 5/1/20: Added Unemployment rates, by ethnicity (white, Hispanic, black), age, and gender -- snapshots of 1998, 2008, 2018; and 2028 projection . . . 5/1/20: Added Myth: "There was a big 225,000 increase in nonfarm payroll jobs, and yet the unemployment rate went up. This proves they are cooking the books, and the corporate media is playing along with their game" . . . 5/1/20: Added: "A broader look at unemployment rates, by president, 1948-2016, and then with a graph of each presidency's unemployment rate with a mini-explanation of each" . . . 10/6/21: Added that ADP report are derived from ADP payroll data representing 460,000 U.S. clients and nearly 26 million workers . . . 12/18/21: Added State Jobs Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (State JOLTS) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jltst.nr0.htm . . . 9/1/22: Added FRED initial unemployment insurance claims link and the Continued Claims link # EF-3, EF-5 - . . . 4/30/19: Updated GDP and GDP-To-Debt ratios for latest GDP (2019 Q1 First Estimate) . . . 9/19/20: Added Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1), FRED - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1 . . . 9/19/20: Added the end of the Obama expansion and the beginning of the Trump recession, February 2020 # EF-3 - . . . 11/1/20: GDP - corrected the Excel links to data going back more than about 3 years . . . 9/1/22: Added some more JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover) links . . . 9/1/22: Added FRED initial unemployment insurance claims link and the Continued Claims link # EF-4 - . . . 8/15/19: Added graph of S&P 500 of the last 6 presidents (Reagan through Trump's first 2 1/2 years). Also improved the formatting of the entire EF-4 "page". . . . 5/1/20: Added election day, 2016 closing prices for Dow and S&P 500. # EF-5 - . . . Added 4/9/18: Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says (2017: $665 B, Projected for 2018: $804 B. The tax cut plus the extra $300 billion in spending over the next 2 years approved in March expected to add $1.6 T to the deficits over the next decade), The Washington Post, 4/9/18 . . . Added 7/1/18: 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 .. ##### On 9/10/18, I found the links were bad on this item and fixed the main one and flagged the spreadsheet one as bad) ### On 10/16/18 I added the Fiscal Year 2018 deficit of $779 Billion below the Imgur table of the last 10 years of outlays and deficits. . . . 8/31/19: More on why the national debt matters . . . 5/1/20: Corrected some wording in the item, "Some righties telling you that Obama doubled the last Bush deficit, from less than 500 B$ to more than a trillion dollars?" . . . 11/18/21: Updated average maturity of U.S. marketable debt (only 5.2 years), the largest portion of our national debt. The interest payments comes out of tax revenues, programs and the Pentagon get the remainder. . . . Added the Forecast of the upcoming GDP by Atlanta Federal Reserve, "GDPNow" # EF-9 - . . . Added 6/2/18: BLS Occupational Employment and Wages Summary - Mean and Median Hourly Wages of Hundreds of Occupations . . . Added 9/9/18: Minimum Wage . . . 8/10/19: Added some 5/26/19 wealth inequality statistics . . . 9/3/19: Added "Historic Asset Boom Passes by Half of Families", Wall Street Journal, 9/1/19 . . . 9/28/19: Added "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2018", released 9/10/19. . . . 9/28/19: Added "US income inequality grows to its highest level in 50 years, Census Bureau, MSN.com, 9/26/19" (it's actually much more than 50 years -- Census Bureau figures only go back to 1967. There's a graph that goes all the way back to 1913). . . . 6/14/21: Added CPI-W (the CPI used to adjust the Social Security COLA) and the CPI-E for the elderly . . . 11/10/21: Added real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers to the CPI section for convenience of reference. As well as the nominal (not inflation-adjusted) links . . . 12/10/21: Added gasoline prices and gasoline prices adjusted for inflation . . . 4/29/22: Added a link in the personal income, consumer expenditures, PCE inflation section . . . 5/31/22: Added Consumer Confidence Index, Consumer Sentiment Index . . . 9/1/22: Added some explanatory material to "That one that comes with the Employment Cost Index (BLS)" -- in particular "The ECI shows changes in wages and benefits in a manner that fixes the composition of the workforce. This is important, particularly when there are large changes in employment, because these data are not subject to the same distortions as the monthly average hourly earnings series, which can artificially be increased when low-wage workers lose their jobs and drop out of the sample (as happened in 2020) or artificially be decreased when these same workers are hired back (as happened in 2021)" . . . . . . Added What to know about personal income and savings - BEA.gov . . . . . . Added some more links to the CPI. . . . . . . Added the Prime Interest Rate . . . . . . Added the Federal Funds interest Rate . . . . . . Added Real Personal Income (FRED) and Real Personal Income excluding current transfer receipts . . . . . . Added Treasury interest rates (yields) # EF-10 - . . . 5/31/22: Added another Retail Sales link |
Response to progree (Reply #2)
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:12 PM
NMDemDist2 (49,313 posts)
7. thanks so much for this. don't know why I didn't snap to the baby boomer
retirements.
I had felt bad about the 'percentage of workforce' numbers until you gave me the salient point about retirements |
Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #7)
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:10 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
8. Thanks for the thanks and slogging through it all. I just improved EF.2.'s readability a bit (same
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] ![]() |
Response to progree (Reply #8)
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:25 PM
NMDemDist2 (49,313 posts)
9. yeah, and the 2009 oilhole Teague rode in on Obama's coattails
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...... |
Response to progree (Original post)
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:11 PM
Bill USA (6,436 posts)
10. A lot of meaningful data and links to data. great post. A lot of work went into this! recommended,..
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 |
Response to Bill USA (Reply #10)
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:59 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
11. Thanks for the link, I haven't seen it before, I added to CabCurious's 125170175
Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1) 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 |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:59 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
12. All numbers updated 10/7/12. Of particular interest is EF 1 and EF 2 - jobs -- updated for the
September jobs reports (payroll jobs and unemployment rate) that came out 10/5/12. Yes the one with the 7.8% unemployment rate.
|
Response to progree (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:38 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
13. Great stuff
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 |
Response to FogerRox (Reply #13)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:28 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
15. Thanks. Some answers...
[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. |
Response to progree (Reply #15)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 07:45 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
16. Brackets, we used to have 67. Now we have 6. Not good at
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. |
Response to FogerRox (Reply #16)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 07:51 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
17. Funny about oil prices, I disticntly remember $44 a barrel in the beginning of Reagans first term.
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. |
Response to progree (Reply #15)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:03 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
18. I've found some partial info, nothing comprehensive
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:30 AM
Hugin (31,217 posts)
14. Great resource!
Thanks for putting it together!
![]() |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Oct 27, 2012, 02:58 PM
beac (9,992 posts)
19. Kicking this for more eyes!
Great resource.
![]() |
Response to progree (Original post)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to progree (Original post)
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:29 AM
Dark n Stormy Knight (9,633 posts)
22. Kicking, Reccing, and Bookmarking. Will spend some more time checking out the specifics, but
A+ for effort, so far!
|
Response to progree (Original post)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to progree (Original post)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to progree (Original post)
Mon Aug 5, 2013, 10:08 AM
Koios (154 posts)
26. Funny thing about "facts" ...
... 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? |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sun Aug 11, 2013, 02:47 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
27. Should this be pinned? I think so.
Response to progree (Original post)
Mon May 5, 2014, 01:13 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
28. A kick after 9 months of spending 3-4 hours per month quietly updating the numbers
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). |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 12:56 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
29. Kick for an update that took 1 1/2 days - hope you'll look at EF-0, the OP post
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" 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. |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:43 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
30. 9/6/14 update. Simplified EF-0 to include only the latest jobs report summary
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. |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Sep 5, 2015, 08:00 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
34. 9/5/15 update, reorganization, and new pages added in the last few months
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) |
Response to progree (Reply #34)
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:52 AM
progree (9,990 posts)
35. 5/6/16 update of all pages, 1st time in 4 months. Many years-old EF-5 numbers updated
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. |
Response to progree (Original post)
Mon Feb 5, 2018, 08:56 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
36. Updated most of it 2/2/18 -- covering Trump's first year
Last edited Fri Nov 5, 2021, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1) 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 11/5/21 - test edit -- do I get 403 Forbidden? |
Response to progree (Original post)
Sat Oct 8, 2022, 02:50 PM
progree (9,990 posts)
38. A kick to keep it from falling into the archives - I have to do this about every 2 1/2 years
See the Updates page for a list of updates.
While most numbers aren't up to date, I do keep adding links, e.g. inflation, prime rate, FedFunds rate, Treasury bills/note/bonds rate. I also post a link every month to the latest Jobs reports thread (non-farm payroll employment, unemployment rate, and all that) at the top of this OP. |