Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Historical Unemployment Rates (1960-2009) broken down by president

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:22 PM
Original message
Historical Unemployment Rates (1960-2009) broken down by president
Edited on Fri Nov-06-09 05:59 PM by Bucky
Please comment if you want this kicked for others to read

Year - unemployment rate - President

1960 - 5.5 - Eisenhower

1961 - 5.5 - Kennedy (eight years of Democratic presidents will result in a 1.9% net drop in unemployment)
1962 - 6.7
1963 - 5.5
1964 - 5.7 - Johnson
1965 - 5.2
1966 - 4.5
1967 - 3.8
1968 - 3.8

1969 - 3.6 - Nixon (eight years of Republican presidents will result in a 4.1% net rise in unemployment)
1970 - 3.5
1971 - 4.9
1972 - 5.9
1973 - 5.6
1974 - 4.9 - Ford
1975 - 5.6
1976 - 8.5

1977 - 7.7 - Carter (four years of a Democratic president will result in a 0.6% net drop in unemployment)
1978 - 7.1
1979 - 6.1
1980 - 5.8

1981 - 7.1 - Reagan (twelve years of Republican presidents will result in a 0.4% net rise in unemployment)
1982 - 7.6
1983 - 9.7 <== - (another record setting moment by the Gipper)
1984 - 9.6
1985 - 7.5
1986 - 7.2
1987 - 7.0 - (note what happens after Dems take over Congress)
1988 - 6.2
1989 - 5.5 - Poppy
1990 - 5.3
1991 - 5.6
1992 - 6.8

1993 - 7.5 - Clinton (eight years of Democratic presidents will result in a 2.8% net drop in unemployment)
1994 - 6.9
1995 - 6.1
1996 - 5.6
1997 - 5.4
1998 - 4.9
1999 - 4.5
2000 - 4.0

2001 - 4.7 - Trainwreck McGee (eight years of Republican presidents will result in a 2.9% net rise in unemployment)
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - 5.1
2006 - 4.6
2007 - 4.6
2008 - 5.8

2009 - 7.6 - Obama (insert your predictions on how he'll end up affecting the unemployment rate based on past trends)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. And since this got no play on its own...
...I'll post this here. It goes into more details, though it only covers from 1968 to 2008.

This is an update of figures I compiled a few years ago concerning the Bush Administration and unemployment in America and how Bush's performance compares to Presidents over the last 40 years. What I have done is to compare figures that get bandied about in the media or message boards and tried to make them understandable and relevant. I did this through nothing more fancy than subtraction and division. No fancy mathematical analysis or spin.

I have not included Obama since he has served less than one term. But this is some mess he's walked into.

The first number is, of course, a year. The next two numbers are simply the difference in that statistic from four years earlier. (For instance, numbers from 1972 represent the difference between the figure for January 1972 and January 1968.) The first number is then divided by the second number to obtain a ratio. I have included a label of what that ratio means after the first example in each category.

All numbers are from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numbers are in thousands and are Unadjusted Annual figures. Increase is for the four years total. Calculations are my own. (Feel free to check my math.) I have included some BLS definition for some terms at the end of this post for your convenience.

Increase in Labor Force/Increase in Employed
1972 -- 8297/ 6233 = 1.33 increase in labor force for every new job
1976 -- 9124/ 6599 = 1.38
1980 -- 10782/10551 = 1.02
1984 -- 6604/ 5702 = 1.16
1988 -- 8125/ 9963 = 0.82
1992 -- 6436/ 3524 = 1.83
1996 -- 5838/ 8216 = 0.71
2000 -- 8640/10183 = 0.85
2004 -- 4818/ 2361 = 2.04
2008 -- 5711/ 1853 = 3.08

From the above we can see that under 'W' over two new people enter the job market for every new job created in his first term, and over three for each job in his second term! The next closest rate to this occurred under George H. W. Bush. Too many people not enough jobs, to make a long story short.

Let's look at the ratio of increase of increase in the Labor Force to the increase of those NOT in Labor Force:

Increase in Labor Force/Increase in Not in Labor Force
1972 -- 8297/3800 = 2.18
1976 -- 9124/2900 = 3.15
1980 --10782/ 815 = 13.23
1984 -- 6604/2033 = 3.25
1988 -- 8125/ 105 = 7.74
1992 -- 6436/1756 = 3.67
1996 -- 5838/1947 = 3.00
2000 -- 8640/3347 = 2.58
2004 -- 4818/5962 = 0.81
2008 -- 5711/4191 = 1.36

We can see that for the first time in at least the last 32 years, the increase in NOT in Labor Force exceeds that of the increase in the Labor Force during Bush's first term. This ratio has not been less than 2:1 for any President from Nixon to now, meaning every other President since Nixon has added at least twice as many people to the Labor Force as to Not in Labor Force. 'W' Bush couldn't even break even in his first term. He did improve in his second term, however, the rate was still abysmal compared to all other President since Nixon.

Perhaps 'W' will fare better if we compare the increase in Employed to Unemployed?

Increase in Employed/Increase in Unemployed
1972 -- 6233/ 2817 = 2.21
1976 -- 6599/ 2424 = 2.72
1980 -- 10782/ 231 = 46.68
1984 -- 6604/ 902 = 7.32
1988 -- 8125/(-1838)= *
1992 -- 6436/ 2912 = 2.21
1996 -- 5838/(-2377)= *
2000 -- 8640/(-1544)= *
2004 -- 4818/ 2457 = 1.96
2008 -- 1853/ 3857 = 0.48

Nope. 'W' is still the worst. In fact, he is the only President to increase the Employed by less than twice the Unemployed in raw numbers -- and that was in his first term. In his second term, the number of unemployed increased twice as fast as the number of employed increased!

NOTE: Reagan decreased the number of Unemployed in his second term. Clinton decreased the number of Unemployed in both of his terms.

Maybe Bush's difficulties are based on population increase? Let's check!

Increase in Civilian Non-institutional Population/Increase in Employed
1972 -- 12098/ 6233 = 1.94
1976 -- 12024/ 6599 = 1.82
1980 -- 11595/10551 = 1.10
1984 -- 8638/ 5702 = 1.51
1988 -- 8230/ 9963 = 0.83
1992 -- 8192/ 3524 = 2.32
1996 -- 7786/ 8216 = 0.95
2000 -- 11986/10183 = 1.18
2004 -- 10780/ 2361 = 4.67
2008 -- 9902/ 1853 = 5.34

As we can see from this data, 'W' is far and away the worst. Again, except for his father, no other President has had an increase in population that outstripped the gain in employment by more than 2:1. Yet for every new job under 'W' the population has increased by a phenomenal 4.67 people in his first term - over twice the number that occurred during his dad's reign. Then things got worse in his second term, with population growing by over people per each new job. It should also be noted that the population increase in his first term (in raw numbers) under 'W' was fifth, exactly in the middle. And even lower in second term. So that's out.

Some other things that might be noticed from these numbers if you look closely:

- the number of unemployed increased 6.3 million under Bush
- the number of people Not in Labor Force increased 10.1 million
- those two add up to 17.4 million more people not working compared to an increase of 6.7 million working
- Carter wasn't nearly as bad as history would make him. (He came to office at a rather complex time for employment. But that's a different subject.)

None of this even touches the quality of jobs! I think I'll leave that to someone else.

The conclusion that Bush was the worst President is economically demonstrable for at least the last forty years.

Definitions:
Unemployed -- Persons 16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Not in Labor Force -- Includes persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I have to read and think in order to understand your graphs.
Sorry, but it's the end of the day on a Friday. I'm not good at thinking at this point, only doing rote stuff.

I'll look at your post tomorrow when my brain is recharged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I understand completely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for posting this Bucky
I've been wondering about these statistics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Hmmm, did you not see them constantly referred to on TV news & talk shows?
How surprising!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Nah, I heard that the current unemployment rate is the worst
since the early 80's....that's about all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. you should have read this when I first posted it
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 21st 2019, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC