The Democrats’ Employment Deception

Good news: Our businesses are now on pace for the strongest year of job growth since 1998.
White House Propaganda

If you think that means that employment under Barack H. Obama is better than it was under George W. Bush…

THINK AGAIN!

Here is what the Employment-Population Ratio has looked like from January 1995 to present:

latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1995_2014_all_period_M09_data

Note that the WORST month under George W. Bush was better than the BEST month under Barack H. Obama!

Employment in January 2009 was 60.6%, and we’ve now gone 68 straight months below that level. In fact, we’ve now gone 61 straight months with Employment ≤ 59.0%

So, is the White House tweet a lie?

No, it’s based on truth, but it’s a textbook example of very carefully cherry-picking a derivative of a subset of data, and ignoring other highly relevant data, in order to deceive people into believing that the overall data set (Employment) is better now than it’s been since 1998 (which is NOT true).

What do I mean by “a derivative of a subset of data, and ignoring other highly relevant data“?

I’ll explain, but let me start by saying that each month the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the results of:

A) Table A-1: Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over.  This table is the “HOUSEHOLD DATA”, the result of a survey done of households, includes population growth, and is the table from which the “Unemployment Rate” comes. 

B) Table B-1: Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail.  This table is the “ESTABLISHMENT DATA”, the result of a survey done of employers, does not include population growth, and it is a derivative of a subset of this data (ignoring population growth) which is used in the graph tweeted by the White House.

The subset is that they are only looking at the private sector subset of the establishment survey.  If you are a public sector employee or self-employed, THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Why show only a subset? Because the full Table B-1 Employment data shows losses in the months of June, July, August, and September 2010. The Democrats don’t want to show that, so they choose to instead show only the private sector subset of the Table B-1 Employment data.

The derivative is that they are only showing the monthly CHANGE IN (∆) private sector employment, rather than showing the ACTUAL LEVEL OF private sector employment, which looks like this over the last nearly 20 years:

latest_numbers_CES0500000001_1995_2014_all_period_M09_data

And like this over the last 10 years:

latest_numbers_CES0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M09_data

Note that the White House tweet graphic says, “10.3 Million private sector jobs were added in the past 55 months.”

Note that it’s only for private sector, ignoring public sector and self-employed.

Note that there is no mention of POPULATION GROWTH during that period shown, nor what the Employment-Population Ratio looks like for that period.  Population grows all the time.  You EXPECT employment to grow as population grows, and for anyone to look only at employment growth and ignore population growth is to ignore highly relevant data.

Note they are only talking about the CHANGE IN (∆) employment level, a derivative, and don’t want to talk about the actual employment level itself.

Note that they only want to only talk about the change in private sector employment over the last 55 months (a further subset of the data).

Why did they choose 55 months, when Barack Obama has been in the White House for nearly 69 months and in the MAJORITY PARTY in Washington, D.C. for over 93 months?

The answer is that they want to deceitfully BLAME BUSH for all of the job losses from Feb 2008 to Feb 2010, and CREDIT OBAMA for all of the job gains from Mar 2010 to Sep 2014.

The Barack Obama White House wants to deceitfully blame all of the job losses from Feb 2008 to Feb 2010 on ONE MAN who was in the MINORITY PARTY for less than half that time (and not even in elected office for more than half that time!)

The Barack Obama White House wants to deceitfully BLAME BUSH for everything that went wrong economically in 2007, 2008, and 2009 under the Democrats’ majorities.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, took control of the Senate and House on 1/3/2007, but the current Obama White House wants you to completely ignore the role that Barack Obama and the Democrats played in inheriting a recovery and turning it into a recession.

One can honestly say that President George W. Bush “inherited” an economy on January 20, 2001, because Bush had not played any role in Congress prior to his inauguration.

One can not honestly say that President Barack Obama “inherited” an economy on January 20, 2009, because Obama had played a role in Congress for 4 years prior to his inauguration.

President George W. Bush inherited the economic double-whammy of the Dot-Com Bust and the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.  The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts turned a double-dip recession into a recovery.  Here’s what private sector employment looked like from 2001 to 2006:

latest_numbers_CES0500000001_2001_2006_all_period_M12_data

The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were signed by President George W. Bush on May 28, 2003. Notice any correlation between that and employment?

Employment improved so much (and payroll tax revenues increase as employment increases) that from FY 2003 to FY 2007:
Revenues increased 44% in 4 years (from $1.78T in FY 2003 to $2.57T in FY 2007) and
Deficits decreased 61% in 3 years (from $412B in FY 2004 to $161B in FY 2007)

Contrary to the MYTH that most Democrats will regurgitate,
Revenues went UP (↑) and
Deficits went DOWN (↓)
after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts!

That’s an inconvenient truth for Democrats, but here are the Data Sources from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
FY receipts, outlays, and surplus/deficits in $
FY receipts, outlays, and surplus/deficits in % GDP

If you look in terms of % of GDP,
Republican majorities decreased the deficit 68% in 3 years!
(from 3.4% of GDP in FY 2004 to 1.1% of GDP in FY 2007).

When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, along with then-Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. took control of the House and Senate on 1/3/2007, here is what they inherited from the outgoing Republican majority…

12 years of GOP majorities (GOP held 2+ out of three of the House, Senate, and Presidency from 1/3/1995 to 1/3/2007) left us and the incoming Democrat majority on 1/3/2007 with:
Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR): 66.4%
Unemployment Rate: 4.4%
Employment-Population Ratio: 63.4% (144 consecutive months ≥ 62%!)
Total FY 2007 deficit (off-budget + on-budget): 1.1% of GDP
Debt Held by the Public: $4.9 Trillion
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $8.7 Trillion

THAT is what Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, and the rest of their peers in Congress inherited from the outgoing Republican majority on 1/3/2007!

In Democrats’ first Fiscal Year of majority control, FY 2008, they nearly tripled the deficit to 3.1% of GDP!

In Democrats’ second Fiscal Year of majority control, FY 2009, they more than tripled the deficit (AGAIN!) to 9.8% of GDP!

Democrat majorities raised the deficit from 1.1% of GDP to 9.8% of GDP, an increase of 791%, in just two years!!

And while Democrat majorities have since brought the deficit down with the help of a Republican House, the deficit as a % of GDP is still about three times the size of what it was in FY 2007!

And now, after more than 7 and 3/4 years of Democrat majorities, we have:
Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR): 62.7%
Unemployment Rate: 5.9% (would be reported as 11.1% unemployment if LFPR was still 66.4%!)
Employment-Population Ratio: 59.0% (61 consecutive months ≤ 59%!)
Estimated Total FY 2014 deficit (off-budget + on-budget): 3.7% of GDP ( > TRIPLE the last Republican majority deficit!)
Debt Held by the Public: $12.8 Trillion (an INCREASE of over 160%… well more than 2.5X in less than 8 years!)
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $17.9 Trillion (an INCREASE of 106%… well more than doubled in less than 8 years!)

12 straight years of Republican majorities left us in a MUCH better position than 7¾ straight years of Democrat majorities.

Under Republican majorities, employment averaged 63.3% and ended slightly above average at 63.4% in December 2006.

Under Democrat majorities, employment has averaged 59.7%, and we have been below that average for the last 65 consecutive months.

The WORST month of employment under George W. Bush was better than the BEST month of employment under Barack H. Obama.

After EACH of the last three times that Democrat majorities increased the Minimum Wage (on July 24th in 2007, 2008, and 2009), the Employment-Population Ratio dropped, and we STILL have not recovered to even the July 2009 level (which was 59.3%, and we have been below that level for the last 62 months).

And now the Democrats can’t stop talking about how they want to raise the Minimum Wage AGAIN! Stop the insanity!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Democrats’ Employment Deception

  1. The Democrats took majority of the House and Senate on 1/3/2007, and have held overall majority control (holding 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate, and Presidency) from 1/3/2007 to present.

    Let’s take a look at a few U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) statistics to see what has happened to population growth vs. employment growth since the Democrats took majority majority control on 1/3/2007…

    Comparing September 2014 numbers – December 2006 numbers:

    Population: ↑ 18.3 M

    Of that 18.3 Million increase in the civilian noninstitutional population, where did the increase go?

    Not in Labor Force: ↑ 15.2 M (83% of the population increase)

    Unemployed: ↑ 2.5 M (14% of the population increase)

    Employed: ↑ 0.6 M (3% of the population increase)

    Since the Democrats took majority on 1/3/2007…

    More than 25 times as many people became “Not in Labor Force” as became “Employed”

    And…

    More than 4 times as many people became “Unemployed” as became “Employed”.

  2. I invite readers to check out my replies to this tweet:

  3. Pingback: Employment-Population Ratio, Correlated with Majority Party, Jan 1995 – Oct 2014 | I Took The Red Pill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s