Saturday, May 17, 2014

You Do the Math - Unemployment Rate vs Labor Force

Every business quarter the White House reports how many jobs were added by the current administration.    They have all been lying since Y2K, apparently.  Here's the percentage of the US popualtion that is actually working.

As you can see, under George W Bush, the labor rate dropped from 67% to 66% in 8 years, while under Obama it dropped from 66% to 63% in 5 years.

Labor Force as percentage of US population, 1948 to 2014
2000  67%
2008  66% --> 1/67 = 1.5%    1.49% / 8 = 0.19% per year
2014  63% --> 3/66 = 4.5%    4.54% / 5 = 0.91% per year

Under Obama, the employment rate dropped 3 times as much and in 5/8th time.  So, the rate dropped 4.79 times faster.

0.91 / 0.19 = 4.79

From memory, the US had 289 million "residents" officially on Apil 1st of 2000 (I know, I worked the Census that year, and we counted all legals and illegals).   By 2014 I had been hearing the US had 315 million residents for some time.  

67% of 289 million = 193.6 million jobs
63% of 315 million = 198.5 million jobs

That's just under 5 million added jobs.  Immigration accounts for more than 5 times that, because citizens are having children at a rate of 1.8 per couple, thus decreasing the native population (from what I saw on PBS).  This definitely is NOT the late 1800's or early 1900's, when industrialization added so many jobs to the US we allowed immigration on a grand scale.

Lately it appears that the fastest rate of job growth was the late 60's, the 70's and the 80's.  Who was President then?

1965 - 1968  Lyndon Johnson, Democrat
1969 - 1976  Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford, Republican
1977 - 1980  Jimmy Carter, Democrat
1981 - 1988  Ronald Reagan, Republican
1989 - 1992  George H, W, Bush, Republican

And Congress was Democrat the whole time, so that can't be a factor in and of itself (you have to look at legislation and it's effects). 

But, is "women's lib" responsible for the growth starting in the mid 1960's?  Women entering the work force?  So I've heard.

And I'm sure there are a million other factors, such as the 35% tax rate on corporations that drove jobs out of the US.  There was NAFTA, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, in the 1990's, which also drove jobs out of the US. 

GDP per capita in the US
The stock market bubble burst just before George W. Bush won in 2000, and the war on terror a year later, and the loss of the Twin Towers, all had a big effect on the economy.  As have multi-billion dollar natural disasters, year after year, in all administartions.

The housing bubble burst and stock market crash of 2008 also had an effect on the economy and jobs.  But the downward trend didn't slow down.  This could be caused by Obama's anti-energy agenda and his trillion dollars of extra spending each year, much of it on welfare and now health care.

So, what happens when you give people free rent, food, energy bills, cell phones and helth care?  Well...  ask them.   They say they only work part time, or less, when they need to make $50 to pay the bit of rent the government doesn't pay.

And what happens when you limit coal and oil through anti-energy legislation?  Well, every dollar you earn is from energy.  Try going a month without fossil fuels.   Will you walk to work?  Will you sail to Hawaii for your pineapple?  Will you saw down a tree by hand to build your house?  Will you lift a truck load of asphalt to pave a road?   No, no, no and no.   But, if you did, you'll never keep up with machines, and the Gross Domestic Product would go WAY down. 

GDP seems to take a temporary hit when fossil fuel prices go up.  However, the economy recovers.  But when fuel prices go down, the GDP takes a quick jump up.  The economic booms of the 1980's and 1990's coincided with a drop in oil prices.  Coincidence?  I don'tthink so.

Anyway, my point is, there are many factors involved in the economy, GDP, and job growth or loss.  From the price of fuel to natural disasters to federal polcy to social change, it all factors in.

And the White House always takes credit, but never takes the blame.

No comments: