robert-photos Loc: Chicago

I don't normally get involved in highly charged political debates but this analysis of the creation of public and private sector jobs with graphic comparisons of the two administrations caught my eye. The time line comparison and commentary is interesting.

See: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29

BTW Bill McBride's blog "Calculated Risk" is one of the best on the web if you're interested in that sort of info.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Thank you for this. I hope this finally puts the lie to all of the right wing claims about big government under President Obama. Historically government, both in terms of spending and employment, has grown much much more under Republicans, but they have definitely had the edge in getting out their small government claims. Republicans are much better at messaging than Democrats, and that has been a large part of their success in the last thirty years - too bad it's all been false. We are all worse off for it.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Bill McBride is a statistics guy and pretty much apolitical reporting data to assist in making financial and market decisions.

Croce Loc: Earth

Bush was a low intellect idiot who had hallucinations of being directed by god, Obama is a high intellect, anti capitalist conspirator with heavy centrist, socialist leanings. Almost impossible to get anywhere with either of these jerks at the helm. As McBride points out most of the public employment decline is at the State and Local level. However he fails to point out that the reason for that decline is that so many states and municipalities are in or on the cusp of bankruptcy caused by the ineptness of the first arrogant scumbag mentioned and the ego driven, my way or the highway deviousness and duplicity of the 2nd. In the end it is our own fault. We elect these abominations.

K2mbs Loc: Southern Tier of, NY

The graph you have shown would seem to show some equality in the 2 administrations, but facts about our situation as a nation are grim comparatively.
Not since Carters debacle have we been this bad off.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lprXH5RsgMAgwFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MTdwdXBsBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0FDQlkwNV85Mg--/SIG=14hj9fsku/EXP=1367264491/**http%3a//www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le

The amount of people needing food stamps, and food banks is at sickening levels now, the amount of truly unemployed is far higher than the rate government claims.
The American work force positions available (downsizing, doing more with less) is down substantially (less jobs available to fill=less jobs unfilled=a skewed unemployment figure).
The amount of people who have dropped out of the job market due to their unemployment benefits ending become uncounted.
This list is substantial due to the extended period of recession being much longer than the available benefits duration.
I know in my county 1 in 4 are below the poverty level now...I have never heard of that here before.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Explain how a Federal President controls state and local employment? Do the pink slips come from the oval office? Do you send your resume there?

" [quote] These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but they are still a significant drag on overall employment."

If these job losses are included in the graph and yet are not subject to a president directly... What does this say.

I think a graph showing the number of sunny days of one president to the next would be just as pertinent and useful. The graph is thus crap.

The government spends too much- The government is very poor in the efficient use of that money. The government is rife with corrupt business practices. This is true no matter which party is in office. Better to have a smaller government then - no matter which is in power... we have many examples right now overseas to tell us what will happen if we continue... Why is this such a difficult concept?

Croce Loc: Earth

[quote=RichieC]Explain how a Federal President controls state and local employment? Do the pink slips come from the oval office? Do you send your resume there?

"

I am amazed by the selectivity of your post. Federal regulations, mandates and taxes imposed on businesses certainly have an effect. The President spearheads those policies. If they are hostile or adverse, hiring goes downhill. State and local governments derive their income from income and sales and franchise taxes (among others) of their local citizens. If they are out of work due to a failing economy suppressed by federal action / inaction, they must either acquire staggering debt or diminish or suspend services. That equates to layoffs. Read unemployment. The duplicity of the figures for unemployment by the DOL has been well covered above. We are a hell of a lot worse off than the figures given us. Figures do not lie but liars do figger you know.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

No, I can certainly understand how a president actions can indirectly affect employment,,, and I am in agreement that things are not getting better, so your amazement is a bit unfounded. But the graph was presented as giving credit to Obamas actions in directly reducing the size of government. This, in an expanding debt environment, where he is spending twice the amount as any other president in history ... somewhere.

Thus, I find the graph is as specious as one that would track how many sunny days were there in comparison to Bush's term, and it is about as useful.

Like using new unemployment claims to judge workforce issues- ignoring those that have given up, who are under employed or have accepted part time jobs. Makes for an impressive graph I am sure- but not really useful. I wonder if we'll get to the 25% rate currently in Spain and France or Greece? We are doing exactly what they did and apparently expecting a different outcome... the very definition of madness.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

RichieC,

Please note that the graphs do not include or track unemployment but rather private and public sector job creation versus time comparing two such tracks, eight years of Bush and a little more than four years of Obama.

Under Obama, for whatever reason, public sector job creation is contracting while private sector job creation is expanding faster (than under Bush).

It is interesting to me because GOP rants regarding private sector job creation don't appear to be valid. Their rants would be more valid if they were to complain about the loss of jobs in the public sector.

The truth of the matter is that government payrolls are shrinking under Obama (not necessarily because of)....that is fact.

With respect to debt...that is different topic which has more to do with entitlement spending than government payrolls.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

What you fail to mention is that the unemployed are those without education or the skills needed to make it in the US today. The educated are doing rather well and experienced little unemployment.

see:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/a-case-for-college-the-unemployment-rate-for-bachelors-degree-holders-is-37-percent/272779/

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Hmmm... Let's see - you always are advocating for bigger and more invasive government hence more spending and government growth but the Republicans are bad for doing it but the Democrats are good for doing what you want but slightly less. Odd, very odd. Both parties are statist pukes. It doesn't matter which is in power because they have the same agenda evidenced by the results. Only fools and the naive can't see it.

K2mbs Loc: Southern Tier of, NY

Here is an article from the SAME publication you put up a link from stating how terrible the jobs are to find for college grads.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iFlEoFRhhIALJtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZThjbHFwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0FDQlkwNV85Mg--/SIG=14bjul9gg/EXP=1367442149/**http%3a//www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

I hear Jobs that used to be had by high school grads are going to college grads now that the unemployment rate is so bad...
A business can discriminate further than usual, and find desperate college grads who are willing to settle for lesser jobs than they dreamed of upon graduation.
The dream job simply isn't there for them.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Here is an update that now includes (adds) Reagan, (one term) Bush and Clinton:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/07/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29

My thoughts after study of these stats is that we shouldn't believe the rhetoric of either party and/or their pundits.

What are yours?