Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records

This is one of the Goose/Gander Visualization Series.

Recently President Obama’s team has felt that attacking Romney’s jobs record in Massachusetts tests well in the sample group.

These attacks got me thinking about executive job records.  “Where” I asked myself  “would President Obama place in a ranking of US Presidents in terms of job creation?”

\"Job

You can also download a larger version of the chart. I find it difficult to create visualizations that work well in both blog form and Facebook-sharing form. This was my attempt at a compromise.

Is this a fair comparison? Yes and no. Part of the Goose/Gander series is that I create a provocative visual and then explain in more details what is fair and isn’t fair about it.

This Isn’t Fair

President Obama hasn’t had a full term yet

This puts him at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else (except John F Kennedy) because he hasn’t had the same amount of time to grow jobs. However it also seems pretty obvious that he’s not going to get out of last place before January 2013. That would require 300K new jobs per month every month from now until then.

President Obama came into office in the middle of a recession

In fact, he came in the middle of a recession that was worse in terms of job loss than anything any other president in this chart had to deal with. Now, he did split those job losses about half-and-half with George W Bush, so it’s not as bad as it could have been for him.

Presidents only have a certain amount of control over job growth

Actually presidents (and executives in general) only have a certain amount of control over the economy, so this entire exercise is kind of tainted by that fact. But this is the part where we point out that Obama did start this by attacking Mitt Romney’s job record in a similar way.

This Is Fair

The data Is Unassailable

I’m using the Employment table from the BLS A Tables. This is not the one that most Obama proponents prefer to use. They prefer using the BLS B Tables because they give numbers that are kinder to Obama. But the B Tables undercount employment (they only count payrolls) and everyone knows this.

I counted January-January (or whenever the president left office) for each president. I did this not because it was particularly fair but because I wanted to match how Obama has assigned himself and Romney jobs responsibility. I’m following his lead to show that, if we take him at his word, he doesn’t stand up to his own standard.

If we’re going to play the presidential job visuals game…

… this is a totally fair visual to keep in mind. Depending on the metric, Obama talks about jobs in different ways. When talking raw numbers, he likes to talk about the “last 22 months” or however gets us to the low point in the recession. When talking about month-to-month change, he likes to talk about when he came into office which was the worst point of job loss in the recession, so everything else looks good in comparison.

Fairly or unfairly, Presidents and jobs are commonly linked. It’s only fair to give a proper representation of that information.

Comments

90 responses to “Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records”

  1. Kevin Weinrich Avatar
    Kevin Weinrich

    So where is the disconnect between Obama saying he’s created 4.3 M jobs, and you saying he’s create 0.1? That’s huge. Is it the BLS A vs. B? But you say Obama’s folks use B, and B “undercount”s employment. If it undercounts, wouldn’t his total be lower than reality? Was that a typo?

    I appreciate you taking the time to come up w/ these graphics, if I can just understand them.

  2. […] but it’s hilarious because it puts our Ego-in-Chief into perspective:Click over to Political Math’s post to find out why he says this is both fair and […]

  3. […] – Data Visualization, Unemployment Numbers – via […]

  4. […] via Political Math; be sure to read his analysis. […]

  5. JeffC Avatar
    JeffC

    Kevin,

    Obama only counts jobs from the bottom of the recession … he ignores the jobs lost under his watch prior to that …

    The BLS reports the actual, unadjusted number of employed people every month …

    Jan 2009 – 131,555,000

    Jan 2012 – 130,297,000

  6. DANEgerus Avatar
    DANEgerus

    Clinton repeated vetoed R congress and rode on Reagan’s coat tails.

    D congress took over in 2006 and the current recession started when? Oh yeah… with them.

  7. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    How does the % figure in when talking about the job gains? For example, the 8.2% figure when referring to the 0.1 Million?

  8. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    Disregard my last – saw the answer.

  9. Hepcat Avatar
    Hepcat

    Love to see the numbers for employed as a percentage of employable workers.

  10. Dora Avatar

    cool presentation shared. keep it up.http://www.tecladoonline.com

  11. […] Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records « Political Math. […]

  12. […] Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records […]

  13. Political Math Avatar

    There is a problem with including hard numbers – ex. 16.7 million. These population is not a fixed number. Look at the two top boxes.

    Reagan has 16.7 million resulting in 5.4% and Clinton has 18.7 million resulting in 4.2%. Reagan’s comparative lower count has a higher percentage. Take the hard number counts out – they confuse the infographic.

  14. Political Math Avatar

    Ooops correction on my last comment. Noticed just now that the percent numbers are unemployment, but first point still stands. Hard numbering of jobs has no meaning over the time span of the infograph

  15. […] Political Math | Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records […]

  16. […] Matthias’ full post here and follow him on Twitter. He’s always entertaining, not to mention […]

  17. leelu Avatar

    Can you tell us *why* “Hard numbering of jobs has no meaning over the time span of the infograph”

    Thanks!

  18. Jordan G Avatar

    Comparing the results of a two term president with the results of single term presidents is apples to oranges. Each box should only present one term; so two term presidents should be split up with their associated years labeled. Otherwise, you occlude important context–for example, Bush’s performance during his second term (when the recession arguably began) may not look as good as his first (or maybe it will look even better–I really don’t know). As it stands know however, you are not comparing similar units.

    In any event, I do agree with a central point you made. If Obama suggests his job creating performance is better than Romney’s then he invites a critical view of his own performance.

  19. Lee Shelton Avatar

    Another helpful stat would be what percentage of jobs created were government jobs.

  20. […] complete details & analysis, check out the full post on PoliticalMathBlog.com Share […]

  21. […] one chart, the evidence against Obama is overwhelming: Dead […]

  22. […] 5. Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records – PoliticalMathBlog Link […]

  23. […] so well, according to a terrific infographic put together by the folks at Political Math. (You can read more about that blog […]

  24. […] via Political Math » Romney, Obama, and Executive Job Records. […]

  25. Joe C. Avatar
    Joe C.

    Obama inherited a recovery not a recession. Recovery started 4 1/2 mos. After taking office before any of his policies took effect. Then his policies stepped on the neck of the recovery, and we’ve been languishing on theto precipise of depression and bankruptcy ever since.

    1. Joe C. Avatar
      Joe C.

      Dang autocorrect!

  26. Eric Avatar
    Eric

    Is there any rhyme/reason to the box layout regarding vertical and/or horizontal position?

    I ask because higher up seems to imply better performance. But if so, I don’t understand why Carter w/ 10mil growth @ 7.5% is lower than GHWB w/ only 2.9mil growth but still at same 7.5%.

  27. […] A picture is worth a thousand words. […]

  28. buddyglass Avatar
    buddyglass

    I’d like to see the same visualization except using the percentage difference between end-of-term employment and the lowest employment level reached during that term. This would somewhat mitigate the circumstantial effects of business cycles, rising population and the advantage of having served two terms instead of one.

  29. John Avatar
    John

    Would be interesting to see these numbers compared with other Presidents that were in office when the country was in a depressions, like Hoover and Roosevelt. I think then we could compare apples to apples, with the picture as it is we can see comparisons with some Presidents that have undergone recessions or downturns, but not with Presidents that have been in office during a great depression.

  30. Tyler Avatar

    Ouch. As an Obama supporter, that data presentation is pretty brutal. If someone from the Rmoney campaign isn’t on it, they should be.

    However, comparing 8-year presidencies (Reagan, Clinton) to 2 or 3-year presidencies (Ford, Kennedy) is a little unfair. If you presented the infographic data in the form of a “per month job creation”, that would make for a fairer measurement across presidencies, since some presidencies are much, much shorter than others.

    Then Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter come out quite well:
    Carter: 10 million over 48 months: about 208,000 jobs per month
    Clinton: 18.7 million over 96 months: about 195,000 jobs per month
    Reagan: 16.7 million over 96 months: about 174,000 jobs per month
    Ford: 2.9 million over 17 months: about 170,000 jobs per month

    And though Eisenhower and WBush don’t come out so well, Obama ends up with — essentially — a 0 per month figure.
    WBush: 4.4 million over 96 months: about 46,000 jobs per month
    Eisenhower: 4.2 million over 96 months: about 44,000 jobs per month
    Obama: 0.1 million over 42 months: 238 jobs per month.

    Ouch. It would make for a similarly damaging infographic, AND it would provide a fairer comparison metric across presidencies. It does ignore the circumstances under which Obama took office (item #2 in the “unfair” list) it would essentially remove item #1 in that list from consideration.

  31. […] the chart prepared by Political Math.  On the two measures that matter the most — job creation and unemployment — Obama is […]

  32. TallDave Avatar

    Can you imagine if Bush had campaigned in 2004 on the “jobs created since the bottom of the recession” number? He would have been roasted alive by the MSM.

  33. Blaze Avatar
    Blaze

    So you are trying to tell us that Obama has only created 100,000 jobs? Balderdash.

    1. elkh1 Avatar
      elkh1

      No, Obama created no jobs. None of the presidents did. The graph says jobs gained during the president’s tenure. It is stupid to believe Obama or any presidents “created” jobs. Their policies, taxes and regulations, affect how many jobs are gained or lost.

      Btw, only private sector jobs create economic values, govt jobs don’t. That is why the bigger the govt., the bigger the drag on the economy.

      Obama, however, certainly destroyed jobs. E.g. He redistributed $535 million of taxpayers money to support his crony Kaiser’s Solyndra, which closed down. He redistributed billions of our money to GM which signed a contract to pay a Brit soccer team $600 million of our money to put “Chervolet” on their jerseys. Those money, if he was serious, could be used to revamp our infrastructure to “create” jobs.

  34. […] give you one chart to play with and contemplate, you liberal free-thinkers. http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819 Now, go and blame Bush that you still toilet training. On the other hand…I can clearly see […]

  35. elkh1 Avatar
    elkh1

    Seems an unemployment rate of 7.5% guarantees a change of party.

  36. […] here’s an interesting idea, courtesy of the whizkid at Political Math: using Bureaus Of Labor Statistics figures, where does President Obama rank among modern U.S. […]

  37. Grafight Avatar
    Grafight

    I Supported Clinton and Obama but now I know the republican candidate personally. I’m aware of his integrity and compassion first hand.

    So I see all these deliberate lies and attacks (with the sterling exception of Clinton, who defended Mitt’s record), all these distortions, and I think: “I was wrong about many of these Democrats and what they stand for”.

    Add to that the sore disappointment Obama has been. Tweak it all you want for accuracy, the graphic is clear: Obama has the worst jobs record of any president since WWII. And he thinks he’s one of the 4 greatest Presidents in History? He spends most of his time campaigning, fund-raising and playing golf! He’s our President in a time of crisis, worst unemployment ever and overseas turmoil. His best campaign strategy, his best fund-raising tool should be to sit down and do the damn job we hired him to do!

  38. […] here’s an interesting idea, courtesy of the whizkid at Political Math: using Bureaus Of Labor Statistics figures, where does President Obama rank among modern U.S. […]

  39. Matt W Avatar
    Matt W

    Looks like Veronica de Rugy liked your graph. (http://mercatus.org/publication/how-many-jobs-gained-during-presidential-tenure) Great minds must think pretty similarly though; from her post one might believe she arrived at the idea to create her graph totally independently.

  40. […] Political Math via WaPo (even they are turning on Obama!), via […]

  41. Noah Avatar
    Noah

    Many of us over at the Rutherford Lawson blog are interested in these job numbers. The host has dismissed out of hand these numbers claiming you have basically falsified your data. If you should have any desire many of us would love nothing better than to hear an explanation of these numbers. https://rutherfordl.wordpress.com/

    I just found your site a few days ago and so far I am a big fan. Thanks for taking the time to throw this all together.

    1. Rutherford Lawson Avatar

      Unfortunately Noah has mischaracterized my position. I did not say you falsified the data since the data does come from reliable BLS charts.

      What I said was that your explanation of your methodology was flawed and therefore either you made a mistake in your explanation or you were simply full of baloney.

      After examining the explanation of the BLS charts I have come to the conclusion that you wrote “undercount” in your analysis when you meant to write “overcount”.

      If that is the case, you don’t owe me any further explanation.

    2. Rutherford Lawson Avatar

      Specifically, I wrote the following most recently in the blog discussion of your analysis on my web site:

      The one thing I caught here that I missed before is that Table B potentially double counts people if they worked for two different companies in the survey period.

      This makes the following comment by PolMath totally nonsensical:

      “I’m using the Employment table from the BLS A Tables. This is not the one that most Obama proponents prefer to use. They prefer using the BLS B Tables because they give numbers that are kinder to Obama. But the B Tables UNDERCOUNT employment (they only count payrolls) and everyone knows this.” Emphasis mine.

      He’s right about why Obama would like Table B because it OVERCOUNTS employment, not undercounts employment as he wrote in his analysis.

      I think we’ve settled the matter. PolMath using Table A does hurt Obama’s numbers and is probably a more valid approach that avoids the potential dups in Table B. PolMath’s only problem is he wrote the wrong thing when he described his methodology.

  42. […] Job Records – September 6, 2012Posted in: Activism, Featured Stories The guys over at Political Math created a chart graph that puts all the talk about job creation in the proper […]

  43. […] out this graph from Political Math — it uses info from the Bureau of Labor statistics to compare how many jobs presidents since […]

  44. […] out this graph from Political Math — it uses info from the Bureau of Labor statistics to compare how many jobs presidents since […]

  45. […] and Democratic spin-doctors obviously will spit out their talking points, but here’s a visual put together by Political Math that trumps all the political maneuvering. If you’re wondering where Obama is, look at the […]

  46. […] and Democratic spin-doctors obviously will spit out their talking points, but here’s a visual put together by Political Math that trumps all the political maneuvering. If you’re wondering where Obama is, look at the lower […]

  47. […] Courtesy of Political Math Share this:Share Pin ItPrintEmailShare on TumblrLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

  48. Kyle Becker Avatar

    Dear politicalmath, PLEASE comment at IJ Review or via email on why George W. Bush’s average unemployment rate isn’t 5.3%, as I’ve seen reported in dozens of places.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15381-the-chart-obamas-employment-record-in-one-glance/

    Thanks much, and keep up the great work.

    1. Middle Molly Avatar

      Average unemployment rates over a period of years are somewhat meaningless, don’t you think? Even annual average unemployment rates are somewhat meaningless if you are in a period of rapid economic change.

  49. […] and Democratic spin-doctors obviously will spit out their talking points, but here’s a visual put together by Political Math that trumps all the political maneuvering. If you’re wondering where Obama is, look at the lower […]

  50. Merlyn Hall Avatar
    Merlyn Hall

    Interesting … Just noticed both Bushes left office with unemployment at 7.5% (according to this chart.) That means that’s the starting point for Clinton and Obama, yet Clinton is the biggest job creator and Obama is the worst. Clinton was 100 times better, which certainly can’t be made up by just being in there 2x longer. Is this a fair comparison to make?

    1. Middle Molly Avatar

      Unemployment was already up to 7.8% in adjusted numbers when Bush left office/Obama took office. I’d like to know where the author came up with the 7.5% number.

      Unemployment numbers, jobs numbers and rates are based on surveys taken the week the contains the 12th day of the month. As a result, all jobs numbers, numbers of people employed, the unemployment rate, etc., for January 2009 belong in the Bush column. The unemployment rate was 7.8% adjusted, 8.5% unadjusted in January 2009.

      Now, the unemployment rate for February 2009, which includes layoffs from the week of January 12th through the week of January 20th, days which still fell in the Bush term, jumped up to 8.3%.

      The unemployment rate when Bush I left office was 7.3% (I’m using the BLS historical table LNS14000000 and I don’t know where the author is getting these numbers.) Big difference between the economies that Clinton inherited and Obama inherited. Isn’t that obvious?

      The unemployment rate that Clinton inherited was declining, and had reached a peak in July 1992. The unemployment rate that Obama inherited was rising, had been rising since late 2006/early 2007, and was rising with a bullet by the time Obama took office.

      Did you really think that Obama was so great that he was going to stop the absolute free fall and start adding jobs on January 21st?

      The U.S. economy is like a big battleship.. they don’t turn around on a dime.

  51. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    Can you refresh this through August… or wait until the end of September?

  52. free minecraft Avatar

    of course like your web site but you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to tell the reality on the other hand I’ll certainly come back again.

  53. EUGENE MCCAIN Avatar
    EUGENE MCCAIN

    The graph is real and helpful. The argument, pro or con toward Obama lies in this: Is he responsible for the almost 4 million jobs lost in the first year of his Presidency, or is Bush. We all know that the budgets are always done a year in advance. So, in reality, the graph would be better if it showed job growth from one year after each President took office and included for one year after they left. This would then show the last Bush having a horrible second term. And Obama having a healthy first term. I think this is more accurate and more truthful and can be done comparing each President on the same basis.

  54. Lady Patriot Avatar

    Thank you for this great article. I used your graphic on my blog, http://www.ladypatriotus.blogspot.com. I tire of the Obama cult preaching of the great things Obama has done with job creation and the economy. Granted, Obama did come into a mess, but he has also left us with many pathetically failed policies. What the cult members see is his policies, not that they failed miserably.

  55. […] and Democratic spin-doctors obviously will spit out their talking points, but here’s a visual put together by Political Math that trumps all the political maneuvering. If you’re wondering where Obama is, look at the lower […]

  56. listas barcelona Avatar

    I believe that is one of the so much important info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. However want to observation on some general issues, The site taste is ideal, the articles is in point of fact great : D. Just right process, cheers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *