A stark demonstration of the uneven nature of our “recovery” from the longest recession since the Great Depression. Texas is carrying the nation!
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/09/dallas-morning-news-editorial-writer-william-ruggles-coined-the-term-right-to-work-on-labor-day-in-1941/
Since 2007, employment in the state of Texas has increased by more than 1.3 million jobs (and by 12%), compared to a net deficit of more than 1.2 million jobs over that same period in the rest of the country.
Comments 19
Richard, Why do you call it the Obama recession? I suppose if Obama was our previous president it would make more sense. I don’t call it the Bush recession because the root causes of it were the result of deregulation (mostly crafted by conservatives) signed into law by Reagan and Clinton. People need to start putting their country before their party. Thanks Fox news for making that impossible.
Obama, by threatening to ban guns, has resulted in a couple of banner years during his administration for the gun industry. That helped the economy a little.
It’s only fair to give them man credit where credit is due.
Michael,
I assume that you are being sarcastic. $11 billion in gun sales for 2013 is certainly impressive, but its effect on a $16.8 Trillion GDP isn’t.
On a more serious note, why is Richard calling 2007-2014 the Obama Recession when President Obama didn’t even take office until January, 2009?
Author
It STARTED as the Bush recession, but Obama deserves credit for turning it INTO the Obama recession — with the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Absent Texas (whose policies Obama constantly denigrates), we’d still be in a quagmire. Why don’t you progressives give your man credit for his work?
But I want to be fair. Let’s agree to call it the Bush-Obama recession. Or, if you liberals want top billing, the Obama-Bush recession.
I’ve never been a fan of George W. Bush.
Job creation during the terms of Presidents since John F. Kennedy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Kennedy/Johnson: +15.8 million
Nixon/Ford: +10.8 million
Carter: +10.3 million (one term)
Reagan: +16.1 million
Bush, Sr.: +2.6 million (one term)
Clinton: +22.7 million
Bush, Jr.: +1.1 million
Obama: +5.2 million (to date)
HQ, does that include ammo and accessories? Or just gun sales? Because a gun is just a onetime cost. The real expense is all the other stuff. Flashlights, optics, fore grips, safes, holsters, magazines, sights, stocks, ammunition, ammo carriers, targets, slings, etc.
I’d like to give Obama as much credit as is due to him for bolstering this section of the economy, no matter how small.
Michael,
I think the $11 billion included guns and ammo. Either way, it is a big number. I got the data from http://www.statisticbrain.com/firearm-industry-statistics/.
I wonder if the $11 billion is the real number or what they told their wife they spent?
If it is what they told their wife, then the real number is much higher.
Author
Note that the number of employed is based on the number of JOBS. If a person holds two part-time jobs, that counts as two people employed (it’s in your reference). IF the employer uses three people part-time to do a 40 hour/week job, that’s three jobs and three people employed.
The one area where Obama has EXCELLED is in the expansion of part-time employment. THAT makes up much of our booming economy.
The other area Obama has had some success is in killing off well-paying middle class jobs (a trend that predates his Presidency) while creating lots of low-pay service jobs. Indeed, he’s probably created more minimum wage jobs than any President in history!
Richard,
“…he’s (Obama) probably created more minimum wage jobs than any President in history!”
Citation, please
I don’t know about Presidents, but as far as Governors are concerned, Rick Perry wins the prize for most minimum wage jobs:
From http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20130312-texas-has-nations-most-minimum-wage-workers.ece:
“Texas had the most minimum-wage workers last year, accounting for nearly 13 percent of all such workers across the country, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
HQ,
those job creation stats I assume are from inauguration to when they left. I think we both know that timing plays a part in that.
But that’s part of te game of being Prez. and also why its the Obama Prez. When you sign up to run you say you want the job including all the downsides. For the last 5+ years its been Obama’s economy and its been a recession so it’s Obama’s recession. Saying he was shouldering the bush recession in his first term is understandable but now its his second term. Likewise with Reagan – it was the Carter Downturn but it eventually became the Reagan Boom. Right?
Is this really a Texas phenomenon or an Energy Phenomenon? Richard, I think the article really points out that Energy production, more than websites and Apple products, is what drives economic growth. This of course flies in the face as to what the media says about cube life and innovation being the main drivers.
Elliot,
Yes those job creation number are from the first day in office until the day the new President took over. One could argue that a President should be probably get credit (or blame) for the year after he left office and not get the same for the first year in office. Except for that making Obama look better and Bush, Jr. look worse, I don’t think the overall 50+ years of statistics would look much different.
And I agree with you that this is Obama’s economy. I also agree that we have had stronger economic periods, but we are not in a recession, nor have we been for the last five years. The term recession has a very specific meeting which we haven’t come close to meeting since June, 2009.
A record 92,269,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in August, as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent in six of the last twelve months, but prior to last October had not fallen that low since 1978.
T.A,
True statistic, but much of the decrease is due to an aging labor force. Well before Obama even took office, demographers forecasted that we would have an increasing percentage of retirees to active workers. Unless most people suddenly start working into their 70s and beyond, this trend will continue regardless of who occupies the White House.
Author
HQ, how EMBARRASSING for you. With your Texas minimum wage example, you are using absolute numbers, rather than PERCENTAGES. You can do better.
Texas has the second largest population in the nation — over 27,000,000 or so. So NATURALLY they are going to have rank high in the most number of people in ANYTHING. If it were not for the dismal state of the California economy, it’s likely WE would have been number one.
But thanks for the article. If you drill a little deeper in the piece (they do that a lot in Texas — drilling), you’ll find that the actual number of minimum wage jobs in Texas has been dropping annually since 2009. Moreover, there has has been an increase in the number of jobs in every job quartile — especially the middle class. Not likely in California.
Finally, a minimum wage job in Texas provides far more bang for the buck than it does in most other states. Especially in California, where we lead the nation in COL-adjusted poverty rate.
Richard,
Yes, Texas is the second most populous state in the country, but as of the 2010 census, Texas still only had 8.1% of the U.S. population. As you would like to point out, having 13% of the minimum wage workers means that Texas has 60.5% more minimum wage workers than would be expected if it only had “an average” number.
Author
HQ, THAT’s the point you should have made — but instead you stooped to the smarmy tactic of using absolute numbers. As I said, you can do better — belatedly you did here.
And as I pointed out, the number of Texas minimum wage workers has been dropping since 2009. It’s an especially impressive drop, given the flow of economic refugees that have fled to Texas — unlike (and including much of) the net domestic OUT-migration of California.
How’s our number of minimum wage workers going? Those that can find a job, that is.
It’s not just the numbers and percentages that are important — it’s the TREND that should most concern us all. In most of the beneficial categories, Texas is catching up or passing California. Including per capita GDP and investing per capita.
Richard,
The only statistics I can find concern the number of people making the Federal minimum wage. As you can imagine, the numbers in California are incredibly low because we have a higher minimum wage. I will not insult your intelligence by quoting those statistics and pretending that I would be making a fair comparison with Texas.
As for the trends, I think we put way t0o much emphasis on short-term trends (especially when they “prove” our point). There is absolutely no argument that “energy producing” states have done very well over the last few years, but over the long term, I will still bet on California’s diverse economy to win out. Let’s talk in 20 years and see who is correct.