Category Archives: Econ Data

The Job Record in Obama’s First Term: Private Jobs Grew, and Government Jobs Were Cut

Posted on by

Cumul Private Job Growth from Inauguration, to Jan 2013

Cumul Govt Job Growth from Inauguration, to Jan 2013

With the recent release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the January job numbers, we can now look at the job record of Obama over his full first term, and compare it to that in the first term of Bush or others.  These new BLS numbers also reflect the impact of the re-benchmarking revisions (done each year at this time), which we noted in a post on this blog in October would likely show a substantial upward revision in the private job estimates in 2012, along with a substantial downward revision in the government job estimates.  The graphs above reflect these new numbers, and show cumulative job growth, private and government, over the full first terms of Obama and Bush.

Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans repeatedly charged in the recent campaign that private job creation plummeted under Obama, while he boosted government spending and jobs for bureaucrats.  The exact opposite happened.  Private jobs were indeed plummeting when Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, as he inherited the economic crisis that had begun in the last year of Bush.  But through the stimulus package and other measures (including in particular aggressive action by the Fed), he was able to turn this around quickly.  The economy started to grow again six months after he took office, and private jobs began to grow a year after he took office (see the top graph above).  Private job growth has continued at a fairly steady rate since, and by the time Obama took the oath of office for his second term, there were over 1.9 million more workers employed in private sector jobs than when he took the oath of office for his first term.  More significantly, there were 6.1 million more private sector jobs when Obama ended his first term term than there were at the trough a year after he took office.  And as the graph above shows, the pace of new private job creation has not slowed since that trough three years ago.

In contrast to the Obama record, private jobs fell during the first term of George W. Bush.  There were 950,000 fewer workers employed in private jobs when Bush started his second term than when he started his first.  They were also not plummeting when he first took office, as they had been under Obama, but only started to fall a few months later.  They then continued to fall for the first two and a half years of his term before finally starting to rise.  And when they finally started to rise, they grew at a slower pace (102,000 per month) for the last year and a half of Bush’s first term, than they did (at a pace of 170,000 per month) over the final three years of Obama’s first term.

Yet Republicans continue to argue that the policies under Bush, of tax cuts and lax or no proper regulation, are necessary to support the “job creators” and lead them to create private sector jobs.  The record shows that the approach followed under Obama was far more successful.

Government jobs followed a very different pattern.  Government jobs (at all levels of government, including state and local) grew by 900,000 over the four years of Bush’s first term, but they fell by 720,000 over the four years of Obama’s first term.  This is a net difference of 1.62 million jobs.  (The sharp peak in quarter 16 was due to hiring to fill temporary jobs for the decennial census.  Government jobs soon returned to their previous declining path as these census jobs ended.)

With a current labor force in the US of 156 million, the simple direct impact, had one allowed government jobs to have grown during Obama’s term as they had during Bush’s first term (the net difference of 1.62 million jobs), would have been to reduce the unemployment rate by 1.0%.  That is, the direct impact would have been to reduce the unemployment rate to 6.9% from the current 7.9%.

But there would also have been indirect impacts, as the newly employed government workers would have purchased goods and services with their new income, which would have in turn employed workers to produce those goods and services.  With a conservative estimate of this multiplier at two, unemployment would now be at 5.9%, which is within the range of 5 to 6% unemployment which is generally considered to be full employment (unemployment will never be zero).

There would of course also be a budgetary cost to employing more government workers.  But it is not that much.  Using BLS data on the average total compensation costs (including benefits) for government workers, employing an additional 1.62 million public sector workers would cost $140 billion per year.  While significant, this is only 2.5% of the $5.7 trillion that government spends each year (at all government levels) in the US currently.  Furthermore, the net impact on the budget will be a good deal less as there will be increased tax revenues generated as more people are employed (both directly and indirectly).

The still high unemployment in the US can therefore be accounted for by the decline in government employment during Obama’s first term.  Had government jobs been allowed to grow as they had under Bush, we would now be at, or at least close to, full employment.  Furthermore, while the calculations here use the growth of government employment during Bush’s first term as the benchmark, that growth of 900,000 government workers under Bush was not out of the ordinary.  Government employment grew by a bit less during Clinton’s first term (by 690,000), but by more during the term of Bush’s father (by 1,240,000).  Government employment also grew by 850,000 during Bush’s second term.

One would expect government to grow in an economy that is growing with a population that is growing.  The growth in government employment during Bush’s first (and second) terms was not unusual nor was it inappropriate.  Rather, what was unprecedented was the sharp fall during Obama’s first term.  Never before in US history (at least as far back as 1939, when the BLS statistics start) has government employment fallen by so much during a presidential term.  The only instance that can rival it is the fall after World War II during the 1945-49 term, when government employment fell by half as much as it had under Obama (by 360,000 then, vs. by 720,000 under Obama).

The sharp cut-back in government jobs under Obama is therefore historic.  It can account for the still high rate of unemployment.  It would not cost that much to hire back the school teachers, health care workers, policemen and firemen that have lost their jobs or have not been able to get such jobs.  Yet despite such historic cuts, Obama is still seen by conservatives as a socialist presiding over a government exploding in size.

Employment Growth: Still Sluggish

Posted on by

Employment, Monthly Change, Dec 2005 - Jan 2013

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its regular monthly report on employment this morning.  The report indicates that the trends seen since late 2010 have continued, with steady but modest growth in private employment, falling government employment, and a resulting growth in total employment that brings down the unemployment rate only slowly and with month to month fluctuations.  Total non-farm employment (from the Business Establishment Survey) rose by an estimated 157,000 in January, with private non-farm employment rising by 166,000 while government employment was cut by 9,000.

The figures in this report also reflect the impact of the regular annual re-benchmarking of the employment statistics.   As was discussed in an earlier posting on this blog, this re-benchmarking was expected to raise the estimates for employment in 2012, and it did.  But with revisions in the seasonally adjusted data going all the way back to 2008 (as is normal), the changes in 2012 itself were relatively modest as the base rose.  Under the earlier estimates, total non-farm employment growth in 2012 was estimated to have averaged 153,000 per month.  Under the revised figures, employment is estimated to have grown at about 181,000 per month, for an increase of 28,000 per month.  While an improvement, this still leaves monthly employment growth at less than the 200 to 250,000 per month that I had earlier noted in this blog would be needed to produce a steady and reasonably strong reduction in the unemployment rate.  But it is at least closer to what is needed.

And indeed, the unemployment rate from the separate Household Survey went up one notch to an estimated 7.9%, from 7.8% in December and November as well as September (it was an estimated 7.9% in October).  While such a small increase in the January rate is not statistically significant in itself (the numbers are all based on surveys), one can certainly say that the unemployment rate has not improved since September.

Like the Establishment Survey, the Household Survey that is used to calculate the unemployment rate (as well as labor participation and other figures) was revised to reflect new benchmarks and weights.  But unlike the Establishment Survey numbers (used for the employment estimates), the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not then go back and revise the previous estimates stemming from the Household Survey.  I do not know why.  One cannot then directly compare the January figures to those of December and earlier, to see what the changes were.

The BLS does, however, provide in a note the impact of the re-weighting on a few of the main estimates, including on the total number in the labor force, on those employed, and on those unemployed.  Taking this impact into account, the figures indicate that the number in the labor force was about unchanged in the month, while those employed (based on the Household Survey) fell by 110,000, and those unemployed rose by 117,000.  This is not good, and suggests that the unemployment rate rose (slightly) not because workers re-entered the labor force, but because workers lost jobs.  But too much should not be read into one month’s figures, particularly when the figures suggested by the Household Survey (that employment declined) contradict the figures indicated in the Establishment Survey (that employment rose).  Such contradictory moves in the month to month changes are not unusual between these two surveys, and the figures in the Establishment Survey are generally seen as more reliable for the total employment estimates.

Private employment growth is therefore continuing, and is indeed continuing at a rate that is somewhat higher than had been estimated before.  But total employment growth is being pulled down by continued cuts in government employment, and the overall rate of employment growth is not at what is needed to produce a steady and consistent decline in the rate of unemployment.  Perhaps the best that can be said is that the estimated fall in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2012 (discussed in a post on this blog yesterday) does not appear to have led to a sharp reduction in employment growth — at least not yet.

GDP Growth in the Fourth Quarter of 2012: Cuts in Government Spending Drove GDP Down

Posted on by

Growth of GDP and Contri of Govt, 2007Q1 to 2012Q4

BEA release of 1/30/13; Seasonally adjusted annualized rates       Percent Growth Contribution to GDP      Growth (% points)
2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4
Total GDP 1.3 3.1 -0.1 1.3 3.1 -0.1
A.  Personal Consumption Expenditure 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.06 1.12 1.52
B.  Gross Private Fixed Investment 4.5 0.9 9.7 0.56 0.12 1.19
 1.  Non-Residential Fixed Investment 3.6 -1.8 8.4 0.36 -0.19 0.83
 2.  Residential Fixed Investment 8.5 13.5 15.3 0.19 0.31 0.36
C.  Change in Private Inventories nm* nm* nm* -0.46 0.73 -1.27
D.  Net Exports nm* nm* nm* 0.23 0.38 -0.25
E.  Government -0.7 3.9 -6.6 -0.14 0.75 -1.33
Memo:  Final Sales 1.7 2.4 1.1 1.71 2.37 1.13
    nm* = not meaningful
$ Value of Change in Private Inventories (2005 prices) $41.4b $60.3b $20.0b

The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce released on January 30 its initial estimate (what it formally calls its “advance” estimate) of US GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2012.  The result was terrible:  GDP is estimated to have declined by a slight amount (0.1% at an annual rate).  While it is possible that this estimate will be revised upwards as the second and third revisions are released next month and the month after (there has historically been an upward revision on average of 0.3% points from the advance estimate to the third, and there was a particularly large upward revision in the 2012Q3 figures between the advance and third estimates), fourth quarter growth will still likely be disappointingly low.

The primary cause of the stagnation of GDP in the fourth quarter was a sharp cut in government spending.  As shown in the table above, total government spending on goods and services (federal, state, and local) fell at an annualized 6.6% rate in the quarter.  This had the direct impact of subtracting 1.33% points from what GDP growth would otherwise have been.  But there will also be an indirect impact, as workers who would have been employed producing goods and services for government would in turn buy goods and services themselves with the salaries they would have received.  With a multiplier of just two, the impact of the cut in government spending in the fourth quarter was a subtraction of 2.66% points (2 x 1.33% points) from what growth would have been.

Most of the decline in government spending was due to a large fall in spending at the federal level, although state and local spending fell some as well.  Federal government spending fell at an annualized rate of 15%, all due to a fall in defense spending at an annualized rate of 22%.  These declines more than offset increases of an estimated 9.5% and 13% in total federal and in defense spending respectively in the third quarter, which had contributed to the relatively good GDP growth of 3.1% in that quarter.  The swings were likely due to end of the fiscal year spending (the federal fiscal year ends September 30) which was particularly sharp last year and therefore not picked up in the normal seasonal adjustment calculations.  The fall in the fourth quarter of 2012 (the first quarter of the fiscal year) reflected the continued budget uncertainty, as Congress threatens to slash the current budget drastically, either by design or through the automatic sequester cut-backs dictated as part of the agreement to get out of the debt ceiling debacle in 2011, that might be instituted soon (see below).

The fall in government spending in the fourth quarter was particularly sharp, but government spending has been falling in each quarter but two since the beginning of 2010.  The resulting fiscal drag has held back growth.  The figures are shown in the graph at the top of this blog.  The graph shows the rate of growth of GDP each quarter (in blue, at annualized rates) since the beginning of 2007, plus the direct contribution to this growth each quarter from government expenditures (in red).

Government spending rose each quarter in 2007 and 2008, the last two years of the Bush Administration, and this continued into 2009 after Obama was inaugurated.  The growth in government expenditures was particularly sharp in the second quarter of 2009 as the stimulus measures started, and this succeeded in turning around GDP.  GDP was falling at an annualized rate of 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and this carried over into the first quarter of 2009 with an annualized fall of 5.3%.  But then GDP stabilized and began to grow in the third quarter of 2009, and it has grown each quarter since until the fourth quarter of 2012.

But GDP growth since 2010 has been disappointingly modest, at rates of just 2 to 3% a year on average (with some quarterly fluctuation), as it has been dragged down by the falling government expenditures over this period.  As has been noted in earlier postings on this blog (for example here and here), the resulting fiscal drag can explain fully why this recovery has been modest in comparison to the recoveries seen in previous downturns in the US economy over the past four decades.

The other major factor explaining the stagnation of GDP in the fourth quarter was the negative contribution from inventory accumulation.  The change in private inventories led to 1.27% points being subtracted from what GDP growth otherwise would have been.  But as was explained in an Econ 101 posting on this blog, it is the change in the change in private inventory accumulation which acts to contribute to (or subtract from) GDP growth in any given period.

One sees news reports that still get this wrong, with statements such as that inventories fell by $40 billion in the fourth quarter.  This is not correct.  As noted in the table above, inventories actually grew by $20 billion in the fourth quarter.  But they grew by more (by $60 billion) in the third quarter.  That is, the change (the growth) in inventories was $60 billion in the third quarter, while the change (the growth) in inventories was again positive at $20 billion in the fourth quarter.  But while they continued to grow, they did not grow as fast as before, and the change in the change in inventories was a negative $40 billion.  This subtracted 1.27% points from GDP growth.

As was noted a year ago on this blog when the figures for GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011 were released, an increase in private inventory accumulation in that quarter largely explained the relatively good growth rate of that quarter.  But I argued this would then likely be reversed, with inventories not growing as fast and perhaps even declining, which would act as a drag on growth in 2012.  The 2012 figures now out show that this in fact happened, with a negative contribution of private inventory accumulation to GDP growth in the first, second, and fourth quarters.

Other than the drag from cuts in government spending and the deceleration of inventory accumulation, the other components of GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 were generally quite good.  Residential fixed investment grew at an annualized rate of 15.3%, continuing the strong growth seen already in the second and third quarters.  But residential fixed investment was only 2.6% of GDP in the fourth quarter, so the rapid growth on this small base only made a contribution of 0.36% points to GDP growth in the quarter.  In contrast, government spending in the fourth quarter was 19.3% of GDP (down from 19.6% of GDP in the third quarter).  [Figures on GDP shares directly from BEA on-line GDP tables.]

Non-residential fixed investment (basically private business investment in capital and structures) also grew at a good rate in the fourth quarter, at 8.4% annualized, reversing a small decline seen in the third quarter.  And personal consumption expenditure rose at a 2.2% rate.  Since personal consumption accounts for 71% of GDP spending, this 2.2% increase contributed 1.52% points to what GDP growth would have been.

The fourth quarter GDP report therefore would have been solid, had it not been for the sharp cuts in government spending in the quarter.  Accumulation of private inventories then responds, as businesses do not want to see inventories mounting up on the shelves when they cannot be sold and scale back production (or in the fourth quarter, still increase their inventories, but not by as much as before).

The danger to the economy now is that government spending will be scaled back even further, as a Republican controlled Congress insists on slashing public expenditures.  If nothing is agreed to, then the sequesters that Congress required in August 2011 as a condition for the debt ceiling increase (so that the US would not then be forced to default) will mandate a sharp scaling back in federal government expenditures.  While the deadline for this was pushed back to March 1 from January 1 as part of the fiscal cliff agreement at the end of 2012, there is still a deadline.  The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated in a recent report that should the sequester enter into effect on March 1, defense spending would be cut by $42.7 billion, or 7.3%, while non-defense spending would be cut by also $42.7 billion, or 5.1% for programs included other than Medicare (Medicare would be cut by 2.0%).

Such cuts, especially if they suddenly enter into effect on March 1, would be devastating to  the economy.  Note that while federal spending already fell by 15% at an annualized rate in the fourth quarter, this fall at a quarterly rate is just 3.6%.  The sudden cuts under the sequester would be far larger.

Almost all of the participants in this budget process, both Democrat and Republican, agree that the sequester is something to be avoided.  The sequester requirement was in fact set up precisely as something both sides would want to avoid, so that agreement would be reached on some other budget plan.  But Republicans are insisting on similarly large cuts in any budget.  They simply wish that the cuts would fall more on domestic programs affecting the poor and middle classes, and less on the military.  But economically the problem for GDP growth would remain if similarly sized cuts are forced through, and would indeed be worse (in terms of the impact on GDP, even ignoring the distributional consequences) if they are re-focused on programs for the poor and middle classes.

Finally, it is worth noting that the price index figures also released by the BEA on January 30 as part of the GDP accounts still show no indication that inflation is any issue.  While conservatives have been asserting since Obama took office four years ago that high deficits resulting from his policies would lead to high inflation, that has not occurred.  The price deflator for GDP, the most broad-based index measuring inflation, grew by only 1.8% in 2012.  The price deflator for the personal consumption expenditures component of GDP (the price deflator that Alan Greenspan reportedly favored for tracking inflation) grew by a similar 1.7% in 2012.  These are both just below the target of 2% for inflation that the Federal Reserve Board favors.  (Inflation of zero is not desired by the Fed or others as it is then easy for the economy to slip into deflation, which makes management of the economy even more difficult.)

And inflation in the fourth quarter of 2012 was even less, at just 0.6% for the GDP deflator and 1.2% for the personal consumption expenditures deflator.  The prediction of both conservative economists and politicians that high deficits under Obama would lead to high inflation unless government expenditures were slashed drastically, could not have been more wrong.