It's the ECONOMY Stupid! Factoids from the 'Icky 90's'
Submitted by ms in la on April 12, 2008 - 3:44pm.
Economy
Because all of my findings on the economy of the 90's vs Bush era posted on the GD yesterday have mysteriously vanished - I thought I'd put the dry numbers version of the research in a blog here so it's readily accessible for anyone.
All data from the US DEPT OF LABOR - Bureau of Labor Statistics:
The graphs of the 90's economic data are dramatic and telling, but the links and images all seem too buggy and don't travel well ... so this info gathered below is extracted directly from the raw data at the site, and filed here "for the record". In case anyone needs to use it in those blog arguments about the icky horrible rotten depressing 90's economy - specifically the midwestern manufacturing sector which has been so devastated during the Bush years. But NOT during the Clinton years-- contrary to what has been alleged by certain presidential candidates and supporters ...
You can search the site yourself, but it's not easily navigable to find the specific states' info. They make it hard to locate and retrieve the detailed reports for some reason. But with patience you can find those graphs and charts yourself - the visual has a much more stronger impact.
----------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL STATISTICS:
----------------------------------------------------
UNEMPLOYMENT
In 1999 the overall Unemployment Rate nationally was around 4%.
By 2003, during the Bush administration, the national Unemployment Rate had risen by 50% to approx 6%
NATIONAL MANUFACTURING JOB STATS 1992 to 2008:
Depending on the difference between the MANUFACTURING of durable vs non-durable goods- anywhere from 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs have been LOST in the nation since 1992
Conversely, during the Clinton administration, nearly 1 million NEW manufacturing jobs were ADDED in the nation between 1992 and 2000.
Subsequently, from 2000 to 2008, during the Bush administration, there were approximately 2,250,000 manufacturing jobs LOST nationally.
------------------------------------------------------
"RUST BELT" ECONOMIC STATS 1990's - 2008
------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA- MANUFACTURING JOBS - 1992 to present:
In the period from 1992 to 2000, during the Clinton Administration, Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs were consistently at or just under 900,000. This figure holds steady through the period with no significant dips or peaks.
Just after 2000, a huge descent begins and continues throughout the Bush administration to 2008 in a steep decline - Around 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania were lost during the Bush Administration thus far.
Sharpest declines occur between 2001 to 2004. By the end of 2001 over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have gone from Pennsylvania from the early 1990's numbers. The lowest numbers of manufacturing jobs in PA are found in the year 2008.
PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT DATA
In 1998- the number of employed persons in PA is approximately 220,000 higher than it was in 1992.
In the same time frame the Unemployment Rate in PA went from 7.6% in 1992 down to 4.6% in 1998, or a 40% drop
By 1999- Employment in PENNSYLVANIA was at 62% and the Unemployment Rate was lower still at 4.4%
By 2002 Pennsylvania's Unemployment Rate was up to 5.7%
----------------------------------------------------
OHIO EMPLOYMENT DATA
When Clinton took office, there were 5,000,000 employed persons on the rolls in Ohio. (16 yrs and older)
Each successive year through to 1998 (these stats offer only 92-98) approx 100,000 new people were added to the employed list
(*exceptions: 1996 only added about 50,000 and 1998 numbers held steady from previous year)
By 1998- at @ 5,400,000-- there were approximately 350,000- 400,000 more employed in Ohio than there were in 1992.
In the same period (1992-1998) the Unemployment Rate in OHIO went from 7.3% down to 4.3% - a decline of 42%.
In 1999 OHIO Employment was at 64% and the Unemployment Rate still at a low 4.3%.
By 2002 however,like PA, OHIO's Unemployment Rate had climbed to 5.7%
In 2003 the Unemployment Rate was higher yet at 6.1%
----------------------------------------------------
INDIANA EMPLOYMENT DATA
1998 shows @350,000 more employed persons, 16 yrs and older, in INDIANA than there were in 1992.
The Unemployment Rate declined in the same period from 6.6% to 3.1% -- representing about a 54% drop.
In 1999- INDIANA had 66% employment and the Unemployment Rate was at a low 3%
By 2002, during the Bush Administration, the Unemployment had already climbed to 5.6%
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT DATA
1998 shows @600,000 more "employed" persons in MICHIGAN than there had been in 1992.
The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE declined from 7.7% to 3.3% in the same 6 yr period - a 58% decline.
In 1999 MICH, like INDIANA, saw 66% employment.
In 2002 the Unemployment Rate spikes from the earlier 3% up to 6.2% - over 100% higher.
In 2003 Unemployment rate is higher still at 7.3%
In 2007 the Unemployment rate is hovering around 7.1%
--------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: No-- the Clinton years do NOT represent the decline of jobs in the American labor force, or the loss of manufacturing jobs or general midwestern 'Rust Belt' jobs in America. Anyone who maintains otherwise is propagating more 1990's revisionist mythology and telling Fairy Tales...
My post from the GD last night on the AP story of Bitter Gate, Obama's quote, and the missing portion regarding rust belt job loss that resulted from the Clinton and Bush era. I notice now he is simply saying "the past 25 yrs" without naming any administration responsible.
-------------------------------------
Damage control?
Submitted by ms in la on April 12, 2008 - 3:19am.
The AP version of this story just went up 13 minutes ago. Looks like someone went in and sliced that egregious section right out of the comment! Maybe they saw all my disappearing graphs? LOL!
The transcripted version
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter."
The new, improved "cleaned up" AP version tonight:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years.... And it's not surprising then they get bitter"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bitter_voters
The Clinton era slam was replaced by ... a series of dots. Somebody must have checked with the Bureau of Labor! :)
The journalists at AP are so captivated with "hope" that they "change" and correct mis-statements. If it helps the candidate of "hope" and "change", what is a small "change" in what he said? It would not be appropriate to quote him literally when he actually meant something else. So now we have come full circle: the media reports what the candidate should have said, that takes reporting to a new level. And Karl Rove laughs in his office somewhere in the hill country of Texas.
and he tosses the passages that offend Big Brother into the memory hole.
Very Orwellian.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Thank you for gathering this info into a blog, ms in la. I will definitely be passing it along as necessary! And it's soooooo good to see posting! :D
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking 'in reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
-Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 06
You were determined and willing to fight on!!! heh-heh!!! Take that Dept. of Labor!!! We have our own Hillary here. A women that doesn't give up. Congrats gal, you are the best!
Regarding the unemployment rate, which officially is "not that bad" right now.
Well I recently read that more men between the ages of 25 - 55 are not in the work force than in times with much higher unemployment rates. Typically, I can't find the link in my Del.icio.us bookmarks.
These are a couple of the responses at MyDD, after I posted the above data there:
He is right. The Clintons were basically Republicans. Just look at their record: NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Capital Gains Tax Cuts, DOMA. All Republican causes.
People don't want to admit it. Yes, the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer during the Clinton years. More African-American men were incarcerated during the Clinton years because of tough drug laws that the Clintons passed.
It was a great eight years for upper to middle class white folks not us though.
Plus the claim that the data was cherry picked and that although there were jobs added, they were low paying jobs, and unions were being gutted.
I'm telling you, it's no use trying to talk to these people. They know what they know and nothing will change that. The only reality they will cling to is Clinton = BAD, Obama = GOOD.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/12/182618/616#commenttop
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Wes would be proud!
There were some that supported the information. That "politicsmatters" person is wrong when they accused you of not talking about manufacturing jobs-- that was the main thrust of the research. They obviously belong to that post-literate group that doesn't take time to read what they comment on ... It's more fun that way. There is just NO way you can use any of the actual data to construe a manufacturing job crisis during the Clinton era. Aint gonna happen. Unless you assign the Dept of Labor to being a covert operation created by the shadowy Clinton Machine underworld - only formulated to make the Clinton Machine look better so they could steal the White House... again. Because we all know... she'll do ANYTHING to win... : /
Oh and excellent response with the data about AA poverty rates too! That was great!
Trouble is I think many of these people might not be old enough to remember the era we were coming out of... Reaganomics. I had to step over bodies 5 thick in downtown LA to get into the buildings-- there were so many homeless people living on the streets. I would take food down to them at night and distribute it from the trunk of my car.
So that's what he started with. And that's what he did with it. They whine about NAFTA or welfare... do these people have a clue about Obama's senior economic advisor??? His plans for Social Security? Egads. Gonna be some surprised "progressives" if he gets in...
And, Jen, thanks for trying to educate the
Obama-bots. Wes said "Keep fighting."
There are just too many people who were kids in the 1990s and buy into the meme that all things bad that started with W began with Bill.
Just found this on No quarter. Read the entire article, that Larry laid out. Gosh MS, you and Larry think alike :<)
http://noquarterusa.net:80/blog/2008/04/14/obama-missed-the-nineties/#more-2162
current Article
Who Kidnapped Barack Obama?
By Larry Johnson on April 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM in Current Affairs
Poor Barack Obama. Someone kidnapped him during Bill Clinton’s term as President. Hel him hostage in a dark room, cut off from the news. How else to explain Barack’s persistent and erroneous recounting of history? Maybe Uncle Jeremiah Wright had him tied to a pew. Barack’s statement about the root cause for the bitterness of small town Pennsylvanians–you know, folks who seek solace in guns, God, or immigrant bashing because they are pissed–blames the economic policies of George Bush and Bill Clinton. I can understand the George Bush reference. Our economy and Federal budget have been raped by W. But Clinton? That is just a damn lie.
Honest to God. Couldn’t this be further indication that Barack is using mind altering drugs? How else to explain a comment so out of touch with reality? Here are the facts. This is from a Clinton/Gore website in 2000:
Go To the site for lists of what was accomplished during Clintons administration.
I don't have time now to read it all but will later. Running to a meeting.
Did he mention how the AP scrubbed that part out of the speech? That's really a significant part of this to me. If he didn't - somebody should add it to the comments. The example is in the comments here.
I met Larry at YKos 1 and he was so cool! Really liked him and Joe Wilson, they hung out together there. And they were both at Wes's party at the Hard Rock!
They really need to figure these numbers into the CPI. This is getting really serious.
1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton.
2.GDP---grew by 57% more under Clinton.
3.DOW— grew by 700% more under Clinton
4.NASDAQ- grew by 18 times under Clinton.
5.SPENDING--grew by 28% under Clinton---80% under Reagan.
6.DEBT— grew by 43% under Clinton —187% under Reagan.
7.DEFICITS— Clinton got a large surplus--Deficits grew by 112% under Reagan.
8.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by 100% under Clinton.
9.PERSONAL INCOME—Grew by 110% under Clinton.
SOURCES—
Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)--
Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—
Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times)
National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov
LA Times 10-11-00 on Market--www.Find articles.com