Talk:Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms

message: Why are we defining 'jobs' to mean only nonfarm payrolls instead of total employment (i.e., all jobs)? Tim Shell
Something isn't right here. I think the jobs data has some unit problems. Example: FDR's "start jobs"
number is 34,480 and the footnote to this column says "in millions." This seems unlikely. Perhaps the
start and end jobs columns are measured in thousands?
alodyne
The Department of Labor website has stats going back to 1939. Where were the job stats prior to 1939 cited from.
The statement by the author regarding the section - Controversial Bush Tax Cuts by numbers - doesn't make sense. The author states:
From December 2002 with 133952 thousand jobs to December 2007 with 146211 thousand jobs there was one of the biggest growth of jobs in US history. In 5 years there was 12,3 mil jobs "created".
However, the chart clearly shows that only 6.1 million jobs were created during Bush's entire administration. I don't know if the author's statement is correct or if the chart is correct but one of them is obviously wrong. According to the chart, more total jobs were created during Carter's FOUR years (10.3 M) than the 6.1 M during Bush's EIGHT years. 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no citation anyway, and the math doesn't even add up. 146211 - 133952 does not = 123000 no matter how many decibal places each number has. The grammar and punctuation are both pretty sad too. I think it should be treated as vandalism or perhaps a meddling 6 year old. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: for the purposes of jobs calculations, each new president starts in Feb, not Jan, because the Jan BLS surveys are completed while the outgoing president is still in office. Trump was in office 48 months, not 47, and his average was -56, while Obama's was +121. I will fix those. soibangla (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Note: The author changed the title of this section from it's previous title of "The Controversial Bush Tax Cuts", but has failed to address (and shows no inclination of doing so) the fundamental points of the NPOV challenge as outlined below.  Therefore, I believe it's reasonable to keep the NPOV challenge in place.
  
The author who added this section clearly cherry-picked a range of dates to state a maximum number of jobs were created - conveniently ending in the year 2007, before a 3 Million job loss in 2008.  The bias seems obvious and apparent to me.  
The main title of this page implies a granularity of "Presidential Term", therefore I believe it is inconsistent to be stating ANY conclusions on this page that don't conform with that granularity, i.e. ending a computation in 2007.  That of course would make the statement in this section redundant as the jobs creation during the G.W. Bush years are already covered in the section above.  Therefore, this section serves as nothing but political commentary and should be removed in my opinion.
The author's only defense to selecting a subset of years rather than address job creation during the *entire* time frame the tax cuts have been in effect or even during the *complete* G.W. Bush term, is their assertion that effects of tax cuts "expire" after 5 years. The author once again provides no authoritative cite for this claim.  Such an arbitrary claim also seems to run contradictory to the statutory time frame of the tax cuts themselves, as the tax cuts were authorized for a much longer period than 5 years - and indeed an on going effort is being made to make them *permanent*.  Clearly, the author's assertion that the effects of these tax cuts "ran out" in 2007 is not consistent with the views of those in Congress who enacted them, nor the ones who are lobbying for their permanence.
Furthermore, if the subject is the "Bush Tax Cuts", it belongs on it's own page where the author can provide authoritative and non-controversial references that establish a definite linkage between tax cuts and employment, and the topic can be expanded fully and appropriately with a neutral point of view.  
The author acknowledges that this subject is controversial in the very title that they selected, THAT alone should raise serious doubt as to whether it belongs on Wikipedia at all. Even if it should be deemed acceptable, it certainly deserves a more thorough treatment than an author selecting a narrow subset of dates and then declaring broad politically based conclusions from that.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinci56 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Section deleted as per the arguments here and below. Brendtron5000 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Section - "2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts by the numbers" 

message: By including both the fiscal and annual numbers, the chart is very confusing. I'd suggest using only the fiscal year. 
I think most people understand what is a fiscal year and why that is the only relevant data here.  A short mention of what is a fiscal year might be helpful, even so.  Calan (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Really! It's not clear if you are saying that the number of jobs was say 133,631 but then it turned out to be really 129,784 or if it was 133,631 PLUS 129,784. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The table is confusing 

message: The chart in the Controversy section should be removed as it is not objective and rather appears biased towards President Obama. jrn0074  —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It shows factual data based upon the BLS statistics.69.243.45.181 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See section below. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart under Controversy section 

message: Per my tag. I don't have time or energy (unless somebody gets my gander up :-) but should thought I'd opine. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole article is original research- somebody AfD it

message: Can someone add in why more jobs created under democratic presidents?  
Research is clear that more jobs are created by democratic Presidents.  But can we add in why?  Is this known, yet.  Is it luck or judgement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.9.30 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add in why more jobs created under democratic presidents? 

message: Washington Post is using a February to February computation.  Their article says that Barack Obama added 12.503 million jobs.  To get that figure:
FRED Payems Feb 2009: 133.312 million
FRED Payems Feb 2016: 145.815 million
Difference:  12.503, cited in WaPo
If you count February 2009 as period 0, Feb 2020 is period 96, which seems right (i.e., 96 periods of job changes).Farcaster (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post Methodology 

message: it has been asserted that Biden's job creation has been due only to recovery of jobs lost during the pandemic and that this doesn't count as "real" job creation, and Trump's job creation was better
private sector employment peaked in Feb 2020, then plummeted, then regained that peak in Apr 2022
during the 22 months since Apr 2022, private sector employment has increased 47% more than during the 22 months leading to the Feb 2020 peak
I encourage others to have fun with numbers. one might also find that private job creation during Trump's first three years was considerably lower than during Obama's last three years. just sayin' is all. soibangla (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers are fun