Question: What decision did the Fed make regarding interest rates in the U.S. in 2015, December?

Answer: raise interest rates marginally

Government spending and taxation decisions (fiscal policy) and U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate adjustments (monetary policy) are important tools for managing the unemployment rate. There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create inflationary pressure, and vice versa. The U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) has a dual mandate to achieve full employment while maintaining a low rate of inflation. Debates regarding monetary policy during 2014-2015 centered on the timing and extent of interest rate increases, as a near-zero interest rate target had remained in place since the 2007-2009 recession. <hl> Ultimately, the Fed decided to raise interest rates marginally in December 2015. <hl>

Government spending and taxation decisions (fiscal policy) and U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate adjustments (monetary policy) are important tools for managing the unemployment rate. There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create inflationary pressure, and vice versa. The U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) has a dual mandate to achieve full employment while maintaining a low rate of inflation. Debates regarding monetary policy during 2014-2015 centered on the timing and extent of interest rate increases, as a near-zero interest rate target had remained in place since the 2007-2009 recession. Ultimately, the Fed decided to <hl> raise interest rates marginally <hl> in December 2015.


Question: What can policies that are meant to bring unemployment rates lower trigger?

Government spending and taxation decisions (fiscal policy) and U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate adjustments (monetary policy) are important tools for managing the unemployment rate. There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create inflationary pressure, and vice versa. The U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) has a dual mandate to achieve full employment while maintaining a low rate of inflation. Debates regarding monetary policy during 2014-2015 centered on the timing and extent of interest rate increases, as a near-zero interest rate target had remained in place since the 2007-2009 recession. Ultimately, the Fed decided to raise interest rates marginally in December 2015.

Answer: inflationary pressure

Government spending and taxation decisions (fiscal policy) and U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate adjustments (monetary policy) are important tools for managing the unemployment rate. <hl> There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create inflationary pressure , and vice versa. <hl> The U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) has a dual mandate to achieve full employment while maintaining a low rate of inflation. Debates regarding monetary policy during 2014-2015 centered on the timing and extent of interest rate increases, as a near-zero interest rate target had remained in place since the 2007-2009 recession. Ultimately, the Fed decided to raise interest rates marginally in December 2015.

Government spending and taxation decisions (fiscal policy) and U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate adjustments (monetary policy) are important tools for managing the unemployment rate. There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create <hl> inflationary pressure <hl>, and vice versa. The U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) has a dual mandate to achieve full employment while maintaining a low rate of inflation. Debates regarding monetary policy during 2014-2015 centered on the timing and extent of interest rate increases, as a near-zero interest rate target had remained in place since the 2007-2009 recession. Ultimately, the Fed decided to raise interest rates marginally in December 2015.

There may be an economic trade-off between unemployment and inflation, as policies designed to reduce unemployment can create <hl> inflationary pressure <hl> , and vice versa.


Question: What are citizens who argue for lower taxes and reduced regulation called?

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

Answer: conservatives

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and <hl> conservatives <hl> arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What do polls tell us most Americans think should be the most important government policy?

Answer: job creation

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the <hl> job creation <hl> rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What did much of the 2012 presidential election focus on?

Answer: job creation

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the <hl> job creation <hl> rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: The Americans who advocate for more government spending are called?

Answer: liberals

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with <hl> liberals <hl> arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: About how many U.S. Jobs were added from October 2010 to November 2015?

Answer: 12.4 million

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. <hl> From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards. <hl>

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of <hl> 12.4 million <hl> jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: The Americans who advocate for more government spending are called?

Answer: liberals

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with <hl> liberals <hl> arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What are citizens who argue for lower taxes and reduced regulation called?

Answer: conservatives

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and <hl> conservatives <hl> arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What do polls tell us most Americans think should be the most important government policy?

Answer: job creation

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the <hl> job creation <hl> rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: About how many U.S. Jobs were added from October 2010 to November 2015?

Answer: 12.4 million

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. <hl> From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards. <hl>

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of <hl> 12.4 million <hl> jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What did much of the 2012 presidential election focus on?

Answer: job creation

<hl> The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the job creation rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. <hl> Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.

The major political parties debate appropriate solutions for improving the <hl> job creation <hl> rate, with liberals arguing for more government spending and conservatives arguing for lower taxes and less regulation. Polls indicate that Americans believe job creation is the most important government priority, with not sending jobs overseas the primary solution. Much of the 2012 Presidential campaign focused on job creation as a first priority, but the fiscal cliff and other fiscal debates took precedence in 2012 and early 2013. Critics argued prioritizing deficit reduction was misplaced, as there was no immediate fiscal crisis but there was a high level of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. From October 2010 to November 2015, the U.S. added a total of 12.4 million jobs, with positive job growth each month averaging 203,000, a robust rate by historical standards.


Question: What is it called when someone is jobless AND they are looking for a job and available to work that job?

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

Answer: Unemployment

<hl> Unemployment can be measured in several ways. <hl> A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

<hl> Unemployment <hl> can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.


Question: About what was the unemployment rate in 2015, December?

Answer: 5.0% or 7.9 million people

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. <hl> For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people , while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. <hl> These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was <hl> 5.0% or 7.9 million people <hl>, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was <hl> 5.0% or 7.9 million people <hl> , while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people.


Question: What broad rate includes part time people who are working but don't make enough to live on called?

Answer: U-6 unemployment rate

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. <hl> For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate , which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. <hl> These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader <hl> U-6 unemployment rate <hl>, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader <hl> U-6 unemployment rate <hl> , which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people.


Question: How many United States citizens make up the civilian labor force?

Answer: 157.8 million

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. <hl> These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. <hl> The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately <hl> 157.8 million <hl> people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.


Question: What is the approximate TOTAL population of the United states?

Answer: 323 million

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. <hl> These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately 323 million people. <hl> The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.

Unemployment can be measured in several ways. A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. For example, as of December 2015, the unemployment rate in the United States was 5.0% or 7.9 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed was 9.9% or approximately 16.4 million people. These figures were calculated with a civilian labor force of approximately 157.8 million people, relative to a U.S. population of approximately <hl> 323 million <hl> people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a monthly "Employment Situation Summary" with key statistics and commentary.


Question: During what decade did the U.S. Government begin collecting unemployment information by polls?

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%.  There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015.  A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

Answer: 1940s

<hl> During the 1940s , the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. <hl> Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the <hl> 1940s <hl>, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the <hl> 1940s <hl> , the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys.


Question: What was the unemployment rate during much of World War I?

Answer: 1%

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. <hl> The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. <hl> More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as <hl> 1% <hl> during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.


Question: What part of the U. S. Work force was unemployed during the Great Depression?

Answer: 25%

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. <hl> The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. <hl> More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as <hl> 25% <hl> during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.


Question: During a recession what happens to the unemployment rate?

Answer: tends to rise

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. <hl> Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. <hl> From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment <hl> tends to rise <hl> during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as frictional unemployment. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.


Question: What is the term for the slight changes caused by people changing places of work and new people just beginning their job search?

Answer: frictional unemployment

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. <hl> This is referred to as frictional unemployment . <hl> For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

During the 1940s, the U.S Department of Labor, specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began collecting employment information via monthly household surveys. Other data series are available back to 1912. The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November 1982 and 10.0% in October 2009. Unemployment tends to rise during recessions and fall during expansions. From 1948-2015, unemployment averaged about 5.8%. There is always some unemployment, with persons changing jobs and new entrants to the labor force searching for jobs. This is referred to as <hl> frictional unemployment <hl>. For this reason, the Federal Reserve targets the natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU, which was around 5% in 2015. A rate of unemployment below this level would be consistent with rising inflation in theory, as a shortage of workers would bid wages (and thus prices) upward.

This is referred to as <hl> frictional unemployment <hl> .


Question: How much did the tax increases and budget cuts aim to reduce the deficit by?

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Answer: half

<hl> During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half . <hl> Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in <hl> half <hl>. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in <hl> half <hl> .


Question: How did the Congressional Budget Office describe the proposed changes?

Answer: premature and misguided

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. <hl> Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided . <hl> The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was <hl> premature and misguided <hl>. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was <hl> premature and misguided <hl> .


Question: What year were the proposed spending cuts for?

Answer: 2013

<hl> During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013 , which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. <hl> Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in <hl> 2013 <hl>, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in <hl> 2013 <hl> , which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half.


Question: Did the Congressional Budget Office make a prediction as to what the unemployment rate would be?

Answer: 9%

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. <hl> The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. <hl> The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013, with the unemployment rate rising to <hl> 9% <hl> versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.


Question: What did the Congressional Budget Office project would happen because of the proposed changes?

Answer: cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. <hl> The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013 , with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. <hl> The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

During 2012, there was significant debate regarding approximately $560 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect in 2013, which would reduce the 2013 budget deficit roughly in half. Critics argued that with an employment crisis, such fiscal austerity was premature and misguided. The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely <hl> cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013 <hl>, with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs. The fiscal cliff was partially addressed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that such sharp deficit reduction would likely <hl> cause the U.S. to enter recession in 2013 <hl> , with the unemployment rate rising to 9% versus approximately 8% in 2012, costing over 1 million jobs.


Question: In which U.S. Database can you locate the non farm employment levels?

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Answer: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. <hl> The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. <hl> For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The <hl> Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) <hl> database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.


Question: About how many jobs were added in the private sector during Obama's term from Feb. 2009 until December 2015?

Answer: 10 million

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. <hl> For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. <hl> The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of <hl> 10 million <hl> jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.


Question: How many jobs were created by President Clinton during each of his Terms?

Answer: Over 10 million

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. <hl> Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. <hl> President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. <hl> Over 10 million <hl> jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.


Question: What President had negative job creation during the 2000s?

Answer: George W. Bush

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. <hl> President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. <hl> Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For President Obama, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while <hl> George W. Bush <hl> had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.


Question: What recent president did not add public sector jobs during his tenure?

Answer: President Obama

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. <hl> For President Obama , between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. <hl> The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

Various sources summarize the number of jobs created by Presidential term. The figures may include private or public job creation or combination. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database contains the total nonfarm employment level, a measure of private sector job creation. For <hl> President Obama <hl>, between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs. The Calculated Risk blog also reported the number of private sector jobs created by Presidential term. Over 10 million jobs were created in each of President Clinton's two terms during the 1990s, by far the largest number among recent Presidents. President Reagan averaged over 7 million in each term during the 1980s, while George W. Bush had negative job creation in the 2000s. Each of these Presidents added net public sector (i.e., government) jobs, except President Obama.

For <hl> President Obama <hl> , between February 2009 and December 2015, the private sector added a total of 10 million jobs.


Question: How many jobs were added per year during the Clinton presidency?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

Answer: 756,000

<hl> The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent ( 756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. <hl> But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (<hl> 756,000 <hl> jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent ( <hl> 756,000 <hl> jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget.


Question: How many jobs were added per year during the Bush administration?

Answer: 367,000 jobs

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. <hl> But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent ( 367,000 jobs )." <hl> CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (<hl> 367,000 jobs <hl>)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent ( <hl> 367,000 jobs <hl> )."


Question: What was the percentage of employment increase during the Bush administration?

Answer: 1.0 percent

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. <hl> But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." <hl> CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just <hl> 1.0 percent <hl> (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.


Question: What happened to GDP after the income tax increase of 1993?

Answer: GDP grew

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." <hl> CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001. <hl>

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and <hl> GDP grew <hl> faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.


Question: What did Bush implement in 2001?

Answer: tax cuts

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." <hl> CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001. <hl>

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote in March 2009: "Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs)." CBPP reported in September 2011 that both employment and GDP grew faster in the seven-year period following President Clinton's income tax rate increase of 1993, than a similar period after the Bush <hl> tax cuts <hl> of 2001.


Question: What were at record levels during 2012?

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

Answer: U.S. corporate after-tax profits

<hl> U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. <hl> For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

<hl> U.S. corporate after-tax profits <hl> were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.


Question: What was below its historical average in 2012?

Answer: corporate tax revenue

<hl> U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. <hl> For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while <hl> corporate tax revenue <hl> was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.


Question: What percentage of GDP did U.S. Corporations pay in 2011?

Answer: 1.2%

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. <hl> U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. <hl> This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately <hl> 1.2% <hl> GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.


Question: Which country had the top statutory tax rate in 2005?

Answer: Germany.

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. <hl> In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%. <hl>

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and <hl> Germany. <hl> However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.


Question: What countries had higher statutory tax rates than the United States in 2005?

Answer: Japan and Germany

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. <hl> In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany . <hl> However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during 2012 while corporate tax revenue was below its historical average relative to GDP. For example, U.S. corporate after-tax profits were at record levels during the third quarter of 2012, at an annualized $1.75 trillion. U.S. corporations paid approximately 1.2% GDP in taxes during 2011. This was below the 2.7% GDP level in 2007 pre-crisis and below the 1.8% historical average for the 1990-2011 period. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind <hl> Japan and Germany <hl>. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.

In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind <hl> Japan and Germany <hl> .


Question: What type of impact often happens to the environment when jobs are created?

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

Answer: adverse

<hl> A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. <hl> Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, <hl> adverse <hl> environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: Who do Bittle & Johnson work for?

Answer: Public agenda

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of <hl> Public agenda <hl> explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: How many job creation arguments did Bittle & Johnson explore?

Answer: 14

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of <hl> 14 <hl> job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What is attributed to infrastructure investment?

Answer: job creation

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 <hl> job creation <hl> arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What jobs do Bittle & Johnson hold?

Answer: Authors

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors <hl> Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: How many job creation arguments did Bittle & Johnson explore?

Answer: 14

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of <hl> 14 <hl> job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What jobs do Bittle & Johnson hold?

Answer: Authors

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors <hl> Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: Who do Bittle & Johnson work for?

Answer: Public agenda

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of <hl> Public agenda <hl> explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What type of impact often happens to the environment when jobs are created?

Answer: adverse

<hl> A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. <hl> Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, <hl> adverse <hl> environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What is attributed to infrastructure investment?

Answer: job creation

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. <hl> Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 job creation arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. <hl> These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.

A variety of options for creating jobs exist, but these are strongly debated and often have tradeoffs in terms of additional government debt, adverse environmental impact, and impact on corporate profitability. Examples include infrastructure investment, tax reform, healthcare cost reduction, energy policy and carbon price certainty, reducing the cost to hire employees, education and training, deregulation, and trade policy. Authors Bittle & Johnson of Public agenda explained the pros and cons of 14 <hl> job creation <hl> arguments frequently discussed, several of which are summarized below by topic. These are hotly debated by experts from across the political spectrum.


Question: What are two examples of infrastructure investment?

Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as building roads and bridges and upgrading the electricity grid. Such investments have historically created or sustained millions of jobs, with the offset to higher state and federal budget deficits. In the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, there were over 2 million fewer employed housing construction workers. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure a "D+" on their scorecard for 2013, identifying an estimated $3.6 trillion in investment ideas by 2020.

Answer: building roads and bridges

<hl> Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as building roads and bridges and upgrading the electricity grid. <hl> Such investments have historically created or sustained millions of jobs, with the offset to higher state and federal budget deficits. In the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, there were over 2 million fewer employed housing construction workers. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure a "D+" on their scorecard for 2013, identifying an estimated $3.6 trillion in investment ideas by 2020.

Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as <hl> building roads and bridges <hl> and upgrading the electricity grid. Such investments have historically created or sustained millions of jobs, with the offset to higher state and federal budget deficits. In the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, there were over 2 million fewer employed housing construction workers. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure a "D+" on their scorecard for 2013, identifying an estimated $3.6 trillion in investment ideas by 2020.


Question: What type of infrastructure investment is related to energy?

Answer: upgrading the electricity grid

<hl> Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as building roads and bridges and upgrading the electricity grid . <hl> Such investments have historically created or sustained millions of jobs, with the offset to higher state and federal budget deficits. In the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, there were over 2 million fewer employed housing construction workers. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure a "D+" on their scorecard for 2013, identifying an estimated $3.6 trillion in investment ideas by 2020.

Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as building roads and bridges and <hl> upgrading the electricity grid <hl>. Such investments have historically created or sustained millions of jobs, with the offset to higher state and federal budget deficits. In the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, there were over 2 million fewer employed housing construction workers. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure a "D+" on their scorecard for 2013, identifying an estimated $3.6 trillion in investment ideas by 2020.

Many experts advocate infrastructure investment, such as building roads and bridges and <hl> upgrading the electricity grid <hl> .