Job Losses Under Presidents Obama and Bush

11 Comments

  1. Anonymous July 6, 2010

    The trouble with this graph is that it is only taking into account the number of jobs lost per month, and not the cumulative number. If you were to look at cumulative job losses, the graph would just continue on a downward slope. This almost makes it appear as though we’re gaining jobs under Obama, when, in fact, the total number of jobs lost under Obama is more than we lost under Bush. We’re just now losing them at a slower rate.

    Perhaps the overall point isn’t far off…things appear to be turning around. But the information is provided in a very misleading way. So far, we’ve had only one month of where gains were greater than losses. When every month is in the black, I’ll celebrate.

  2. Anna Tarkov July 6, 2010

    Dan, thanks for the insightful observation. Infographics can be so tricky and easily manipulated for partisan reasons, can’t they?

  3. Anonymous July 6, 2010

    They certainly can. The question in my mind is why we would be looking at month-to-month losses rather than cumulative losses. The answer is pretty simple: The graph appears to work in Obama’s favor. But we’ve not gained back the jobs lost under Bush. We’ve not stopped bleeding jobs under Obama. And though things look better, they still look bleak. Will we see this graph return in six months if the dreaded “double-dip” recession comes to pass? I don’t believe we will.

  4. Anonymous July 6, 2010
  5. Anna Tarkov July 6, 2010

    Thanks for posting this here. I saw it when Slate first created it, but the reminder is appreciated. Lots of people probably haven’t seen it yet.

  6. Anonymous July 6, 2010

    Youch! 6,162,836 since October 2008!

  7. Anna Tarkov July 6, 2010

    Yeah, it’s pretty depressing huh?

  8. Anonymous November 5, 2010

    To Dan Lovell: Let’s put job losses into terms of drops in a bucket. Bush filled one of the great lakes. Now, there being job gains, but they are small compared to the damage that has been done. Thus, there is some evaporation. If you looked at cumulative, yes, it would continue down, but this is due to more people entering the workforce than leaving due to the recession and the number of jobs being shipped overseas.

  9. Anonymous November 6, 2010

    Ed: You’re proving my point. There have not, in fact, been gains under Obama. Only two months have seen more gains than losses since he took office. This graph looks like things are goint swimmingly. In fact, the trouble may be slowing. But when unemployment is still 9.6 percent, are we really celebrating anything?

  10. Anonymous September 1, 2011

    The point you can take away from this graph is that tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy “do not create jobs.” ‘Trickle down’ is a concept created to justify/rationalize tax cuts for those who can most afford to pay taxes.
    Ask a large corporate owner what the most important job for the government is, and most will tell you to “protect American lives and country” and so they admit they expect our youth to sacrifice their all in the protection of corporate interests, but they are not willing to pay for it. You just have to compare the numbers between the Clinton tax structure and jobs, to the Bush tax structure (or the lack there of) and jobs. The curves don’t lie. Bush left this country in a hell of a mess and yet when confronted with the math, conservatives say “the graph doesn’t tell the whole story.” Obviously they have their own story. A man hears/sees what he wants to hear/see and disregards the rest. But to those of us who see the conservatives in denial of math and science, it looks to us as if conservatives are short on patriotism and long on a self-serving rationale of denial. I actually believe in the science, math, economics, and statistics I took in collage, and I don’t question the validity of a graph just because I don’t ideologically agree with its conclusion. I don’t know who or what to believe when one of the conservatives says “God tells me how the US should be run.” I can prove that 3 is greater than 2 but I have no way of knowing which Republican God talks to the most. I guess I should be thankful they aren’t claiming to be God, but perhaps that’s next.

  11. Anonymous September 1, 2011

    If you didn’t care for this graph here are a couple more you won’t like (wanna bet ? )
    PS http://www.truthout.com/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142

    “Facts have a liberal bias.”
    Steve. Cobert

Comments are Disabled