imreallyperplexed
Council Member
I heard on the news today that Ryan had promised that a Romney-Ryan administration would create 12 million new jobs over four years. Promising to create millions of new jobs seems to be part of the Romney game plan.
Mitt Romney promises 'millions' of new jobs but is short on data
Making promises like that is probably smart politics. However, I think that it is worth while to add some context to those numbers.
First, 12 million new jobs translates into an average of 250,000 net jobs per month over 48 months. If the country did add 250K new jobs per month, how would that affect the unemployment rate? How fast would the unemployment rate come down? How many workers would get back into the job market? What would the unemployment rate look like at the end of four years of a Romney-Ryan Administration?
Second, does Ryan mean 12 million "private sector" jobs or 12 million "private sector and public sector" jobs? This is important. In fact, over the last 30 months, 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created. That is an average of 150K private sector jobs per month. If we take this as a baseline "Obama rate," we would expect the economy to add 7.2 million jobs over the next 48 months. What Ryan may be predicting is that Romney-Ryan would add 100,000 more private sector jobs per month than Obama would be able to (and consequently would create 4.8 million more over 4 years.) The problem for Obama is not that the economy is not growing. It is growing. It is just not growing robustly enough.
The really interesting twist comes into play when you add public sector job creation into the mix and compare the Bush's record with Obama's record. The following article provides a nice comparison.
Bush versus Obama on private versus public sector job creation
The article compares the first forty months of the Bush Administration (2001-2004) to the first forty months of the Obama Administration (2009-2012). The major difference is that Obama has outperformed Bush in private sector job creation and that Bush's ability to keep unemployment low had to do with public sector hiring while Obama's performance has been characterized by a tremendous drop in public sector employment. Now, the reduction in government employees seems consistent with the limited government philosophy so I assume that Romney and Ryan are happy with the drop in public sector employees and - if anything - would like to see even lower job numbers in the public sector. Whatever the case, I assume that Romney and Ryan do not want to replicate what Bush did. They want to "improve" on Obama's performance. This is where data and analysis (rather than promises and hand-waving are important.)
Third, the following article provides an interesting perspective on the legacy that Obama inherited from Bush's second term and the legacy that either Obama or Romney will inherit from Obama's first term.
One President's Economic Legacy is His Successor's Burden
I agree with the author's contention that - given the legacy that he inherited - that Obama's performance has been acceptable (if not stellar). Furthermore, whether Romney or Obama wins, the President from 2013 to 2017 will inherit a "better" economy than Bush left Obama. And that legacy should be taken into account for either one of them.
In any case, my firm belief is that it is more likely that the economy will gain 12 million new jobs under Obama than it would under Romney and Ryan. (I am just going to assume that this is 12 million new total (private + public) jobs.) I think that aiming for an average of 250K jobs a month is a good goal. I would be disappointed if the economy continued to sputter. But I don't see Romney and Ryan miraculously pulling the economy out of its doldrums with their package of solutions. (I also don't think that they will do anything to address the debt problem.) That said, I welcome the promises from Romney and Ryan. I would welcome President Obama promising to create 12 million new jobs and showing how his plans would achieve those goals. I do think that Obama has a better argument than Romney and Ryan. But he should make the case directly.
Mitt Romney promises 'millions' of new jobs but is short on data
Making promises like that is probably smart politics. However, I think that it is worth while to add some context to those numbers.
First, 12 million new jobs translates into an average of 250,000 net jobs per month over 48 months. If the country did add 250K new jobs per month, how would that affect the unemployment rate? How fast would the unemployment rate come down? How many workers would get back into the job market? What would the unemployment rate look like at the end of four years of a Romney-Ryan Administration?
Second, does Ryan mean 12 million "private sector" jobs or 12 million "private sector and public sector" jobs? This is important. In fact, over the last 30 months, 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created. That is an average of 150K private sector jobs per month. If we take this as a baseline "Obama rate," we would expect the economy to add 7.2 million jobs over the next 48 months. What Ryan may be predicting is that Romney-Ryan would add 100,000 more private sector jobs per month than Obama would be able to (and consequently would create 4.8 million more over 4 years.) The problem for Obama is not that the economy is not growing. It is growing. It is just not growing robustly enough.
The really interesting twist comes into play when you add public sector job creation into the mix and compare the Bush's record with Obama's record. The following article provides a nice comparison.
Bush versus Obama on private versus public sector job creation
The article compares the first forty months of the Bush Administration (2001-2004) to the first forty months of the Obama Administration (2009-2012). The major difference is that Obama has outperformed Bush in private sector job creation and that Bush's ability to keep unemployment low had to do with public sector hiring while Obama's performance has been characterized by a tremendous drop in public sector employment. Now, the reduction in government employees seems consistent with the limited government philosophy so I assume that Romney and Ryan are happy with the drop in public sector employees and - if anything - would like to see even lower job numbers in the public sector. Whatever the case, I assume that Romney and Ryan do not want to replicate what Bush did. They want to "improve" on Obama's performance. This is where data and analysis (rather than promises and hand-waving are important.)
Third, the following article provides an interesting perspective on the legacy that Obama inherited from Bush's second term and the legacy that either Obama or Romney will inherit from Obama's first term.
One President's Economic Legacy is His Successor's Burden
I agree with the author's contention that - given the legacy that he inherited - that Obama's performance has been acceptable (if not stellar). Furthermore, whether Romney or Obama wins, the President from 2013 to 2017 will inherit a "better" economy than Bush left Obama. And that legacy should be taken into account for either one of them.
In any case, my firm belief is that it is more likely that the economy will gain 12 million new jobs under Obama than it would under Romney and Ryan. (I am just going to assume that this is 12 million new total (private + public) jobs.) I think that aiming for an average of 250K jobs a month is a good goal. I would be disappointed if the economy continued to sputter. But I don't see Romney and Ryan miraculously pulling the economy out of its doldrums with their package of solutions. (I also don't think that they will do anything to address the debt problem.) That said, I welcome the promises from Romney and Ryan. I would welcome President Obama promising to create 12 million new jobs and showing how his plans would achieve those goals. I do think that Obama has a better argument than Romney and Ryan. But he should make the case directly.
)
