Unemployment Numbers: Hollow Victory?

Marketingace started it, and Walldon and I have followed up, and I think Scatablog is doing the best job around of examining what’s really going on. Here’s another view, following up on Marketingace’s initial review of the startling data. It's right there for the taking on the BLS website. The term “hollowing out” has been used to describe the historic shift in the economy from well-paying jobs producing real goods to lower paying jobs providing retail and other services. It certainly is the apt description for what you will see below – especially in light of what apparently is a highly deceptive official unemployment figure that Republicans use, with mainstream press cheerleading, to tout the economy. If you suspected but wondered whether the “low” unemployment figure is deceptive, you won’t question it after you see this stuff: a deep-dive comparison in jobs performance between the Clinton years (we’ll skip the causal connection for now) and the GW Bush years.

· Under Clinton, the working age population grew by 20 million, but 19 million new jobs were created. Under Bush, that population has grown by 14 million, but only 6 million more people are employed.

· We know we are in a long-term shift to more of a services economy. Notwithstanding that trend, total manufacturing jobs under Clinton grew 2%. Under Bush, they have declined 17% -- and no doubt will decline more before his term is out.

· Durable goods jobs: under Clinton, they grew 2%, under Bush, down 17%.

· Fabricated metal products manufacturing: Up 17% under Clinton, down 13% under Bush.

· Machinery: Up 10% under Clinton, down 19% under Bush.

· Computer and electronic products: Up 12% under Clinton, down 29% -- yes, you can look it up -- under Bush.

· Semiconductors and components: Up 38% under Clinton, down 37 % under Bush

· Electrical Equipment and Appliances: Up 2% under Clinton, down 25% under Bush

· Motor vehicles and parts: Up 16% under Clinton, down 14% under Bush

· Plastics: Up 12% under Clinton, down 15% under Bush

OK, OK, so Bush has presided over an epochal shift from manufacturing jobs to services. Whoops.

· All services: under Clinton, up 23%, under Bush up 4% (well, at least something’s up for once)

· Private sector services: under Clinton, up 27%, under Bush up 4% (at 4.1%, actually less than the 4.3% for all services – which should not be the case for the private-sector-loving Republican Party.

· How about those hot Information services? Under Clinton, up 40%, under Bush DOWN 17% -- believe that, if you can.

· Broadcasting: Up 23% under Clinton, down 6% under Bush

· Telecommunications services: under Clinton up 40%, under Bush down 25%

So where has the Bush era performed relatively well and created new jobs? Considering all the money Bush has been sloshing around mostly for the rich, you should have guessed it by now: yep, Financial Services, up 7% under George W. But damn it all, that blankety-blank Clinton oversaw a bigger increase than Bush even in this sector, 17%. (That’s because stocks go up more under Democrats than Republicans, Stupid!) Education and health care – duh, we Baby Boomers are straining our elbows tipping those lattes now – are two areas that even Bush has not been able to screw-up completely (sorry, I just couldn’t hold to my causal neutrality promise throughout this whole thing -- think of Dr, Strangelove's hand). There has also been a 5% increase in local, state and federal government employment under Bush – wait a second, this is the Republican Party, isn’t it?

It’s scary. Moving in the right direction? – I don’t think so. Chris Matthews, NOW do you see why Americans aren’t as optimistic as you think they should be sitting in your Washington digs or your Nantucket retreat? And to think we haven’t even touched on stagnant wages, declining health coverage and undermining of the pension system yet. Wait a second again: it's all driven by supply-and-demand, right? So if unemployment is low, then employers should be ratcheting up their wage offers, and the bennies, correct? That's the theory, anyway. Cato people, we need you to explain something here.