Barack Obama, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, Employment to Population Ratio, GDP, gross domestic product, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, Labor Force Participation Rate, labor productivity, manufacturing, non-farm jobs, private sector, productivity, real GDP, real private sector, real wages, recession, subsidized private sector, Trump, value added, wages, Wuhan virus
Not surprisingly, as this U.S. presidential cycle gets ever more intense, so has the debate over which boasts a better record in helping steer the nation’s economy: the Obama administration in which Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden served as second-in-command, or the incumbent Trump administration. I’ve just looked over some key data, and the verdict on most counts goes to the Obama administration. The margin of victory here isn’t huge, but it’s anything but razor thin, either. Moreover, any Obama edge is surprising given that the economy is President Trump’s major advantage in nearly all the polls.
All the same, here are the data. They compare performance during the last three full years of the Obama presidency and the first three full years of the Trump presidency. In my view, these time-frames deserve priority because they’re the ones closest to each other in the same expansionary business cycle, making apples to apples results much likelier.
The time-frames of course leave out the CCP Virus period, during which all the Trump numbers sank like stones. But if you regard the virus’ economic effects as purely artificial, having nothing to do with the economy’s fundamentals (as I do), then you want to strip them out.
Other methodological notes: Although the jobs-focused data come out from the federal government on a monthly basis, and therefore permit comparisons between completely identical (and virus-adjusted) three-year periods, the economic growth and productivity data don’t, so I show Trump results both through the first quarter of this year (affected by the shutdowns that began in March) and through the last quarter of 2019. In addition, regarding the monthly figures, because of the January 20 inauguration date, I peg the end of the Obama administration as January, 2017 and the beginning of the Trump administration as February, 2017.
And off we go, starting with overall employment, which consists of the Bureau of Labor Department’s U.S. employment universe – “non-farm jobs.”
Obama: +5.55 percent Trump: +4.56 percent
But of course, non-farm jobs include all government jobs, and their status has much less to do with the economy’s underlying strengths and weaknesses than with politicians’ decision. So here are the numbers for private sector jobs.
Obama: +6.56 percent Trump: +5.04 percent
So advantage Obama again. As RealityChek regulars know, however, not all private sector jobs are created equal. In fact, many barely deserve the term at all, because their circumstances depend so heavily on government spending. Healthcare is of course the leading example. Therefore, it’s useful to examine the employment results in what I’ve called the “real private sector”.
Obama +6.22 percent Trump: + 4.63 percent
It’s another Obama out-performance. This string is broken when it comes to manufacturing jobs, however.
Obama: +2.38 percent Trump: +3.78 percent
But Obama comes out ahead on inflation-adjusted wages for the entire private sector.
Obama +3.69 percent Trump: +2.99 percent
And the margin is even bigger for real manufacturing wages.
Obama: +3.15 percent Trump: +0.74 percent
One problem with looking at jobs gains or losses, or even the unemployment rate, is that these numbers don’t tell the whole story about the health of the labor market. To fill in the gaps, economists like to examine two performance measures called the Labor Force Participation Rate, and the Employment to Population Ratio.
The former, according to well regarded left-of-center economics think tank, reveals “the number of people in the labor force—defined as the sum of employed and unemployed persons—as a share of the total working-age population, which is the number of civilian, non-institutionalized people, age 16 and over.”
The latter, the same source explains, shows “the number of people currently employed as a share of the total working-age population, which is the number of civilian, non-institutionalized persons, age 16 and over.”
For what it’s worth, this reliable economics and finance website claims that the Employment to Population Ratio provides the best indication of job shrinkage or growth. So let’s begin there.
Obama: 58.8 percent to 59.9 percent Trump: 59.9 percent to 61.1 percent
Pretty much a standoff.
As for Labor Force Participation:
Obama: 62.9 percent to 62.6 percent Trump: 62.8 percent to 63.4 percent
Advantage, Mr. Trump.
As previously mentioned, the economic growth figures are only reported quarterly. Keeping that in mind, here’s how the two administrations stack up. The most commonly followed measure of the economy’s size and how it changes is inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP).
Obama: +8.19 percent Trump: +5.75 percent
These data, though, include shutdown-y March, 2020. Taking the story only through the end of 2019 brings the Trump years’ performance up to 7.11 percent – but he still trails.
Interestingly, even including the first quarter of this CCP Virus-y year, Mr. Trump’s record is slightly better when another metric for economic growth is used – value-added. Its value lies in trying to eliminate the double- and even more overcounting that results when the of the parts and other inputs of a complicated product are counted both when they’re turned out individually, and when they’re contained in that final product.
Obama: +12.09 percent Trump: +12.24 percent
The Trump presidency’s margin is even bigger in manufacturing value-added, and even including the first quarter:
Obama: +7.09 percent Trump: +10.58 percent
Importantly, all the above value-added numbers are pre-inflation. After-inflation value-added data are tracked by the federal government, too, but they’re not even measured on a quarterly basis. Only full-year numbers are available. So since these make precise comparisons less possible, I’m skipping them.
Finally, here are numbers that hardly ever make the news, but might be the most important of all – the productivity data. These various measures of efficiency are widely viewed by economists are crucial to determining how healthy and durable economic growth is and will be, and therefore how strongly and for how long living standards can rise.
Results aren’t up-to-date enough for the broadest measure of economic efficiency – multi-factor productivity. But they are for the narrower measure, labor productivity – which gauges how much a single worker can produce in a single hour on the job – starting with the overall economy
Obama: +3.97 percent Trump: +3.95 percent
And if you want to remove the first quarter of this year, because of the virus effect in March, overall labor productivity during the Trump period was up 4.02 percent
Labor productivity is monitored for manufacturing, too, and here are those statistics including the first quarter of this year:
Obama: -2.57 percent Trump: +0.29 percent .
Oddly, if the first quarter is removed, the Trump years’ performance worsens a bit – and even falls to an overall dip of 0.09 percent. But however poor, it still tops the record of the Obama years.
So why are the Trump economy poll numbers so good? One possible answer: The final year of the Obama presidency was feeble by nearly all measures. Real gross domestic product advanced by only 1.70 percent. Total employment grew by a mere 1.64 percent, versuss 2.19 percent in 2014. National manufacturing employment actually dipped by 6,000 from 2015 levels. Real wage growth overall slowed from 1.26 percent in 2014 to 0.56 percent in 2016. And inflation-adjusted manufacturing wages performed scarcely better.
Moreover, as the New York Times article linked above makes clear, the public’s evaluations of the Trump economic record are incredibly partisan – often conflicting with a respondent’s actual situation.
It’s also possible and legitimate, as I’ve noted, to point to some important reasons for this Trump under-performance. The President’s trade policies clearly disrupted national and global supply chains, and the consequent inefficiencies surely dragged on GDP and employment in the short term. Boeing aircraft’s safety woes have undercut national economic performance lately, too. But good luck to you if you think these considerations are going to have any effect on voters.
I’m hardly naive enough to think that these or other economic facts will be enough to determine November’s outcome. And I have no idea how voters will factor in the deep CCP Virus-induced recession into their thinking. But the facts aren’t a throwaway, either, and although the Obama record didn’t exactly thump Mr. Trump’s, it’ll certainly provide Biden with considerable ammunition.