Tweet
Megan McArdle – neither economist nor historian:
The number of long term unemployed has shot up relative to the people who find jobs relatively quickly. To some extent, this is normal for a recession; employment tends to be a lagging indicator, as cautious employers use existing workers to fill rising production orders, rather than taking on more employees that they might have to later fire.
But the last two recessions were characterized by lingering unemployment–the infamous “jobless recovery” under Clinton and Bush.
Under Bush, the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001 through December of last year (2006) based on nonfarm payroll figures collected by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That figure is likely to be higher — perhaps by an additional 810,000— when the government releases annual revisions based on more complete information next month. However, that doesn’t change the basic historical picture.
When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million jobs during the corresponding period — from January 1993 to December 1998. Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986.
THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE 1969 AND MORE THAN 20 MILLION NEW JOBS. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. His bold, three-part economic strategy focused on three objectives: fiscal discipline, investing in education, health care, science and technology, and opening foreign markets. Today’s jobs release provides more evidence that this strategy is working:
The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 — the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent — the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent — the lowest since 1953.
[...]
20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since 1993, the economy has added 20.4 million new jobs. That’s the most jobs ever created under a single Administration – and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
Obviously unemployment is not understood by those who should be unemployed.
19 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
Bringin’ T bogg, Tebow, and an MIT prof into the hip Megan “dude” McArdle economics mix.
McArdle is what passes for a lot of media appointed pundit journalism today. The (bad) appearance of flair, over substance and knowledge.
The number of long term unemployed has shot up relative to the people who find jobs relatively quickly.
Uh, what now?
The woman can type but she can’t write or edit worth a damn. Is she so spoiled over at the Titantlic that she gets away with horking and publishing word vomit? I guess she thinks if she throws in “indicator”, she’ll sound smart. But her use of “indicator” just reveals her lack of insight.
She may think she’s employed but she’ll always be rich daddy’s girl who will never know what working for a living actually means.
C’mon T-Bogg, give the woman a break.
You know how cold it must have been camping out all night to get a look at one of those new Apple iPads?
It would seem oddly parodic that she refers to a “skilled economy” as though mortgage brokers and “mid-level managers” were its backbone if she weren’t so fucking dumb. Dissing the telephone sanitizers, too, I hope ya know, by their exclusion from her metric. Can’t be job creation unless the gummint gives more money to private sector firms who need mortgage brokers and mid-level managers, I guess.
Other than breathing and scooping as many of the latest high-tech fashion accessories as possible, I have yet to divine just what Megan is actually good at.
And, no, being a member of the lucky sperm club does not count.
She’s not a psychiatrist, either, but she plays one on the interwebs.
The Atlantic’s published words:
“I’d argue that the better measure of whether the economy has returned to health is employement”
Employement?
In the good old days, slipping the surly bonds of reality was apt to get you a one-way trip to the Funny Farm. Now it gets you a column in The Atlantic.
I pointed this out in her comments yesterday.
Crickets.
In all fairness, there really is nothing that McMegan understands other than her bone deep sense of entitlement and privilege. Why would we reasonably expect this to be any different?
And we wonder how it is that people are so misinformed in our society today. Seriously, why is The Atlantic allowing this moron/dilettante to destroy its reputation?
There was a jobless recovery in the early 1990s, but it was in GHW Bush’s time not Clinton. It’s why Clinton used the “It’s the economy, stupid” line. McMegan probably linked early 1990s with Clinton
If she’ll throw in how Clinton’s policies caused rampant inflation and his immorality made the crime rate skyrocket she will then reach Cal Thomas-levels of factual out-of-touchness.
Shinning up the greasy pole. And no, that’s not a double entendre. The business of McArgleBargle is self-promotion.
I believe it was Hegel who referred to those who lived on inherited capital as the “parasitic classes.” McMegs could be their poster child….
“I have yet to divine just what Megan is actually good at.”
Her job as it has always been was to flatter the wealthy and say the poor deserve their fate while talking about how those Arabs are icky.
My oldest son–an already successful young journalist–LIKES Megan. When he told me, my jaw dropped. I was aghast. What do I do, or say? What did I do wrong?
FDL’s own Spencer Ackerman – whose work I admire and read regularly – is a personal friend of this handmaiden to the Corporatocracy. It will be a grim and sad moment, should his professional trajectory place him in a situation where he has to choose between personal loyalty to his friend the corporate toady, and adherence to what appears (so far) to be an honorable code of professional ethics/comportment. For his sake, I hope Mr. Ackerman never has to face that moment.
With all respect to meepmeep09 and Mr. Ackerman, I hope the moment of truth comes sooner rather than later for Ackerman. The sooner he is forced to question his personal loyalty to someone as odious as McMegan, the better.
Ms. TarquinBiscuitBarrel, have you asked your son why he likes McMegan? Perhaps she mixes a mean mojito or has some other skill that is useful to society that doesn’t show up in her “writing” or maybe he reads and enjoys her stuff in the same way I enjoy Maureen Dowd, as a cautionary tale and “bad example” of what a decent writer could become if they suffer a serious lapse of judgement, dedication and professional standards, or a massive head trauma.