Job Creation Under Barack Obama: Less Than Meets The Eye?

Tyler Durden's picture

In the aftermath of yesterday's better than expected jobs number there have been many analyses in the media on both sides of the aisle, either attacking or defending Obama's track record in creating jobs. All have come up with arguments which according to their authors, are solid and defensible. There is one analysis, however, which is missing, and that is a follow up of what we showed yesterday in "Chart Of The Day: America's Geriatric Work F(a)rce."  In it we demonstrated the very much "under the radar" schism of America's workforce since the NBER-defined official end of the recession in June 2009 into the "haves", or those above 55, who have been able to get a job since the end of the recession, and the "have nots", or all those in the labor force who have not been able to find a job. So how does this data look when extended to the beginning of Obama's term, or the 46 full months starting with his inauguration in January 2009, and continuing through the latest, October 2012 data point. The chart is presented below; you decide.

And for those wanting a more granular breakdown, here it is by all the age categories tracked by the BLS.

In summary: while those in the 55-69 age group have gained nearly 4 million jobs under President Obama, everyone else has lost just over 2.5 million.

In other words, those aged 55 and over should be scrambling for "4 more years." Everyone esle... perhaps not so much.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
guinea's picture

And yet young people continue to flock to Obama.  Must be those words from his loins.

Manthong's picture

It’s all about selling hope to the sheep and those schmucks will tout it even in increasing joblessness:

icanhasbailout's picture

Yeah and I doubt many of those 55+ who got new jobs are liking minimum wage much, and they can't be too pleased at the ZIRP that forces them back into the workforce either.

macholatte's picture



Jim Cramer: Obama Is Going To Obliterate Romney In A Historic Landslide

no taste's picture

There are only five charts that an American needs to consider before deciding who should be president.

Muppet of the Universe's picture

BEAR FLAG! even without lookngat it!

AldousHuxley's picture

ann romney doesn't care since she never needed to get a job!



Shocker's picture

Very interesting charts, who knows anymore. The job situation is a mess



GetZeeGold's picture



ann romney doesn't care since she never needed to get a job!


Ann Romney has multiple sclerosis....what's your excuse?

Tijuana Donkey Show's picture

Agreed, but she can campaign full time, and horseback ride? What about some charity work?

Tucson Tom's picture

I hope your wife,if you have one,is an absolute bitch,`cause you deserve a loser like you! What a tragic and thoughtless thing to say.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

Very often those SOBs get the BITchs they deserve ...

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

During the 50s, 60s and 70s the rate fluctuated between 55% - 58%.  Then there was an employment bubble, and we are now approaching the old normal again => 58%.

Reversion to mean.

boogerbently's picture

I clicked on this link from Aug.

Funny reading this story and the comments compared to what we now know as the facts.

Headline should have been "Cops shoot up town!"

centerline's picture

I'd love to hear from the dipshit who down voted this one.

Mr Pink's picture

How many times are you gonna post those stupid fuckin charts, asshole?


Oldwood's picture

What I'm trying to understand is how Obama wins when I don't know of a single person who is going to vote for him that didn't last time but I hear plenty who did vote for him in 08 that have either gone to Romney to setting it out. Polls aside, how does that work?

Almost Solvent's picture

I don't know of a single person who is going to vote for him.


You obviously don't know of a single person who has an obamaphone. 


Muppet of the Universe's picture

you overestimate others.  Half the people with any fucking brains don't realize the other half is retarded.  You should have tried to kill the dumb ones while you still could.

AldousHuxley's picture

popular vote doesn't count


electoral college decides


commoners go back to boobtube for further consumption.

nmewn's picture

"electoral college decides"

As it should be.

Whats the problem? Are you saying the higher population states should have a disproportionate influence on minority states interests?

Maybe it would be better if popular votes elected FEDERAL SENATORS instead the actual state governments themselves elected them to represent the STATE...oh, wait...thats been fucked up by populist dipshits too!!!

The levels of stupidity has been plumbed to new depths.

centerline's picture

Thunderdome. Two men enter...

Michaelwiseguy's picture

I always vote against every sitting congress critter and president up for reelection except this time. I'm still voting against every sitting congress critter, but I live in Florida as a registered Republican and a Ron Paul supporter, I'm voting for Obama for president in revenge for what the GOP did to me and the Ron Paul crew.

Besides, the Progressers are mathematically challenged and need to re-learn their math lessons, when the complete and total economic collapse of the USA happens, that is a 100% mathematical certainty, on Obama.

GetZeeGold's picture



I'm voting for Obama for president in revenge for what the GOP did to me and the Ron Paul crew.


Turn us into the USSR.....that'll show those rat bastards.


If the cat really wants to die give him a gun and a single bullet.....hope no one else gets hurt.

Mr. Fix's picture

I'm voting for the hell of it.
it does not matter any more.

Mr. Fix's picture

Now I'm posting just to see how skinny a post can get!

Mr. Fix's picture

Is there any limit to the pointlessness of this discussion?

Mr. Fix's picture

Apparently, there is no limit to the stupidity of thid debate.

I am just thankfull that this part of America's decline will be behind us after Tuesday.
That's when the hopelessness will begin to set in.

Mr. Fix's picture

"If voting could really make a difference,

It would be illegal.

socalbeach's picture

That makes sense for a state like FL that's close, but not in CA where Obama is going to win. I'm better off voting 3rd party as a protest vote, doing my share to make sure Obama receives < 50% of the popular vote.  That said, if I was convinced Romney would be better for the country than Obama, I'd vote for him.  Problem is that's not at all clear.  Sure Romney couldn't be any worse than Obama in domestic policy, but what about foreign policy?  He'd probably be worse in that regard.

Anyway Obama is probably going to win.  This guy is pretty sharp:

"... most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the leader in the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent."


WakeUpPeeeeeople's picture

Those looking for a protest candidate may I suggest Mr Hyman. For the past several years Buster has been getting my vote whenever I am able to write in a candidate's name. However, I've noticed that most elections in my neck of the woods don't allow a write-in. Must be a democracy/free elections thing.

Gully Foyle's picture


Sounds like a Gay porno " two men enter...each other".

Fizzywig's picture

"electoral college decides"

As it should be.


The American election system is a complete failure.  The electoral college is fraught with error.  Our system is set up to always result in a two-party system.  It even fails to address issues in humanity that the worst always rise to the top; F.A. Hayek was right.

If we want things to change, the election system must be step if we can only convince people that governments are a horrible idea.

I always chuckle when I hear people say that humans are more evolved now.  Human nature doesn't change; only the technology and innovation. 

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”  -Aldous Huxley


boogerbently's picture

The change needed, is the electoral college votes from each state NEED to be split accoring to the popular vote of that state. No "all or nothing."

nmewn's picture


The individual state legislatures fix the process (by law) how the electors are counted. Those people are elected by the people of those states. If they wish for it to be winner take all it is within their right as independent states. If they wish to divy the electors up according to popular vote (like Nebraska & Maine) that is their right too.

Its not a federal issue, its a state issue.

Or are you in favor of more dictates from a central authority in how that authority is created? They have already screwed up the election of federal senators by popular vote, now we want to allow central technocrats to screw around with a states electors?

No one is representing the STATE GOVERNMENTS interests now. That was supposed to be done by federal senators. This is how you wind up with threats and intimidation (by the Feds, by the President/Executive really) to withold federal highway funds (and the like) unless a state does dictated by the central authorities.


Real Estate Geek's picture

+1  Keep up the good fight, bro.  The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

A Nanny Moose's picture

By channeling Stalin on voting.

GetZeeGold's picture



Bring on communism.......only 40 years to the revolution. The sooner we get on it the better.

nmewn's picture

lol...thank you Jim Krammer...its in the bag now...short O'Barry.

philipat's picture

Knowing that Cramer seldom gets anything right................................

CaptainObvious's picture

I've been tracking Cramer's investment recommendations for years, and if his voting advice is as wrong as his investment advice, then Obama will not only not win the election, he will be covered in glue, dipped in crepe paper, and hung from his nuts as a pinata at my kid's tenth birthday party.

Cole Younger's picture

Alway short cramer's advice...

GetZeeGold's picture



Goes without saying really.....but we should probably mention it.

Breaker's picture

I wonder how much this correlates to government jobs? Are they more likely to have gone, in the last four years, to 55+? That's where the action has been in the job market.

dbomb12's picture

Especially as part time walmart cashiers, grocery baggers and greeters

Unprepared's picture

"In other words, those aged 55 and over should be scrambling for "4 more years." Everyone esle... perhaps not so much."


Or maybe it's the other way around; those who are dependent on social programs (and social media) should be scrambling for "4 more years." Everyone else, perhaps not so much.