Has the Economy Gained as Many Jobs Under Biden as It Lost Under Trump?

A viral post leaves out important context about the pandemic.

By
32

The Center for American Progress Action Fund—a leftist advocacy group that is a sister organization to the Center for American Progress think tank—claimed in a recent Facebook post that former President Donald Trump oversaw the loss of 3 million American jobs during his administration, while President Joe Biden had created 3 million jobs in just the first five months of his time in office.

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in January 2021, total nonfarm employment in the United States was at 142,736,000 jobs. Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021, and by the end of June, his fifth full month in office, that number was 145,759,000, an increase of 3,023,000 jobs.

When Trump entered office in January 2016, there were 145,612,000 nonfarm jobs in America. Nonfarm employment under Trump steadily increased until it peaked in February 2020 at 152,523,000 jobs. Employment decreased sharply in March when the worldwide coronavirus pandemic shut down the U.S. economy, getting as low as 132,994,000 in May 2020 before the number of jobs began to increase again. With total nonfarm employment at 145,612,000 when Trump entered office and at 142,736,000 by the time he left, nonfarm employment decreased by 2,876,000 jobs. 

But these job losses were driven in large part by the financial crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic; the massive job losses that occurred during the Trump administration took place during the first few months of the pandemic, during which time states put in place their most stringent lockdown and stay-at-home measures. Some economists  say the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic may have hurt jobs numbers by preventing a faster economic recovery, but the initial massive losses were driven by the pandemic itself. As other fact checkers have pointed out, the job gains that have been made during the Biden administration are largely a product of the economy rebounding from those pandemic-caused losses.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
32
By
Comments (32)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    David Chen

    Fact checking memes has got to be a circle in hell.

    Collapse
  2. Stephen Nielson

    What's fascinating to me in all of this is the fact that Trump's labor force participation rate hit 152 million. That we are at 145.6 million and it appears like much of the country is back to work. What is holding back the other 6.4 million people? I read on another news article that there have been 2.9 million retirements since COVID hit. Also how many of the 600K people that died dropped that number. Lastly, how many of those 6.4 million are mothers who can't find adequate child care / summer programs this summer due to many of those facilities going out of business due to COVID.

    I read an article on National Review that at this point the labor force participation rate is going to continue to just drop from here on out until enough senior citizens die. Seniors retiring for the first time are outnumbering children entering the work force and babies being born. Unless immigration policies change dramatically we are entering a new period of the United States where productivity per citizen must increase or the economy will decline as the actual number of available employees begins to shrink.

    Collapse
    1. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

      Yes. Please refer to a 1960's screed titled The Population Bomb. We have developed an anti-child society. Those parents of ten children that some of us insulted in public will have saved us.
      I am separated from nature in my own ways, working from home now and rarely venturing out. I wonder what goofy decisions I am making as a result.

      Collapse
      1. Stephen Nielson

        I'm doing my part. Child number seven just graced our home this year. Children are precious and beautiful.

        Collapse
        1. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

          Thanks for your heroic efforts! (Always precious and beautiful. Sometimes, one must admit, the precious and beautiful is difficult to see.)

          Collapse
      2. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

        Note that I have been part of the depopulation problem. I chose to have only two children, and should have chosen to have more.

        Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I am sol old I remember all the democrats crowing about how the stock market in March-April 2020 was less than when Trump took office. I moved more money in, and ended the year up 30%. I almost felt bad stealing money from idiots, but if they're not selling then I can't be buying.

    On average, stock returns under trump exceeded 13.5% CAGR. Biden needs DOW 50k to top that. I hope he succeeds, because it'll be good news for me.

    Let's see how good he is, come January 2025.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      And it was 13.8% under Obama, and 15.2% under Clinton. So whatever. Attributing stock market growth to the president is silly. You might say, but Obama's numbers don't count because of housing crash made the baseline low. Or you could say, Trump's numbers don't count because the market basically continued the same trajectory it had been on the entire time Obama was in office.
      Markets react to any number of things, most of which are not controlled by the president. Even the market tanking nonsense that Trump would spout from time to time usually had a short-term impact, and by the end of his term, the markets had figured out that it was best to ignore the old man yelling at clouds.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      I no longer think the stock market is a good indicator of economic health. I generally trade options and depend on profiting in a stable market. When Trump came in office on two occasions I lost big because he opened his fat mouth saying something idiotic and the market tanked. I can't prove it, but I bet all his friends and family were able get short prior to his comments and benefited greatly. I decided to stop trading during his term. I couldn't handle the volitility.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Given how undisciplined Trump acted as POTUS, I'm betting nearly all his idiotic market tanking comments were unscripted, so they probably didn't get a chance to short the markets, unless they just shorted them gambling he'd inadvertently tank the markets.

        Collapse
        1. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

          I want President Trump to retire from public life. Though I cannot help but love the man, I think that "unscripted" is a kind term.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

            I was trying to be polite! ;-)

            Collapse
  4. GregS

    "the job gains that have been made during the Biden administration are largely a product of the economy rebounding from those pandemic-caused losses."

    Try on for size:
    "the job gains that were made during the Trump administration wee largely a product of the economy continuing the growth that began during the Obama administration."

    Attributing job growth (or job losses) to the presidential administration you like (or dislike) is both idiotic and a time-honored bipartisan tactic.

    Collapse
    1. ExploreOK

      The claim you reject is not made in this fact check.

      Try on for size: disagreeing with content without creating straw men to dunk on.

      Not sure why you disagree it, since it explicitly rejects the framing you dislike.

      Collapse
      1. GregS

        I never said it was a claim made by this fact check.
        I was pointing out simply that all political partisans constantly invoke the presidential administration as being the proximate cause of the unemployment rate, or the level of the DJIA. And that this is an idiotic and time-honored tactic. As such, "Biden created more jobs than Trump" is no more idiotic - or false, or lacking context - than "Trump created the lowest unemployment and the greatest economy ever."

        I'm not asking that TD should have fact checked Trump or the GOP when they made these silly claims.
        I am pointing out that making truthful claims and then giving yourself credit (or blaming the other guy) is business-as-usual.

        Collapse
    2. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

      Agreed, one should point to policies and other facts. The reason I cannot accept the Obama-Trump comparison is twofold:
      1. "Obama's gains" were a very-slow recovery from a recession.
      2. Trump's policies reduced business regulation, reducing the costs and risks of hiring people.
      3. As with most things in nature, the closer one approaches a theoretical limit, the more difficult it becomes to advance further. (It is much easier to advance fuel efficiency from 89% to 94% than from 94% to 99%. that 152M figure was pushing limits.)
      And yes, that was 3 for 2, but if it is OK in the Old Testament you can forgive it of little o' me held to lesser standards.

      Collapse
      1. GregS

        So... you think Trump really *was* responsible for the great performance of the economy during his tenure?

        Let us examine your reasons:

        1) "Obama's gains" were a very-slow recovery from a recession.

        BLS data on unemployment rate in the US shows a steady decline from a peak of 10% in Oct 2009 to 4.9% in Oct 2016 to 3.6% in Oct 2019. Your assessment that the decline was "very slow" is... curious and unsupported by this data.
        2) I will paraphrase -
        "Trump made policies that were designed to increase employment, and we know those policies were successful because employment increased".
        This is a tautology. Unemployment continued on its downward trend. There is no evidence that this was because of Trump's actions.
        3) Paraphrasing again,
        "The rate of decrease in the unemployment rate should have dropped because thats how most things in nature work, but it didn't, proving that Trump was the cause of the low unemployment rate."
        This is also a fallacy. There's no particular reason to think that "the rate of decrease in unemployment must slow down after 5%" is true. And it ignores that the rate of decrease *did* slow down (it took 7 years to drop 5% - 0.7% per year- and 3 years to drop 1.3% or 0.4% per year). And it assumes that this effect, even if true, can be attributed to Trump.

        The primary issue with arguments like this is always that they ascribe way too much credit or blame to the president. This is fine from a politics standpoint (which is why its a time honored bipartisan tactic), but it remains intellectually idiotic.

        Collapse
        1. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

          Thanks for your spirited response. I have not adjusted this for your clarifying response to agent_000. Would you be kind enough to read that in for me?
          You are correct to state that my reasoning is inconclusive. You have not yet convinced me that it is "idiotic". You are right to ridicule a simple "he was president when that happened so it was his fault" approach. The social science of economics is not like the physical sciences in terms of simple causality. But I think it is still reasonable to ask questions about significant differences in policies and results. I strongly agree with your point that pundits "ascribe way too much credit or blame to the president".
          I would assert that using government policies to treat business as the enemy does not help workers.
          Point 1: If you look at graphs available on the Federal Reserve web site, you will see that the recovery during the Obama years was slower than past recessions. I certainly have no proof that Mr. Obama was at fault for that. But I can offer one example that I remember from those years, when his administration ruled that employment records had no expiration date. There are statute of limitations for most non-murder crimes, but not for missing the dot on an "i" in employment law. My personal response to this and other regulatory actions that I do not remember was to see hiring during that time as having more risk and more administrative cost.
          Point 2: Your straw man paraphrasing was completely vanquished. The black unemployment rates (before COVID-19 hit) was the lowest in history. Why? Mr. Trump's dramatic/unconventional/(unhinged?) behavior, doing things like the blasphemous raising of import taxes seem worthy of consideration here.
          Point 3: Traditional economics (as I was taught as an econ. major in the 1970's) expects a certain level of unemployment in a healthy economy. The change in unemployment (or, better yet, percent adults employed) seemed dramatic to me, after years of watching. Not a proof, just a personal judgement. I cannot abide an unsupported assertion of calling "fallacy" the idea that there are diminishing returns of policy changes as unemployment approaches 0% (or even 3% or 5%).

          Collapse
          1. GregS

            1: the economy grew and unemployment fell no faster during the Trump years than the Obama years. That recovery from the recession was slower than in past recessions is as likely to have been because of a thousand factors other than policies set by the president. Your example of "employment records expiration dates" is one I am not personally well versed on. However, if I granted you that this policy was bad and that Trump reversing it was good, we'd still be left with the fact that unemployment fell faster under Obamas second term than under Trump's first (from 7.8% in Oct 2012 to 4.9% in Oct 2016, to 3.6% in Oct 2019). So you have to claim that unemployment would have fallen even faster under Obama but for this policy decision- and you have presented no evidence for this claim.
            2: ok let me quote instead of paraphrasing - "Trump's policies reduced business regulation, reducing the costs and risks of hiring people."
            Your evidence for this? That unemployment decreased? But unemployment was already decreasing. I will claim it would have continued to do so without Trump. Your claim is tautological, as is mine! This is why I say such claims are idiotic
            3: you admit this is just your personal judgment based on no data. I agree that zero unemployment is likely impossible. But we have data... Obama's second term saw a decrease in unemployment of about 0.75% per year. Trump saw a decrease of 0.43% per year (until COVID). So it *was* slower as you expected. But you claim - without any support for your claim other than your feelings - that it would have been *even slower* but for Trump. I call that a fallacy.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    This is correct.

    Administrations do this as a way to inflate and hype their numbers.

    For example, when people cite the job growth under Obama during The Great Recession, they forget Obama was adding low level jobs that were goverment created initiatives or low level paying jobs in general. Usually GDP and jobs are checked up on by being middle class jobs (that give healthcare etc) that determines that contributes much more to gdp and growth in the jobs market.

    For example, jobs working at Amazon is good at 15.50 starting an hour while a job at McDonalds starting at 7.50 not so much (not saying McDonald’s is still 7.50 just an example), or your local flower shop that picks somebody for for 7.50 with no benefits.

    This is why when the charge comes that Obama’s numbers were inflated in 2008-2012, it is because he wasn’t creating sustainable middle class jobs or jobs with good upward mobility. Thats why when one says, “Obama had the slowest growth recovery since The Great Depression”, there is merit to the critique.

    But back to Mr Dent and Biden. He is correct that there is number fudging by then progressive policy wonks because they want to ignore A.) the job misses of the last 6 months, even the recent jobs reports is leaving millions of jobs behind that must be caught up on

    B) Inflation

    C) policy from the current administration (like the Obama one) that has slowed growth rather than accelerated it in the first half a year.

    And remember, we did have one the fastest growing economy (go figure), under Trump for the first three years with wages rising before the Government shut the whole system down in some cases. There should be a massive spike as never before seen in job growth (the original predictions last year).

    But paying more unemployment while the job market opens up, plus pumping up and out more of the dollar, while mixed messages has been sent on Covid the past year and a half (between both admins), has made Americans hesitant to just jump back into the labor markets.

    And that is a problem of policy and messaging.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    I Am the Eggman

    I hate political claims that are technically correct but misleading due to missing context. It was the same when people would claim that the stock market tanked under W but did stunningly well under Obama. Well, yeah, but the financial crisis hit in the last two years of W's second term and the recovery happened during Obama's term. It's technically correct but the implied claim that the President had anything to do with it seems improbable.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      I think Bush's term was responsible for the crash due to no oversight over the new financial instruments that people were trading. However for every loser there was a winner so some people benefitted. I also felt some of Obama's policies did a lot to bring the economy back. I don't know if you remember the crash, but it was a catastrophic. I recommend the movie the Big Short.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        I Am the Eggman

        You have a point about the lack of oversight, but then again, some of the crucial damage had been done before W's time, such as the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton. Sometimes bad decisions (and good ones) take many years to bear fruit. It's short-sighted to give the current administration all the credit or blame for whatever is happening at any given time.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Greenknight

          Bush was in office for 8 years before the crash, so blaming any of that on Clinton is a bit disingenuous... after all, absolutely nothing prevented Bush from reinstating Glass-Steagall, or proposing an alternative if he felt it was necessary. He never even proposed such a thing. Instead Bush spent all 8 years in office tripling the size of our strategic oil reserves by buying up every free drop of oil on the market, which caused the price of oil to shoot into the stratosphere for his entire administration (it's always about oil with the Bush's). You think that maybe intentionally keeping oil at $150+/barrel for 8 years might have had at LEAST as much effect on causing the crash as some law repealed 8 years earlier? Maybe more?

          Seriously, after 8 years in office that crash is all on Bush.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Greenknight

            Oil was $29/barrel when Clinton left office, $145/barrel when Bush left office... had my numbers off a bit :-(

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Matt J

    Okay, this graph seems pretty damn disingenuous. I don't approve of how Trump handled the pandemic, but even I wouldn't pin the *entire* thing on him.
    It's like this graph I saw about the polar ice sheets recovering some of their mass - by measuring only from the previous summer to the current winter.

    Collapse
  8. Shaybult

    What!? Partisans are twisting facts and presenting them without context to try to make a point? I am shocked - shocked, I tell you!

    Anyone who needed this fact check to realize the coronavirus played a huge part in these numbers is just not paying attention.

    Collapse
    1. anonvet

      Indeed. What's worse is that it was posted on Twitter, a medium I generally associate with agenda-free brokers of information merely seeking to enrich public discourse! Forgive me, I must lie down for a minute now....

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      And I am sure the people who made this infographic can say "well DUH obviously COVID made a difference, but Trump is to blame for that too" and they'd have somewhat of a point.

      I have thought for a while that it's not the best use of TD resources to fact check obvious political spin and hyperbole. Indeed I recall the only FC that TD basically retracted, was an attempt to fact check political hyperbole.

      Collapse
      1. Shaybult

        Which fact check was that? I vaguely remember something like that happening but can't remember any details...

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          I think they were just fact checking the statement comparing the stock market in Biden's and Trump's terms.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          Something about a claim by a pro-life group that Biden and Harris supported abortion until birth, or something like that. Which was initially deemed "false" but later admitted by Steve himself to be incomplete.

          Collapse