Sandi wrote:Just curious. Why do you only count the last 31 months? Could it be because if you count ALL of the current administration months you remove the largest decline from 2009 to 2010? The recession bottomed out at that point. Always looks good if you count the good but not the bad.
Go back and re-read my comment, please. I specifically pointed out that there was a steep decline in manufacturing jobs during the first few months of 2009, which then bottomed out and began rising again at the start of 2010. I also pointed out that if you just want to "count" the jobs lost and jobs added, there's been a net loss of 0.6 million manufacturing jobs since January 2009.
So, overall, Obama's record on manufacturing jobs is slightly worse than Clinton's first term, but much better than either of Bush's two terms.
That, however, was not the point of the thread. I specifically wanted to look at whether the claim in Obama's campaign ad (1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years) was reasonable. The simplest way to evaluate something like that is to look at recent trends and project them forward
. In this case, the recent trend (over the past 31 months) is a gain of about 0.214 million manufacturing jobs per year. If you assume that this trend will continue unchanged, you would project about 0.85 million additional manufacturing jobs by 2016.
So the claim in Obama's campaign ad would seem to assume that the economy will do slightly better over the next four years than over the past three, but not wildly better.
That is all.
I think you can probably figure out why it makes sense to base a projection for the next few years on the trend from 2010-2012 instead of basing it on the trend from 2008-2009. It has something to do with temporal autocorrelation