Presidents and employment trends

By G. Scott Thomas

updated 6:46 p.m. ET April 5, 2004

The past three years haven't been the best of times across America.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the bursting of the Internet bubble and the decline of the manufacturing sector have thrown the economy into a tailspin from which it's still trying to recover.

Employment began slipping in mid-2001, just a few months after George W. Bush was sworn in as president. The nation lost almost 1.9 million jobs during the first three years of Bush's administration, based on annual averages compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The depth of the downturn is shown by an American City Business Journals analysis of employment trends in the nation's 100 largest labor markets:

-- Nearly two-thirds of those areas -- 63 of 100 -- had fewer jobs in 2003 than in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's administration. The collective loss in those 63 markets was roughly 2.1 million jobs, which was larger than the total national decline.

-- Seventy-nine of the top 100 metros posted slower job-growth rates during Bush's first three years than under any of his three predecessors: Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

-- Ninety-nine of the 100 largest markets had worse employment records under George W. Bush than Clinton. The sole exception was Honolulu.

ACBJ analyzed employment data for the four presidents who served since 1981. Each president's record was based on a comparison of average annual employment in his final year and his predecessor's final year. (Clinton's record, for example, spanned from 1992, the last year served by George H.W. Bush, to 2000.)

Reagan emerged as the leader, with 53 of the 100 markets posting their highest job-growth rates during his administration. Thirty-eight markets enjoyed their strongest growth under Clinton, and nine reached their peak under George H.W. Bush. No markets did best under the current administration.

The flip side was dominated by George W. Bush, with 79 markets registering their lowest job-growth rates during his tenure. Eighteen hit bottom under his father, two did worst under Reagan and one reached its nadir during Clinton's administration.

Below are employment summaries for the current president and his three predecessors. Included are overall breakdowns for each administration, as well as notes about the areas that did best and worst, with special emphasis on the five largest labor markets. (The Big Five are New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, based on 2003 federal data.)

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Overall breakdown: Ninety-five markets added jobs during Reagan's eight years in the White House. Just four areas suffered losses. (Reagan-era employment statistics are unavailable for the 100th market, Colorado Springs.) The 99 metros, taken together, picked up 12 million jobs.

Absolute gain: Reagan may have been noted for his anti-government rhetoric, but no market prospered more than Washington, D.C., during his tenure. The nation's capital and its suburbs added 627,200 jobs under Reagan, an average of 78,400 each year. Atlanta was the runner-up with an increase of 460,100 jobs in eight years.

Percentage gain: Sarasota, Fla., more than doubled its workforce during the Reagan years. It climbed from 70,800 jobs in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter's administration, to 172,700 in 1988, Reagan's final year in Washington. That works out to an annual gain of 11.8 percent. Nearby Orlando finished second with an increase of 8.4 percent per year.

Absolute loss: The aging industrial market of Gary, Ind., had the hardest time during the Reagan administration, slipping from 253,100 jobs at the beginning to 231,000 at the end, a loss of 22,100. Allentown, Pa., a metro with similar demographics, saw 20,500 jobs slip away.

Percentage loss: Gary's decline was 1.1 percent per year. Allentown's was 1.0 percent annually.

How the Big Five did: All five grew. Washington did the best, creating jobs at the blistering pace of 4.1 percent per year. The others posted annual growth rates in the range of 1.3 percent to 1.8 percent.

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Overall breakdown: The common image of the elder Bush's administration is one of economic recession and job losses. The facts are different. Eighty of the top 100 markets actually increased employment, though at a slower pace than they did under Reagan. The group's total gain was 1.5 million jobs.Absolute gain: The energy bust of the 1980s brought Houston's economy to a screeching halt, but conditions began to improve after Bush took office. Houston added 184,300 jobs while he was president. Next was Seattle, which continued its economic boom by creating 136,200 jobs.

Percentage gain: Las Vegas was the clear winner in percentage terms, expanding its job base by 5.9 percent per year during Bush's tenure. Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif., was a distant second with an annual growth rate of 3.9 percent.

Absolute loss: The largest markets on both coasts were hit hard during Bush's presidency. The New York City area lost 361,900 jobs, while Los Angeles was down 229,500.

Percentage loss: The biggest declines were clustered in the Northeast, with Bergen-Passaic, N.J., down 2.8 percent per year, Hartford down 2.6 percent and New York City down 2.3 percent.

How the Big Five did: Chicago and Washington eked out small annual increases of 0.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively. The other three areas lost jobs. New York City fared the worst, with 2.3 percent of its employment base slipping away each year.

Absolute gain: Atlanta's growth during the Clinton years was breathtaking, resulting in the addition of 632,400 jobs, the equivalent of 79,050 per year. Four other markets gained at least half-a-million jobs: Chicago, Phoenix, Dallas and New York City.

Percentage gain: Las Vegas may have seemed white hot under the first George Bush, but it turned up the heat while Clinton was president, boosting its job-growth rate to 7.3 percent per year. Austin, Texas, emerged as the runner-up at 5.9 percent annually.

Absolute loss: An easy call. Honolulu registered the only loss under Clinton, with 6,100 jobs slipping away.

Percentage loss: Honolulu again, down 0.2 percent per year.

How the Big Five did: It wasn't quite the Reagan era, but times were good. All five areas added jobs, led by Washington's annual growth rate of 2.4 percent. Los Angeles brought up the rear at 0.9 percent per year.

George W. Bush (2001-)

Free video Jobs juiced April 2: Labor Secretary Elaine Chao discusses the March employment report on CNBC Friday. CNBC

Overall breakdown: The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession began in March 2001, the dawn of the younger Bush's administration, though it adds that it might eventually revise the date to late 2000, when Clinton was still in office. Sixty-three markets have lost jobs since he took office, while 36 have added employment. (Allentown, Pa., is unchanged.) The total loss for the top 100: 1.4 million jobs.

Absolute gain: Riverside-San Bernardino, a market that encompasses Los Angeles' eastern suburbs, has picked up 99,300 jobs during the Bush years. Las Vegas and Washington are neck and neck for second place, having added 68,000 and 66,600 jobs.

Percentage gain: Riverside-San Bernardino also is the leader in percentage terms, increasing its job base at the annual pace of 3.2 percent since Bush took office. Next is Las Vegas at 2.9 percent per year, considerably slower than its pace under the previous three presidents.

Absolute loss: New York City reeled after the Sept. 11 attacks, which triggered a loss of 190,600 jobs during Bush's first three years. Next comes San Jose, still feeling the effects of the dot-com collapse. It has lost 175,700 jobs.

Percentage loss: Northern California has done the worst in this category. San Jose's losses translate to an annual decline of 6 percent, while San Francisco is down 4.2 percent per year.

How the Big Five did: Three of the five areas have fewer jobs today than when Bush was sworn in. New York City has suffered the sharpest drop, 1.5 percent per year. The two metros on the upside are Washington and Philadelphia, with respective annual increases of 0.8 percent and 0.1 percent.

Print this Email this Blog this  IM this