Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[CrusaderFrank]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

Hmmmm.....seems to me that we have been engaged in "Trickle Down Economics" since the Reagan years. Bush pushed MASSIVE tax cuts through Congress and Obama has continued those tax cuts. And if it really worked there would be more than enough jobs to go around right now, right?

But the sad fact is that "Trickle Down Ecnomics" has been and is a FAILED policy. It didn't work and won't work. Even Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman called it a "Trojan Horse".

I'm shock that anyone would still advocate cutting even MORE taxes on the wealthy in the name of "job creation" when it clearly has not worked.

It worked to good
we have created 40 million jobs sense RR
Failed?

980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
look at the policies and what they did to jo growth atarting with RR

You can also clearly see when the GOP took congress in the 90s an 00s

Hand out ice with that because that had to leave a mark

 

[bobcollum]

Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

Conservatives have been asking why they haven't created any for a couple of years so I just assumed...

 

[JRK]

If the left is wrong, then why does the right blame the President for the unemployment rate?

Boop the subject matter is about the 4 trillion dollars and no jobs
Until we replace the housing sector, there will be no jobs

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's Failed Stimulus plus the 1/2 billion lost in Solyandra is proof that Federal Government is a jobs destroyer. He's mimicking FDR's Depression and getting the same results. For all of FDR's failed make-work schemes, unemployment averaged 20% from 1933-40 when Hilter ended the FDR Depression by conquering France. Obama would love to have 7 years like that, think of all those beaten down hopeless new Dem voters!

 

[JRK]

Hmmmm.....seems to me that we have been engaged in "Trickle Down Economics" since the Reagan years. Bush pushed MASSIVE tax cuts through Congress and Obama has continued those tax cuts. And if it really worked there would be more than enough jobs to go around right now, right?

But the sad fact is that "Trickle Down Ecnomics" has been and is a FAILED policy. It didn't work and won't work. Even Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman called it a "Trojan Horse".

I'm shock that anyone would still advocate cutting even MORE taxes on the wealthy in the name of "job creation" when it clearly has not worked.

It worked to good
we have created 40 million jobs sense RR
Failed?

980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
look at the policies and what they did to jo growth atarting with RR

You can also clearly see when the GOP took congress in the 90s an 00s

Hand out ice with that because that had to leave a mark

from 94 until 06 with the exception of 01-02 we had a GOP congress
Look at the jobs this country has created without all of the debt to go with it until 2007

 

[8537]

from 94 until 06 with the exception of 01-02 we had a GOP congress
Look at the jobs this country has created without all of the debt to go with it until 2007

Between 01 an 06 we created next to zero jobs.

In the 8 year period before that we created 20M jobs.

In the 8 year period before THAT, we created 16+/- million jobs.

Of course, it's as hard to attribute the 01-06 losses to Reagan as it is to attribute to Reagan the even faster job growth that occurred during the 1970s, or the 1960's. One might even observe that job growth has gotten worse since Reagan took office (nevermind that real incomes have been stagnant ever since that time as well!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html

 

[toxicmedia]

All good points.....but the US is no longer competitive in industries like oil production, agriculture, manufacturing, and all the other industries that fueled prosperity between 1950-1985 or so. The only reason Americans will ever buy energy that is expensive to extract...is when Venezuelan, Mexican, Nigerian, and Arabian penninsula oil is more expensive, and that won't happen because it'll run out for them first.

I guess my point is that we need to make SIGNIFICANT cuts to social security, medicare, and defense. Then the private business sector needs to sober up, and recognize the terrain it faces.

Cutting goverment worker benefits, and allowing energy companies to produce without restrictions from the EPA or Obama admin, and kicking people off welfare, and cutting government funding to NPR, and electing a Republican in 2012, and lowering taxes even more.......................is not enough to get us back to 1950-2000 prosperity levels.

The Obama policies, right or wrong, have neither created, nor perpetuated, our current economic crisis in significant enough ways to affix any significant blame for it...in Obama's lap. That notion is pure GOP electioneering.

I can go with that for the most part. But when you got to perpetuated we parted company.

The constant drum roll of the fair share along with other policy decisions make that point far fetched.

I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that Obama's policies have been neutral or harmless, and they certainly haven't shown a quanifyable success....

.......I just don't think that his 800 billion dollar stimulus is the significant factor that lead to our current situation. Conservative media, Rush especially, is trying to saddle Obama with 90% of the blame, and THAT, is electioneering. I see too many people embracing everything conservative media says, and they are fixing an inflated amount of blame on Obama, for electioneering purposes.

Even if the 800 billion flew out the window.....we'd still be in crisis. Our lack of jobs has very little to do with the deficit and debt..

 

[JRK]

from 94 until 06 with the exception of 01-02 we had a GOP congress
Look at the jobs this country has created without all of the debt to go with it until 2007

Between 01 an 06 we created next to zero jobs.

In the 8 year period before that we created 20M jobs.

In the 8 year period before THAT, we created 16+/- million jobs.

Of course, it's as hard to attribute the 01-06 losses to Reagan as it is to attribute to Reagan the even faster job growth that occurred during the 1970s, or the 1960's. One might even observe that job growth has gotten worse since Reagan took office (nevermind that real incomes have been stagnant ever since that time as well!)

The lost decade for the economy

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

this is from the US govt
ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
that would 6 million jobs from 01 to 06
the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied. Please stop making this stuff up
Also lets give credit were credit is due
Notice that congress became GOP in 94
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

 

[8537]

from 94 until 06 with the exception of 01-02 we had a GOP congress
Look at the jobs this country has created without all of the debt to go with it until 2007

Between 01 an 06 we created next to zero jobs.

In the 8 year period before that we created 20M jobs.

In the 8 year period before THAT, we created 16+/- million jobs.

Of course, it's as hard to attribute the 01-06 losses to Reagan as it is to attribute to Reagan the even faster job growth that occurred during the 1970s, or the 1960's. One might even observe that job growth has gotten worse since Reagan took office (nevermind that real incomes have been stagnant ever since that time as well!)

The lost decade for the economy

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

this is from the US govt
ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
that would 6 million jobs from 01 to 06
the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied

6 million jobs in six years = 1 million jobs per year = 75,000ish per month. Is that what you care to hang your hat on as a good span of job creation?

Which information have I provided that is inaccurate? Hint: Just because I prove you wrong doesn't mean my data is inaccurate. The decades before Reagan saw substantially more job creation than the decades during and after Reagan.

 

[JRK]

I can go with that for the most part. But when you got to perpetuated we parted company.

The constant drum roll of the fair share along with other policy decisions make that point far fetched.

I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that Obama's policies have been neutral or harmless, and they certainly haven't shown a quanifyable success....

.......I just don't think that his 800 billion dollar stimulus is the significant factor that lead to our current situation. Conservative media, Rush especially, is trying to saddle Obama with 90% of the blame, and THAT, is electioneering. I see too many people embracing everything conservative media says, and they are fixing an inflated amount of blame on Obama, for electioneering purposes.

Even if the 800 billion flew out the window.....we'd still be in crisis. Our lack of jobs has very little to do with the deficit and debt..

Policies
failed policies and 4 trillion dollars of printed money, who are we suppose to blame?
No-one has EVER said Obama did not walk into a mess
FIX IT, that's his job. What did you people think he was suppose to do?

 

[8537]

4 trillion dollars of printed money

Whatever does this mean? We didn't create 4 trillion through quantitative easing. We borrowed it from people. No printing required.

Please do some cursory DD before making such outlandish statements.

 

[JRK]

Between 01 an 06 we created next to zero jobs.

In the 8 year period before that we created 20M jobs.

In the 8 year period before THAT, we created 16+/- million jobs.

Of course, it's as hard to attribute the 01-06 losses to Reagan as it is to attribute to Reagan the even faster job growth that occurred during the 1970s, or the 1960's. One might even observe that job growth has gotten worse since Reagan took office (nevermind that real incomes have been stagnant ever since that time as well!)

The lost decade for the economy

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

this is from the US govt
ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
that would 6 million jobs from 01 to 06
the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied

6 million jobs in six years = 1 million jobs per year = 75,000ish per month. Is that what you care to hang your hat on as a good span of job creation?

Which information have I provided that is inaccurate? Hint: Just because I prove you wrong doesn't mean my data is inaccurate. The decades before Reagan saw substantially more job creation than the decades during and after Reagan.

That is not what you said
either way the truth came out
Let me add that those 6 million jobs were created in 3 years and came after the recession of 2001, 9-11 and Enron
You know that little event called 9-11

 

[8537]

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

this is from the US govt
ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
that would 6 million jobs from 01 to 06
the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied

6 million jobs in six years = 1 million jobs per year = 75,000ish per month. Is that what you care to hang your hat on as a good span of job creation?

Which information have I provided that is inaccurate? Hint: Just because I prove you wrong doesn't mean my data is inaccurate. The decades before Reagan saw substantially more job creation than the decades during and after Reagan.

That is not what you said

What did I say that was a lie, JRK? Surely you're not making a baseless accusation about me, are you?

either way the truth came out

Indeed! The truth is that job creation and income growth both occurred at a more rapid rate before Reagan took office than during and after.

That's the truth. It's a fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

6 million jobs in six years = 1 million jobs per year = 75,000ish per month. Is that what you care to hang your hat on as a good span of job creation?

Which information have I provided that is inaccurate? Hint: Just because I prove you wrong doesn't mean my data is inaccurate. The decades before Reagan saw substantially more job creation than the decades during and after Reagan.

That is not what you said

What did I say that was a lie, JRK? Surely you're not making a baseless accusation about me, are you?

either way the truth came out

Indeed! The truth is that job creation and income growth both occurred at a more rapid rate before Reagan took office than during and after.

That's the truth. It's a fact.

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

 

[8537]

That is not what you said

What did I say that was a lie, JRK? Surely you're not making a baseless accusation about me, are you?

either way the truth came out

Indeed! The truth is that job creation and income growth both occurred at a more rapid rate before Reagan took office than during and after.

That's the truth. It's a fact.

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

 

[JRK]

What did I say that was a lie, JRK? Surely you're not making a baseless accusation about me, are you?


Indeed! The truth is that job creation and income growth both occurred at a more rapid rate before Reagan took office than during and after.

That's the truth. It's a fact.

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

Okay then let me mention the DJIA of 6500 under OBAMA
or the 250000 jobs created in 92 under Clinton, or the 4 million created in 94 with a GOP congress
How about lets mention the surplus that GWB had in 01, that 9-11 took away in 2002

You really want to do this?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What did I say that was a lie, JRK? Surely you're not making a baseless accusation about me, are you?


Indeed! The truth is that job creation and income growth both occurred at a more rapid rate before Reagan took office than during and after.

That's the truth. It's a fact.

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.


http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf

 

[8537]

So you aren't willing to point out where i lied? Or were you just making that up with hopes I wouldn't notice?

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

Okay then let me mention the DJIA of 6500 under OBAMA
or the 250000 jobs created in 92 under Clinton, or the 4 million created in 94 with a GOP congress
How about lets mention the surplus that GWB had in 01, that 9-11 took away in 2002

You really want to do this?

DJIA 6500? Or is that DJIA 11,000?

And Bush didn't have a surplus in 2001 (Clinton's last budget year, by the way).

 

[8537]

Touting the benefits of Carternomics? 21% prime as the key to prosperity?

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.

Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

 

[JRK]

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.

Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

1961...... 54,105 45,399 18,647 728 2,908 15,011
1962...... 55,659 46,655 19,203 709 2,997 15,498
1963...... 56,764 47,423 19,385 694 3,060 15,631
1964...... 58,391 48,680 19,733 697 3,148 15,888
1965...... 60,874 50,683 20,595 694 3,284 16,617
1966...... 64,020 53,110 21,740 690 3,371 17,680
1967...... 65,931 54,406 21,882 679 3,305 17,897
1968...... 68,023 56,050 22,292 671 3,410 18,211
1969...... 70,512 58,181 22,893 683 3,637 18,573

1970...... 71,006 58,318 22,179 677 3,654 17,848
1971...... 71,335 58,323 21,602 658 3,770 17,174
1972...... 73,798 60,333 22,299 672 3,957 17,669
1973...... 76,912 63,050 23,450 693 4,167 18,589
1974...... 78,389 64,086 23,364 755 4,095 18,514
1975...... 77,069 62,250 21,318 802 3,608 16,909
1976...... 79,502 64,501 22,025 832 3,662 17,531
1977...... 82,593 67,334 22,972 865 3,940 18,167
1978...... 86,826 71,014 24,156 902 4,322 18,932
1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

the first row is total
the second row is private
61-79 28.5 million, 1.5 million per year
80-89 16 million, 1.6 million per year with 80-83 having a negative job growth period