The economy is again the issue this election. Millions will vote for the candidate they think will eliminate inflation, widen prosperity and deliver jobs.
If you take out the pandemic, we have been fortunate, experiencing almost 15 years of steady job creation since the Great Recession. Donald Trump claims he was responsible for this and the best economy ever. President Biden counters by saying he created more jobs than any other American leader. VP Harris says her plans will move us forward. And former President Obama, who campaigned for the VP Kamala recently, shouted, “I remember that economy when he (Trump) came in…being pretty good…yeah, it was pretty good, because it was MY economy.”
Our leaders line up to take credit for creating these jobs, but I contend none of these people had much, if anything, to do with it. Their actions, arguably, did more harm than good. No, something else is responsible for this winning streak. Neither side deserves our acclaim.
The gains came from good timing, not particularly good policy. Overspending trillions – as all did – did not bring a flourishing marketplace, and certainly didn’t check inflation. Demographics and mathematics explain the decade and a half of steady hiring far better.
Baby Boomers, Father Time and American businesses deserve their due. Shortly after the recession began in 2010, the children of the Greatest Generation started turning 65. Seventy-five million people were destined to leave the workforce at a rate of about 10,000 people per day, or 3.6 million people per annum. This void simply needed to be filled. Administrative actions did not cause this. It was going to happen, regardless of policy.
The U.S. has averaged about 200,000 new private sector jobs per month since the start of 2011. This sounds great, but think about it: This does not even replace the void of seniors exiting. Retirees have left two to three hundred thousand jobs open every month for 15 years.
Even if one eliminates this seismic demographic shift, basic math does more to explain this (below average) level of job creation and reveals what real economic leadership could deliver. Let’s go to the blackboard and estimate the number of jobs a robust economy should produce.
Assuming businesses add associates at the rate their revenues grow, companies will employ 1% more workers for every 1% of incremental sales. The Gross Domestic Product is merely the aggregate of all American businesses. America’s workforce enlarges at the rate of overall expansion. One percent of 150 million U.S. workers equals 1.5 million more people. A 2% GDP growth rate, as we have seen over this period, should create 3 million hires annually, or 250,000 every month. Sound familiar?
None of these false prophets deserve to be worshiped. The years of even job growth simply equates to the numeric expectations of a good, not great, economy. There is no reason to believe these jobs came from stellar political leadership or brilliant policy.
Imagine if our elders had not retired. Unemployment is low because of Boomers, not because we experienced a boom. I am grateful people are working. It is better than going backward, but the truth is our economy has underperformed. We have experienced modest, not praise-worthy, levels of prosperity. These people are bragging about 2% rates when the historical average is 60% higher (3.2%). For perspective, an above-average growth rate of 4% would produce 500,000 jobs each month.
Combined with retirees, we would need 10 million new workers annually – through 2030, when the last Baby Boomers are expected to have retired! Imagine what this kind of job creation would do to boost worker pay and re-employ adults in destitute communities with few prospects.
Some may say this level of economic growth is not possible, but OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) data across world economies shows that such rates are achievable for nations that…wait for it…keep Total Government Spending to GDP Ratios lower than any of these presidents ever considered budgeting.
It has been 25 years now, but we experienced 4% GDP growth rates during the Clinton/Gingrich years. While adversaries, they kept Total Government Spending to GDP Ratios closer to 30% instead of the 35-40% we have seen this century. Not coincidentally, it is also the last time we saw a budget surplus come out of Washington.
As these officials pat themselves on the back over employment results, they did not influence, I wish I could tell you one candidate or the other could be expected to deliver prosperity. I can’t. There is no reason to believe either side has a plan to help All Americans win. The best we can hope for is some kind of Democrat-Republican split, so Washington politicos can’t tamper with the economy, spend trillions we don’t have, and make things worse. Not great, but at least we’ve got six more years of retiring citizens to help make whoever wins look good.
This article originally appeared on WeAreAllAmerican.org and was syndicated by MediaFeed.org.
More from MediaFeed:
Healthy Agreement: 5 Health Topics That Unite Republicans, Democrats & Independents
Featured Image Credit: Kamala Harris / X , WhiteHouse.gov.