I was reading the latest "it's hard to find a job, isn't the economy terrible" article in the New York Times and I have to say that they do have a point. Apparently, the people who are out of work are out of work longer. The article really doesn't answer the question as to why that is, but nevertheless it is something that is not good.

Even as overall unemployment dropped last year, the share of unemployed workers who have been jobless for more than six months - the point at which most state benefits run out - has remained historically high. As of November, about 1.8 million, or one in five, unemployed workers were jobless for more than six months, compared with 1.1 million when the recession officially ended in November 2001.

Since the start of the recession in March 2001, the average length of unemployment has risen to 20 weeks from 13.

One of the quotes that I found that was quite interesting was from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a "conservative" organization. (You don't see other organizations labeled as "liberal" in the article, but that's just another generic right wing complaint).

"It's not a partisan issue, it's a fact. The labor market is worse than in the typical recovery."

This quote made me wonder...was it even possible for Bush to have a large number of jobs gained compared to other recoveries? Apparently, when the 2001 recession ended, the unemployment rate was already lower than at the trough of any recession in recent history:

May 1954 - 5.9%
April 1958 - 7.4%
February 1961 - 6.9%
November 1970 - 5.9%
March 1975 - 8.6%
July 1980 - 7.8%
November 1982 - 10.8%
March 1991- 6.8%
November 2001 - 5.6%

Also, the Republicans have always argued that Bush was handed an economy on the way down from Bill Clinton, but I never realized how true it was until I looked at the following numbers which show the unemployment rate at the time of a president's inauguration through September of their first year in office. Since a president's first budget doesn't take effect until the fiscal year that begins in October and I didn't want to include the effects of September 11, 2001, I think this is a fair comparison.

Eisenhower (1953) - 2.9 to 2.9%
Kennedy (1961) - 6.6 to 6.7%
Nixon (1969) - 3.4 to 3.7%
Carter (1977) - 7.5 to 6.8%
Reagan (1981) - 7.5 to 7.6%
Bush I (1989) - 5.4 to 5.3%
Clinton (1993) - 7.3 to 6.7%
Bush II (2001) - 4.2 to 5.0%

Therefore, not only did President Bush start off his recovery with an economy that was already at historically low unemployment, his whole term was affected by the economy that he was handed where the unemployment rate was rising at a historically fast rate before he could take significant action. (This is without even talking about the effects of 9/11). In other words, to expect Bush's first term performance on jobs to be similar or better than that of previous presidents is wholly unrealistic.