GDP under George W. Bush 5.5 years into his presidency was up nearly 35% nominal. Under Obama GDP is up nearly 18%.
Based on that, evidently, Time Magazine's Rana Foroohar is calling Obama's a 3% economy, without mentioning that Bush's was a 6% economy, nor that these figures are nominal as opposed to the generally reported real, inflation-adjusted numbers, here (it's two ways of making the present less intelligible, not more):
"But we’re now in a 3% economy, and I’m writing the same column [as three years ago]. Only this time, the message is more disturbing. Growth is back. Unemployment is down. But only a fraction of the jobs lost during the Great Recession that pay more than $15 per hour have been found. And wage growth is still hovering near zero, where it’s been for the past decade. Something is very, very broken in our economy.
"It’s a change that’s been coming for 20 years."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, wage growth has been flat since 2000. The difference is we still had our higher paying jobs with flat wage growth under Bush, but not now. But that, too, is only nominal. Add in inflation and we are 5.9% behind where we were in 2000, and Obama has done nothing to fix that, either. In fact, it got worse since the so-called recession ended in 2009, 3.1%. And dialing the blame back 20 years to further muddy the waters puts us in year two of the Clinton administration, when Clinton famously broke his promise and raised everyone's taxes, which precipitated one of the biggest and deepest waves of home equity borrowing ever to maintain disappearing lifestyles, helping to gut the basis of the American dream.
But that's not mentioned, either.
That's a lot for a financial journalist not to mention.
That's a lot for a financial journalist not to mention.
