Jobs

As mentioned in my post on the economy, Bill Clinton was the leader in job creation averaging 242,000 jobs per month.  Most presidents create jobs regardless of party affiliation.  As of June 2016, there have been 75 straight months of private sector job growth.

Of course, any candidate for president is going to say they are going to create jobs and claim that their opponent will kill jobs.  

For example, in a 34 second video on Trump’s website, Trump claims with certainty, “I will be the greatest job-producing president that God ever created.” He calls on his experience of creating tens of thousands of jobs for our country as one of the things he is most proud of.  That is the extent of his jobs platform.

Jobs and wages are a focus of Clinton’s first 100 days plan.  She boasts the “boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.”  The tenants of her plan include some things I’ve already posted about: the boldest investment in infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950’s and investment in clean energy.  Some tenants will be discussed in more depth in future posts such as commitment to technology and research to create the jobs of the future, a $10 billion dollar “Make it in America” plan for manufacturing, tax relief and deregulation for small businesses, and “smarter, fairer, tougher” trade policies (she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

Since both candidates claim to be job creators, I am going to rely on third party analysis for this post.

My primary source for this post is Moody’s Analytics.  Moody’s Analytics provides economic research regarding risk management.  They are completely independent of political affiliation  as they operate in the business world, not the political realm.  Still, the primary author of both the Clinton & Trump reports was Mark Zandi who served as an economic advisor to John McCain.  He now supports Hillary Clinton for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Clinton:  The 20 page in depth analysis completed by Moody’s can be found here.  It has been picked up by numerous news outlets including CNNMoney & Forbes, plus many, many others.  As it relates to jobs, Clinton’s proposals would create 10.4 million jobs under her presidency.  That is 3.2 million more than expected under current law.  Additionally, GDP growth would move from the current forecast of 2.3% to 2.7%.  In their conclusion, they write that “Secretary Clinton’s economic policies when taken together will result in stronger U.S. economy under almost any scenario.”

Why?  In short, her immigration proposal increases the number skilled workers in the country, her infrastructure investment helps business productivity, and her paid family leave proposal is predicted to bring more people into the workforce. The report reinforces again what I reported in an earlier post, “while her budget arithmetic does not completely add up, it is pretty close, and the nation’s debt load under her plan is no different than under current law.”  

In addition to running the numbers on her proposals, they also analyze a “Clinton Lite” version where she can only get some of her plans through Congress and this still produces stronger growth in GDP and jobs even though the gains aren’t as impressive.  

In a third scenario, Congress prevents her plans from being implemented and the economy’s performance is similar to what is expected under current law (continued growth, just not as strong as if Clinton’s proposals are enacted.)  This makes the case for electing Democrats to Congress.

Billionaire businessman, Warren Buffett, campaigned with Clinton in Nebraska on August 1st to show the business community’s support for Clinton.  He joins billionaires Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks) and Michael Bloomberg (former New York City mayor) in endorsing Clinton.

Trump:  Moody’s 15 page analysis predicts that Trump’s plans would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession costing 3.5 million Americans their jobs, raising unemployment to 7%, and dropping home prices. They say that the super rich would get richer, but everyone else would be worse off.  Why?  They outline three “really bad” economic policies: trade, immigration, and taxes.

On trade, Trump’s idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth as Americans would face higher prices on goods, inflation would rise, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.  Trump’s plan to limit immigration and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants would be costly for the government and businesses.  Finally, Trump’s massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses without touching Social Security and Medicare, would add $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

I will get to taxes in a future post, but briefly, more than ⅓ of Trump’s proposed tax cuts go to the top 1% of earners with the average taxpayer in that group receiving a $275,000 reduction in their tax bill.  Taxpayers in the bottom 99%  receive less than $2,500 in tax cuts.

They conclude in saying what I’ve been saying for months now.  “Quantifying Mr. Trump’s economic policies is complicated by their lack of specificity.”  He just doesn’t give a lot of specifics.

Moody’s isn’t the only one predicting a recession if Trump is elected.  Former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, calls Trump the most dangerous American presidential candidate in his lifetime.  Former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, says, “His domestic policies would lead to a recession.”  HP CEO, Meg Whitman, says Trump would “sink this country into a recession.”

Despite all of this, what about the American people? Who do they trust with the economy?  Trump 53% to Clinton 43%.