Job growth by decade......and the LOST decade.

[Danny]

I can hear the left arguing again and again "Bush had 54 consecutive months of job growth"...

[MM2K]

Something is off. Is the chart trying to say that the 40s and 70s were better than the 80s and 90s? The chart is either wrong or incredibally misleading about overall economic prosperity. I would have to think that since we had what was arguably the most mild recession in US history at the beginning of the 2000s, we shouldnt have expected that high of a percentage change in GDP for the rest of the decade.

[Danny]

Something is off. Is the chart trying to say that the 40s and 70s were better than the 80s and 90s? The chart is either wrong or incredibally misleading about overall economic prosperity. I would have to think that since we had what was arguably the most mild recession in US history at the beginning of the 2000s, we shouldnt have expected that high of a percentage change in GDP for the rest of the decade.

I cant verify is this is bogus or not. To me it makes sense to have a serious economical rebound after a war. Second World war ended in 1945 so that leaves 5 years of potential growth, same with Vietnam, 1975 end of it , same story 5 years of serious growth therefore making the 40's and 70's look like that if these graphs are correct. I am grasping at straws here and hypothesizing, maybe someone a little smarter in this area can shed more light?

[MM2K]

Actually, I take back what I said about the 40s. I was getting that confused with the 30s. The 40s were actually pretty good because of the war in the first half, and then in the second half of the decade all the disasterous New Deal policies were repealed. But the 70s were not better than the 80s and 90s. The 50s and 60s were fairly solid but you cant say that they were vastly better than the 80s and 90s.