Santorum Gets It Wrong on Manufacturing Jobs


Presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum took an early hit at President Obama’s record on manufacturing jobs at Saturday’s Republican debate, claiming the president has decimated the sector.

Let’s look at the numbers, via PolitiFact: During Obama’s presidency, the number of manufacturing jobs has declined by nearly 800,000. But since January 2010, the number of jobs has increased by nearly 300,000—a rise of nearly 3 percent over the past two years.

And when you compare Obama’s record to that of past presidents, he looks even more impressive:

In general, manufacturing employment has declined more or less steadily since the mid-1970s. The last time manufacturing jobs saw such a large and sustained numerical increase was in the early 1990s. So while the increase in years two and three of the Obama presidency is relatively small, it is the best in about two decades.

One way to illustrate the long-term decline of manufacturing jobs is to look at how the numbers have moved during the past few presidencies. In the list below, we began counting from one year into each president’s tenure through to the end of their term. Using that methodology, here are the numbers of manufacturing jobs gained or lost per year:

Barack Obama: Increase of 157,368 manufacturing jobs per year in office
George W. Bush: Decrease of 434,143 manufacturing jobs per year in office
Bill Clinton: Increase of 37,143 manufacturing jobs per year in office
George H.W. Bush: Decrease of 336,000 manufacturing jobs per year in office
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 1,429 manufacturing jobs per year in office
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 15,333 manufacturing jobs per year in office

So by this measure, manufacturing jobs have actually increased by more under Obama than under any of his recent predecessors.

Dinging Obama for presiding over a still-stagnant economy is all well and good. But the numbers suggest that he’s made commendable progress toward reversing a troubling 40-year trend.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.