Do American voters care about how the US economy improves as long as jobs are created?

I think people look at a lot of things when they think about how the economy is doing. What is the job market like? What are interest rates like? Are prices up and paychecks down? How comfortable do they feel that they can survive in a way they like? Is our government driving up the national debt with nothing to show for it? So when people talk about how good the economy is doing, it is a discussion that might be different with each person.
Generally, I think if people are working, earning a living that keeps a roof over their families’ heads and food in their stomachs, then they feel the economy is doing okay. If they can afford to put some money away as well or afford more “toys”, then it is better. I don’t believe most people worry about whether the rich are getting richer…they do that all the time.
Everybody raves about what a great president Reagan was, but I remember struggling with double digit home loan interest rates, elevated prices on everything and worrying about making ends meet. The economy was growing, though…jobs were being created and things were changing. Bush 1 took over and things were hitting bottom. When he ran for re-election, the economy was recovering. I remember he got asked in one of the debates what he was going to do about the economy. He said he wasn’t going to do anything because there was nothing wrong with the economy. Technically he was right…it was coming back on its own and the best thing to do was nothing. But it made him sound out of touch. On the other side, you had Bill Clinton talking about “My Plan”. My Plan will do this and My Plan will do that. He never did describe what “My Plan” really was though. When he was elected he did…nothing. He did absolutely nothing to help the economy. He knew enough to keep his hands off it and ride the wave. So people will vote on how they feel the economy is impacting them.

Just to be clear, during the Clinton years, you know, the bad old days; economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months. The economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years, more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector. Median Family Income rose over $6,000 from 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. The real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999. Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000.. Inflation was att the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and was down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration. The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993. The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999. the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There were 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997,there were eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America’s history. By FY 2000 there was a surplus of $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. Between 1998–2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009. After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, Due to Clintons policies interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected. Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it was estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut. Lower debt whelped maintain strong economic growth and fueled private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth from 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.

After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower-income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit income growth since the period ending 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent. When Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There were 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979. Under Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record. During Reagans years, between 1980 and 1992, an additional 2.1 million households headed by single women were pushed into poverty. During the Clinton years the welfare rolls have dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981–1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.

Yep, those were some lean and mean years there.

I do not believe people in general think about the economy, or “jobs created”. All they care about is “my job” or income and can I pay my bills this month.

@rojo I understand the economy did great during Clinton’s time in office. I had this same discussion with one of my former co-workers who was a huge Clinton supporter. The problem with stories like that is that you haven’t touched a “why”. Clinton did one important thing for the economy….he kept his hands off it. When challenged, my friend couldn’t come up with one thing that Clinton did that would have accounted for the growth. And please don’t think this is a partisan comment. I feel the same way about the economy bouncing up when Trump was elected. He did nothing to cause that. It grew on the speculation that he was going to change things. Since he was elected, I still feel the jury is out . He has done somethings to help…his tax reform helped boost increases in pay and creation of more jobs. I’m still not sure what the long term effects will be. He did get rid of NAFTA or more accurately, he wants to revamp it which I think is a good long term thing but does nothing for today. But he also signed in a budget that was well over a trillion dollars. That will hurt us for a long time. Right now if I were grading, I would give Clinton an A for knowing not to do anything and an A for being a politician and claiming to have a plan. I would give Trump a C for actual things done but an B+ for trying to get long term things in place.

There is a lot of talk about taxes and interest rates and deficit spending and trickle down and foreign labor forces, tariffs, global markets transfer of capital, ad nauseam but most folks really don’t understand the mechanisms (I admit to being one of them) but the bottom line is that most people who have jobs don’t care if jobs are created or not as long as they do not lose theirs, so, no.