During the great period before Bush's tax cuts when we recovered from recession based on low interest rates alone we averaged well over 200,000 jobs per month with real increases in wages.

I don't know where the heck you are getting your numbers. Bush took office in January of 2001. The first measly tax cut was in June of 2001. We had not added more than 200,000 jobs in a single month since May of 2000.

Go here and play with the charts yourself.

***

The following is speculation--I have no numbers to prove it--but it fits the data:

You know, if you stop and think about it, is there even the slightest possibility that, during the 90s, vast numbers of internet and tech companies ramping up to full steam on sheer speculation and no real product might, just might, have artificially inflated employment numbers with jobs that had no real future? Has anyone done any numbers on how many of the millions of jobs created during the 90s were less than a year or two old when they disappeared?

In previous recessions, how many layoffs were from established companies, like factories, airline companies, stores, and other businesses that had been around for years, but just couldn't carry the employees during a recession? When the recession ends, the companies just start picking up employees again, sometimes for the same jobs.

What happens if, because of an artificially-stimulated tech boom, thousands of companies didn't just lay off people, but just plain vanished after the layoffs? Where are the rehires then? Employment recovery would have to come from two main sources: layoffs from existing companies being rehired, and hiring from brand new companies. The latter, it goes without saying, is going to take a little more time.

Has anyone looked into this? A LOT of numbers would have to be correlated. Venture capital growth (indicates new companies created). Bankruptcies in specific industries tracked over the past several years. Lost jobs from specific industries. And others.

Not something I want to tackle for free, I tell you what.

So take it as a speculation. It does explain the facts, but that's not enough to make a solid theory by itself.