The unemployment rate is now where it was when Man first walked on the moon

[middleview]

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/383337-trump-team-continues-to-roll-back-the-regulatory-state

Clearly, you aren't interested in the truth here...

How many jobs were created by this?

Pruitt recently proposed changing an Obama-era regulation on the disposal of coal ash — a toxic byproduct of burning coal — to give states flexibility in to determining the best way to dispose of the material. The EPA said the proposal could save electric utilities up to $100 million a year in compliance costs.

Find a regulation that Trump has gotten rid of that has actually helped create jobs.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

How many jobs were created by this?

Pruitt recently proposed changing an Obama-era regulation on the disposal of coal ash — a toxic byproduct of burning coal — to give states flexibility in to determining the best way to dispose of the material. The EPA said the proposal could save electric utilities up to $100 million a year in compliance costs.

Find a regulation that Trump has gotten rid of that has actually helped create jobs.

That's what we typically call a "canard." The fact is that Trump has largely reversed the Obama "executive order" jihad against capitalism, and the economy is responding by waking up from the long, lethargic non-recovery we had under the Obama policy regime. Wages are rising from the flat-line:



That's a pretty picture (unless you are an Obama apologist, apparently). The reason for that is that full time employment is way up (almost 1 million adjustment upward last month). And the reason full time employment is up is because of expansions in manufacturing, mining and construction. That's a marked change from an expansion based on low wage part time service jobs in (expanding) health care and hospitality industries that marked the employment picture under Obama's anti-capitalist agenda. You don't create wealth by changing people's diapers and serving billionaires $100 hamburgers and $30 a glass cabernet.

 

[middleview]

Thatnks for another opportunity to show your incredible ability to avoid facts in an effort to promote your "all Obama all the time" agenda:

View attachment 39256

There's clearly something else going on here than simply an extension of the trends in place during the Obama (non) recovery. Almost 1 million full-time jobs created:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-01/us-added-record-904000-full-time-jobs-last-month

The Obama era trend toward part-time, low wage service jobs has given way to more full-time, higher wage jobs in manufacturing, mining and construction:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-01/where-jobs-were-may-whos-hiring-and-who-isnt

Yes, I know, it's Zerohedge (insert knee-jerk ad hominem attack on the site so you don't have to address their facts).

Regardless, the fact is that there's something fundamentally different about these current (good) economic trends from the ones that resulted from the Obama agenda. I agree that Trump is a lousy President, but the fact is he's a damn sight better one than Barack Obama. Obama's assault on capitalism resulted in a huge decline in the LFPR of men:

http://econofact.org/where-have-all-the-male-workers-gone

Simply by removing Obama's anti-capitalist policies, that long decline in the male LFPR is starting to reverse, because the male dominated industries are once again surging.

So zerohedge says 904,000 jobs were created last month....

ADP reported non-farm private jobs growth at 178,000.

http://econintersect.com/pages/releases/release.php?post=201805300730

 

[middleview]

That's what we typically call a "canard." The fact is that Trump has largely reversed the Obama "executive order" jihad against capitalism, and the economy is responding by waking up from the long, lethargic non-recovery we had under the Obama policy regime. Wages are rising from the flat-line:

View attachment 39257

That's a pretty picture (unless you are an Obama apologist, apparently). The reason for that is that full time employment is way up (almost 1 million adjustment upward last month). And the reason full time employment is up is because of expansions in manufacturing, mining and construction. That's a marked change from an expansion based on low wage part time service jobs in (expanding) health care and hospitality industries that marked the employment picture under Obama's anti-capitalist agenda. You don't create wealth by changing people's diapers and serving billionaires $100 hamburgers and $30 a glass cabernet.

ADP says 178,000 jobs created last month...not 900,000. That is a fact.

 

[EatTheRich]

About the graph, because that is exactly what the graph shows. I looked it up before, Kennedy, lower; Johnson, lower; Nixon, higher; Carter, lower; Reagan, higher, GHWB, higher; Clinton, lower; GWB, higher; Obama,lower. I will be surprised if the Trump/Pence/ ?, 4 yr term, doesn't end up the same way.

Unemployment declined a bit under Reagan ... it was 7.5% when he took office and 5.4% when he left.

 

[middleview]

Unemployment declined a bit under Reagan ... it was 7.5% when he took office and 5.4% when he left.

jumped to 10.8% after he had been president for 22 months.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

So zerohedge says 904,000 jobs were created last month....

ADP reported non-farm private jobs growth at 178,000.

http://econintersect.com/pages/releases/release.php?post=201805300730

So what? There's either 904000 more full time jobs according to the BLS household survey or there isn't. ADP is an entirely different measure (as is the establishment survey).

Either the biggest gainers are the higher paying industries (manufacturing, mining, construction, technological services) or they aren't.

If not, you should be able to post the reports to the contrary, and let the record show you didn't. Instead, you introduced the ADP survey, a move that is commonly referred to as a "red herring."

You aren't really interested in the facts here, you are interested in spewing propaganda that boils down to "democrats good, republicans bad." I don't like either of them, so I'm free to just focus on facts. And the fact is that the economy has improved since Obama left office.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

ADP says 178,000 jobs created last month...not 900,000. That is a fact.

LOL! You were all over the BLS employment reports when Obama was in office. Now suddenly you have decided maybe they aren't so accurate after all.

 

[middleview]

So what? There's either 904000 more full time jobs according to the BLS household survey or there isn't. ADP is an entirely different measure (as is the establishment survey).

Either the biggest gainers are the higher paying industries (manufacturing, mining, construction, technological services) or they aren't.

If not, you should be able to post the reports to the contrary, and let the record show you didn't. Instead, you introduced the ADP survey, a move that is commonly referred to as a "red herring."

You aren't really interested in the facts here, you are interested in spewing propaganda that boils down to "democrats good, republicans bad." I don't like either of them, so I'm free to just focus on facts. And the fact is that the economy has improved since Obama left office.

Your focused on democrats bad republicans are good and maybe you don't see it. Your numbers came from zerohedge. Mine from ADP.

Here is what the BLS says:

The American economy roared into overdrive last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, extending the longest streak of job growth on record and echoing other recent signs of strength.

The unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent, its lowest level since the heady days of the dot-com boom in early 2000.

The net increase of 223,000 jobs reflected healthy gains in a broad range of industries, from manufacturing and transportation to health care and retailing.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Your focused on democrats bad republicans are good and maybe you don't see it. Your numbers came from zerohedge. Mine from ADP.

Here is what the BLS says:

The American economy roared into overdrive last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, extending the longest streak of job growth on record and echoing other recent signs of strength.

The unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent, its lowest level since the heady days of the dot-com boom in early 2000.

The net increase of 223,000 jobs reflected healthy gains in a broad range of industries, from manufacturing and transportation to health care and retailing.

Again, that's from the establishment survey. I'm not disputing what either of your surveys said - you are disputing what the household survey says, without actually, you know, citing the household survey. None of these surveys have 100% factual accuracy - they are all statistical extrapolations. Which is why you have to go deeper than simply the top line numbers (like job creation and "unemployment") and look at what's going on inside the survey. If you are a hack, you pick one stat, such as you did repeatedly with the "unemployment" rate to tout the Obama economic "recovery." Especially when you consider that the underlying data showed the strongest job growth was in part time, low wage service industries contributing to stagnant incomes.

My point then was always that suggesting the unemployment rate is the only relevant measure, when in fact it is declining more because people were dropping out of the work force, than from people finding jobs, was the equivalent of propaganda (and it in fact was). So now, when we see unemployment continuing to decline, even as the labor force participation rate has increased, especially in the key working age cohort:



And it's accompanied by a increases in good "bread winner" job type industries, such as manufacturing, mining, construction and technological services, and reinforced by indications of a rotation away from part time jobs to more new jobs being full time employment (according to indications from the household survey), and an uptick in wage growth, you start getting the real picture - and that picture shows this isn't Barack Obama's economic recovery.

Do I believe one million full time jobs were actually created in May? Of course not. But I do believe it is measuring SOMETHING, something significant - especially when you put it against the back drop of the apparent quality of new jobs being created, the increasing LFPR, and the nascent pop in wages.

This isn't "republicans good democrats bad" thinking, it's just a good, logical examination of the facts and an honest representation of what the data actually suggests.

 

[Dawg]

That's what we typically call a "canard." The fact is that Trump has largely reversed the Obama "executive order" jihad against capitalism, and the economy is responding by waking up from the long, lethargic non-recovery we had under the Obama policy regime. Wages are rising from the flat-line:

View attachment 39257

That's a pretty picture (unless you are an Obama apologist, apparently). The reason for that is that full time employment is way up (almost 1 million adjustment upward last month). And the reason full time employment is up is because of expansions in manufacturing, mining and construction. That's a marked change from an expansion based on low wage part time service jobs in (expanding) health care and hospitality industries that marked the employment picture under Obama's anti-capitalist agenda. You don't create wealth by changing people's diapers and serving billionaires $100 hamburgers and $30 a glass cabernet.

now we will hear of his $1,000,000 Fast Food Joint and his 35 employees.........

 

[Dawg]

Unemployment declined a bit under Reagan ... it was 7.5% when he took office and 5.4% when he left.

bet that pissed libs off as Pelosi is today..........reducing unemployed is not the dem/libs agenda..........they MUST have unemployed dependent on THEM.

 

[middleview]

Again, that's from the establishment survey. I'm not disputing what either of your surveys said - you are disputing what the household survey says, without actually, you know, citing the household survey. None of these surveys have 100% factual accuracy - they are all statistical extrapolations. Which is why you have to go deeper than simply the top line numbers (like job creation and "unemployment") and look at what's going on inside the survey. If you are a hack, you pick one stat, such as you did repeatedly with the "unemployment" rate to tout the Obama economic "recovery." Especially when you consider that the underlying data showed the strongest job growth was in part time, low wage service industries contributing to stagnant incomes.

My point then was always that suggesting the unemployment rate is the only relevant measure, when in fact it is declining more because people were dropping out of the work force, than from people finding jobs, was the equivalent of propaganda (and it in fact was). So now, when we see unemployment continuing to decline, even as the labor force participation rate has increased, especially in the key working age cohort:

View attachment 39274

And it's accompanied by a increases in good "bread winner" job type industries, such as manufacturing, mining, construction and technological services, and reinforced by indications of a rotation away from part time jobs to more new jobs being full time employment (according to indications from the household survey), and an uptick in wage growth, you start getting the real picture - and that picture shows this isn't Barack Obama's economic recovery.

Do I believe one million full time jobs were actually created in May? Of course not. But I do believe it is measuring SOMETHING, something significant - especially when you put it against the back drop of the apparent quality of new jobs being created, the increasing LFPR, and the nascent pop in wages.

This isn't "republicans good democrats bad" thinking, it's just a good, logical examination of the facts and an honest representation of what the data actually suggests.

Hard to tell where your info comes from. You link to zerohedge and they say their numbers from BLS, but if you go to BLS on your own....those numbers aren't there.

Here you quote LFPR.

At the end of January 2017, the labor force participation rate was 62.9 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. President Barack Obama's term concluded on Jan. 20, 2017.

At the end of March 2018, the rate was also 62.9 percent. It was not "going back up to more people in the workforce," as McCarthy said during his interview.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/fact-check/20180430/fact-check-is-the-labor-participation-rate-going-back-up-under-trump

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Hard to tell where your info comes from. You link to zerohedge and they say their numbers from BLS, but if you go to BLS on your own....those numbers aren't there.

Here you quote LFPR.

At the end of January 2017, the labor force participation rate was 62.9 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. President Barack Obama's term concluded on Jan. 20, 2017.

At the end of March 2018, the rate was also 62.9 percent. It was not "going back up to more people in the workforce," as McCarthy said during his interview.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/fact-check/20180430/fact-check-is-the-labor-participation-rate-going-back-up-under-trump

It is among working age Americans, which I guess must be a bad thing in your opinion:



Like I said, this isn't Barack Obama's "recovery" anymore. It's not smoke and mirror good news, it's actual real good news.



And the reason wages are increasing is that industrial production is driving the job gains:



Rather than the low wage service industries that drove most of the gains under the Obama (anti-capitalist) agenda. Like I said, this isn't Obama's "recovery" any more. The boot of government has been removed from the neck of business and the economy, as it typically does, is responding with increasing evidence that the long slow non-recovery that the Obama administration saddled us with is finally over.

 

[Alinvegas]

Sure wish Pres. Kennedy had lived to see that. I realize you're just trying to start another pissing contest righty,but I'm not going there with you.

Yes, it is a shame that JFK didn't get to see his dream to fruition.

 

[marvin martian]

Thanks Obama.

Thanks Obama

Oops! Management wants you to communicate better, please.

 

[Montecresto]

Think about that lefty...

No one ever believes the governments posted unemployment numbers, ever. Think about that.

 

[reason10]

If you ever get deprogrammed you’ll learn about the record streak of economic growth and jobs growth during the Obama era, which has carried forward into the Trump era.

You should get deprogrammed.

Oh, I agree there was a record streak of economic growth during Obama's era, IN [Unwelcome language removed] CHINA.
NOTHING carried forward in the Trump miracle. Trump reversed the OBAMA MISERY INDEX and made America Great Again.

 

[reason10]

Except Reagan drove the unemployment rate up to the highest number since the depression and quadrupled the national debt. His "supply side" had to do with buying ships, planes and tanks...eventually that trickled down to consumer products.

You are such a [Unwelcome language removed] LIAR.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
  
  
• The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
  
  
• From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
  
  https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/supplyside-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record
  
  

n 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

• Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  
  
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  
  
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  
  
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

You should be ashamed of yourself, telling all those [Unwelcome language removed] LIES.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Oh, I agree there was a record streak of economic growth during Obama's era, IN [Unwelcome language removed] CHINA.
NOTHING carried forward in the Trump miracle. Trump reversed the OBAMA MISERY INDEX and made America Great Again.

Hopelessly zombified.