Dems: Record low unemployment numbers are a result of Trump's "reckless" policies

[Teallaura]

First off I didn't agree to anything seer, second, what his business policies were, or whether or not he even enacted any, is besides the point, because whatever he did or did not do there were more jobs created in his last year than there were in Trumps first year. You guys can make up all the excuses for that discrepancy that you want to now that your original boasting about Trumps jobs numbers has been shot down, but your boast has been shot down.

Um, so what, Jim? The bigger question - the one he's driving at in the OP - is whether or not the economy is improving under Trump.

[JimL]

Um, so what, Jim? The bigger question - the one he's driving at in the OP - is whether or not the economy is improving under Trump.

Well of course the economy is improving, it's been improving steadily since the republican recession of 2007-2008. Let's give the Trump administration a little time before you start praising him to high heaven for the great economy, he inherited it, as opposed to Obama, who inherited the worst recession since the great depression.

[Teallaura]

Well of course the economy is improving, it's been improving steadily since the republican recession of 2007-2008. Let's give the Trump administration a little time before you start praising him to high heaven for the great economy, he inherited it, as opposed to Obama, who inherited the worst recession since the great depression.

Obama did a crappy job. Things are now improving.

[rogue06]

It's not spin, Jim - it's an observation. It happens every time the presidency changes hands.

Exactly. Been happening ever since I've been paying attention (late 60s). Some times the effect isn't that noticeable because business owners and CEOs don't think that there will be that much of a policy shift. Other times, it is markedly so when you have one Administration that was decidedly anti-business being replaced by another one who actually understands how a business is run.

[JimL]

Obama did a crappy job. Things are now improving.

Great argument there, Tea.

[JimL]

Exactly. Been happening ever since I've been paying attention (late 60s). Some times the effect isn't that noticeable because business owners and CEOs don't think that there will be that much of a policy shift. Other times, it is markedly so when you have one Administration that was decidedly anti-business being replaced by another one who actually understands how a business is run.

No, actually it doesn't happen, just like it didn't happen this time. The election is in November and business doesn't even know at that point who the next president will be. For instance, most everyone thought Hillary would be President, they weren't aware the extent the Russian effect would have in electing Trump.

[One Bad Pig]

No, actually it doesn't happen, just like it didn't happen this time. The election is in November and business doesn't even know at that point who the next president will be. For instance, most everyone thought Hillary would be President, they weren't aware the extent the Russian effect would have in electing Trump.

Businesses typically know by about midnight on Election Day, which comes well before November ends, Jim. Your argument here boils down to, "Nuh uh! Look - squirrel!" Try putting a little more effort into comprehending what rogue06 is saying next time before you hit reply.

[Teallaura]

Businesses typically know by about midnight on Election Day, which comes well before November ends, Jim. Your argument here boils down to, "Nuh uh! Look - squirrel!" Try putting a little more effort into comprehending what rogue06 is saying next time before you hit reply.

The figures are from June of 2016 (and June of 2017 for Trump) - at that point the election was still up in the air. Looking at calendar year 2016 might show the effect you and Rogue are discussing - but it would not be apparent in Jim's figures - and both sets of reporting figures are for June, not December.

That surge might well be attributed to the 'whoever it is, it's not the guy we have now' effect - but there's no way to attribute the numbers to Trump since many pundits were still predicting Clinton at that point - and very few observers thought that it would be anything other than a close race at best.


So, yeah, Jim's not wrong* on the specific point.























* I did it to CP too, remember.

[One Bad Pig]

The figures are from June of 2016 (and June of 2017 for Trump) - at that point the election was still up in the air. Looking at calendar year 2016 might show the effect you and Rogue are discussing - but it would not be apparent in Jim's figures - and both sets of reporting figures are for June, not December.

That surge might well be attributed to the 'whoever it is, it's not the guy we have now' effect - but there's no way to attribute the numbers to Trump since many pundits were still predicting Clinton at that point - and very few observers thought that it would be anything other than a close race at best.


So, yeah, Jim's not wrong* on the specific point.























* I did it to CP too, remember.

The "jobs created" numbers we've been discussing with JimL are from CY 2016 and 2017, respectively - and the numbers in this particular dispute are the Nov 2016, Dec 2016, and Jan 2017 numbers, which would have been available early Dec/Jan/Feb respectively. Not sure where you're getting June from.

[Teallaura]

The "jobs created" numbers we've been discussing with JimL are from CY 2016 and 2017, respectively - and the numbers in this particular dispute are the Nov 2016, Dec 2016, and Jan 2017 numbers, which would have been available early Dec/Jan/Feb respectively. Not sure where you're getting June from.

These were the links Jim provided and I found no other data links in the thread:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/20/americ...at-work-study/

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news...obs/index.html


When I chased them earlier, I never found anything other than the June figures cited.

Both of those use June figures for the comparisons. I could have missed a link but I don't think I did.


FYI: I looked for the monthly figures you mentioned and could not find them directly online (I'm not crunching five different sectors for this from BLS, thankyouverymuch, BLS! ). Do you have a link/source?

[One Bad Pig]

These were the links Jim provided and I found no other data links in the thread:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/20/americ...at-work-study/

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news...obs/index.html


When I chased them earlier, I never found anything other than the June figures cited.

Both of those use June figures for the comparisons. I could have missed a link but I don't think I did.


FYI: I looked for the monthly figures you mentioned and could not find them directly online (I'm not crunching five different sectors for this from BLS, thankyouverymuch, BLS! ). Do you have a link/source?

Here's a handy chart covering the last several years, containing both initial and revised numbers for each month.

[Teallaura]

Here's a handy chart covering the last several years, containing both initial and revised numbers for each month.

Cool, thanks!

[Sparko]

Wow, and you are still not aware of what a political scam that was? That was a bribe Sparko, not a saving of jobs. It also wasn't new job creation. At any rate it was a temporary bribe by Gov. M. Pence to Carrier to hold those jobs over until after the election in order to make Trump look good.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-carrie...nt-scam-528620

You guys really have to take a peek outside of the right wing echo chamber once in a while and find out what's really going on.

Jim, that is an OPINION piece. You might as well just quote one of your own posts as proof.

[rogue06]

Meanwhile...

Source: Jobless claims plunge to 214,000, lowest since May

New applications for unemployment insurance benefits dropped 18,000 to 214,000 in the first week of July, the Department of Labor reported Thursday.

Forecasters had expected around 225,000 new jobless claims. Instead, they fell more than expected to the lowest since May, when claims were plumbing the lowest levels since the 1970s.

Low claims are a good sign. They suggest that layoffs are rare and that job creation is high.

The claims data for recent months show no signs that the unemployment rate, at a decades-low 3.8 percent, is heading back up. In fact, they indicate it has room to fall further.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

This also suggests that even as more people who had given up looking for work are returning to the job market there are more than enough jobs being created to absorb them