Trump's first full month in office brings massive employment boom as U.S.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

good post

a reply to: Rezlooper

Swung from negative (-2.77) to positive (+2.53).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hahahahahahhahha

originally posted by: Taggart
You attribute this to Trump how?

Autistic screeching

a reply to: seasonal

The part you didn't mention is that everyone agrees the slight uptick in hiring is due to unusually early construction this season.

Hell..hear in Chicago we went without snow for the months of January and February for the first time in 150 years.

Construction started early..thus so did hiring.

But I guess if you want to argue that Trump causes global warming?...

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't know if construction would account for all the uptick.

It's not even about the unemployment rate, and you cannot judge an economy's heath on this alone. One must consider all the data available.

Unemployment rates are generated on how many people are looking for work, and how many have a job Just a job. Not a good job, bad job, indifferent job, just a job. (Citation)

Part time jobs contribute as well. Killing one full time job to say oh avoid paying medical expenses for employees or a huge recession (economists are split, but it is likely a 1-2 punch combo) to generate 2 part time jobs, and abracadabra, you've reduced the unemployment rate in half. The last eight years has seen a surge in part time jobs generating an unusually low unemployment rate.

You must consider unemployment rates with a variety of OTHER factors.

Look at these figures instead - Labor Participation (How many people are ACTUALLY working, not including those who need 2-4 crappy part time jobs to make ends meet) Here

Average hours employed persons work: Here

Work hours. This is a neat tool you can use to collect statistical data on any set of periods you desire: Here

Work hours are important because they collectively how many hours have people worked, a booming economy demonstrates a stark increase, a lagging one shows none or negative. This is the current work force hours in the United States 2016.

Using the tool I provided just skim through and see our work force hours have not risen since 2007. The same amount of hours, the participation rate is in the tank, but unemployment rates are artificially how because you can ALSO compare full time jobs and part time jobs with the same tool.... or here and here.

For those who have trouble with stats, here's a video


So, No. TRUMP hasn't even had time to do anything about the abysmal unemployment OBAMA left him from the recession caused in part by the historic 5-7 year cycle of economics seen in 2008 from BUSH (9/11) which was inflated by the set up of deregulation of mortgages from CLINTON. The economy and employment is a tangled beast. If you want the sources for this, feel free to go purchase economic textbooks.

For people who can't click on the links, the charts show a severe drop in labor participation, which remains low through 2016 where they started to rise slightly. There is no change in hours worked indicating that there's no increase in actual paid hours. There is a massive appearance of 'jobs created', however other charts show these have been primarily part time (35 hours and under). This trend is just now reversing starting from the evaluation posted January 01, 2017 where full time job creation, hours worked, and labor participation are taking a slight (SLIGHT) rise. Articles linked demonstrate there is a disproportionate amount of low paying part time jobs, the 7 year economic cycle of boom/bust etc.

From the stats, you can determine that from 2007 to now, there was a high in 2007 of 66.4% of a 301 million person population of people having at least one job (Or 199,864,000 people employed), to Jan 2017 62.9% of a 327 million person population people having at least one job (Or 205,683,000 people employed) for a net gain of 5,837,000 employed for an additional 26 million people.

This pushes the numbers lower, but also indicates for additions to the population there are not enough jobs, further that the ratio indicates there's approximately 9 million people in the USA between 2007 and 2017 who literally just stopped looking for a job or retired early. Individuals who retire naturally or are too young to work are not counted in labor force participation.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

So just your opinion.

It isn't his opinion. It is a known fact that when a new President of the U.S. is elected it can impact the global economy negatively, or positively. A positive outcome would also bring more jobs.

CNN kept claiming that if Trump was elected we would be seeing a negative impact on the global economy... But it seems they were wrong yet again.

Can I put this out there? Feel free to shoot me down instantly, sometimes we need to be put in our place....

All the people saying "oh whats this got to do with Trump":

If this was Clinton or Obama, you would be touting that its because of the POTUS the country is building on itself.

a reply to: thekaboose

Yes, consumer confidence does help attribute to a better economy. (Citation) but this trend has been on an upswing as you can see for some time. But it also had little else to do but go 'up'. That report is from 2014, but explains the contributions of consumer confidence to enhance the economy. One of the long debated elements of consumer confidence is a consideration if it 'leads' or 'lags' economic change. (Citation). A simple example of this is from the movie Sneakers:

Cosmo: Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky.
Martin Bishop: Consequence: People start to withdraw their money.
Cosmo: Result: Pretty soon it is financially shaky.
Martin Bishop: Conclusion: You can make banks fail.
Cosmo: Bzzt. I've already done that. Maybe you've heard about a few? Think bigger.
Martin Bishop: Stock market?
Cosmo: Yes.
Martin Bishop: Currency market?
Cosmo: Yes.
Martin Bishop: Commodities market?
Cosmo: Yes.

The concept of consumer confidence simultaneously becomes much more complex than this as well. (Citation). This is not just a 'feeling' the country has, or 'opinions' about how well the country will do, the individuals making stakes and claims can shape or respond to the atmosphere. This does not translate, always, to job creation either. The investors who bet or fold are not out there generating jobs, they're generating wealth. It is when we see companies cited such as Ford that make movements to come back and provide not only jobs, but the -type- of employment that is needed.

Detroit. Once the shining gem of industry has fallen from grace, with staggering negative population growth and a governing system which was corrupted and bankrupt. To help the people there, the thousands and thousands of low-skilled workers; and the city itself there needs to be a proportional amount of low-skill jobs entering the area. Those who had the resources to move, did. Now, if Ford reenters this area, with only skilled-jobs (having automated the rest) there will be pockets of communities that will do nothing about the overall problems of Detroit. You add or take away Ford, those who remain may be adversely affected because of rising prices of skilled workers (supply/demand) entering the area. Yes, more jobs may be created, and in WAYS will help by allowing the more skilled workers to fit into jobs more fitting their education etc... freeing up the crappy part-time jobs they currently hold to people with lower skill sets. Now, should Ford instead favor less automation, now we're talking. The consumer confidence has little or nothing to do with these people who are desperately in need of employment.

So while people on this thread ARE correct that consumer confidence plays a role, it is difficult to determine how significant that role is until we start reaping what we're sowing. While people ARE correct that consumer confidence is higher now than it was in the last nine years, the 'unemployment numbers' and 'confidence index' may mean a lot, or diddly squat.It is simply too soon to tell. It's okay to be optimistic though!

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I know that, as a small business owner who can't afford to provide insurance for my employees, I will no longer be mandated to do so. That's one example.

Last year, and for three years running, I've had 6 employees kept under 30 hours a week, and this summer we are doubling that to 12. We are in the planning stages of doubling our business in two months. I wouldn't have even considered this ambitious move last year.

LOL!!!!! Unless you had 50+ full-time employees, you were never mandated to provide them health insurance.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair, though, 3%-4% isn't a crazy goal to have, because as we all should understand, we know that any claim by the government, either good or bad, only ends up being about half of what they say. So, if Trump's economic plan yields a 1.5%-2% growth for the four or eight years that he's in, and does it consistently, that'd be perfectly acceptable.

But, depending on who comes and what they do after will either continue, enhance, or worsen any progress, even if the progress in the economy has been perfect. And that's the problem overall upon which we seem to agree--no one can ever leave well enough alone.

ETA: Of course, the 'why' behind the growth matters, too. In your link, the graph shows an average of 2.8% growth in 2001-2008, but a lot of that was due to the war machine that was at full steam at the time. It really makes you wonder what that number would have looked like without the wars...

So you do know that Donald Trump has nothing to do with recent employment numbers right?

The months being covered by these numbers are impacted by OBAMA policies, not Trump policies.

While he was a candidate, Trump regularly bashed theses numbers every time they came out, saying that they weren't a true reflection of the number of people actually out of work.

Now they're working FOR him, he's applauding them. He can't have it both ways.

He was also claiming that Obama Economic policy was "a disaster" but is now taking credit for much of the rewards of those policies.

When BAD data comes out, he will blame it on Obama. When GOOD data comes out, he'll shamelessly take credit, despite having done NOTHING to influence the numbers.

Nearly every company that has announced a major hiring spurt has said that they have done this DESPITE Trump, NOT because of confidence in him. In order to make announcements of these magnitudes, companies of this size needed to have been thinking about this for MONTHS, meaning that they started considering the hiring well before Trump was elected.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I know that, as a small business owner who can't afford to provide insurance for my employees, I will no longer be mandated to do so. That's one example.

Last year, and for three years running, I've had 6 employees kept under 30 hours a week, and this summer we are doubling that to 12. We are in the planning stages of doubling our business in two months. I wouldn't have even considered this ambitious move last year.

You're hilarious. Why wouldn't you have considered this last year? If you're only 12 employees, you're not mandated to provide health insurance.

If you kept 6 employees under 30 hours a week, that's just cause you're a mean spirited idiotic businessman making excuses under Obama for your lack of knowledge on how the Affordable Care Act works.

Don't cite Trump as the reason for your expansion, when the rules that existed last year that you cited for not expanding haven't changed.

You're going from 6 employees under 30 hours a week to 12 employees ? Why not just increase the hours for the 6 ?

a reply to: KaDeCo

Self-fulfilling prophecies run rampant in the government and media these days because most of America has become a blob of apathy, so they allow these people to manipulate them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair, though, 3%-4% isn't a crazy goal to have, because as we all should understand, we know that any claim by the government, either good or bad, only ends up being about half of what they say. So, if Trump's economic plan yields a 1.5%-2% growth for the four or eight years that he's in, and does it consistently, that'd be perfectly acceptable.

But, depending on who comes and what they do after will either continue, enhance, or worsen any progress, even if the progress in the economy has been perfect. And that's the problem overall upon which we seem to agree--no one can ever leave well enough alone.

ETA: Of course, the 'why' behind the growth matters, too. In your link, the graph shows an average of 2.8% growth in 2001-2008, but a lot of that was due to the war machine that was at full steam at the time. It really makes you wonder what that number would have looked like without the wars...

Sorry, but 4% IS a crazy goal to have. Since World War 2, only ONE President has had sustained growth over 4%, and that was BILL CLINTON, for about 2 quarters in a row. Quit trying to interpret what Trump meant by what he said. He ran his campaign on being a "Straight talker" meaning that if he SAID 4%, he MEANT 4%, not "half of what he said".

Donald Trump is claiming 3-4% for his entire Presidency, which is a completely ridiculous claim. Even the best performing economies in the G7 (Canada, UK) can only expect 2% growth, at best, in the next 2-3 years.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: StallionDuck
lol

Laughable.

Ok so tell me this... why wasn't the economy doing this over the last 4 years? It's funny when I see people saying "Well the last prez is the reason" well over into the new term when they can look back the last EIGHT years and see this was NOT the case.

pish...

Um... The economy was totally doing this over the last 4 years. Obama gave Trump the economy with the stock market at an all time high. It just has continued to increase since Obama left office.

Stock market is being propped up and has been for some time. Speculators are buying the rumor (trumps word) and, if true, will be selling the news (actions).

It's how good traders make money. I wouldn't doubt seeing the Soros' of the world buying up the market only to crash it / use as leverage to try and influence policy.

The Fed and wall street will be losing out to silicon valley in the long run. Crypto currency with the ability for anonymous transactions, cheaper international transfer fees, quicker microtransactions and public ledger to document transactions from the Genesis block forward will soon become a favorite amongst people and business. Just waiting for the black swan to arrive.

How many dollars and cents have been printed? Is there an official 3rd party that has ever come through the fed and determined what they've said is true? How do you know they aren't just printing money (they have been) and inflating our money supply?

Silver, gold, bitcoin, monero. Cash is still king but not for long.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Sorry, but 4% IS a crazy goal to have. Since World War 2, only ONE President has had sustained growth over 4%, and that was BILL CLINTON, for about 2 quarters in a row. Quit trying to interpret what Trump meant by what he said. He ran his campaign on being a "Straight talker" meaning that if he SAID 4%, he MEANT 4%, not "half of what he said".

Donald Trump is claiming 3-4% for his entire Presidency, which is a completely ridiculous claim. Even the best performing economies in the G7 (Canada, UK) can only expect 2% growth, at best, in the next 2-3 years.

Don't jettison reading comprehension skills to try and make my claim out to be ignorant--go back and read my actual statement rather than just plucking the first few words from it and then assuming that you understood the point.

My point (and honestly, you seem to get it, you just wanted to twist it) is that any government claim that appears ridiculous on its face generally is, and I was noting what we can expect to happen from such a claim. Whether or not Trump is a "straight talker" is irrelevant to the realities of how the government works, and I was citing those realities, not whether or not Trump always believes his own mouth--I'm sure that he did mean it, but at the same time, I'm sure that he means a lot of things that never come to fruition.

Of course, in the grand scheme of life, economic growth of either 2% or 4% means nothing when the national debt is $19,000,000,000,000.00.

a reply to: StallionDuck

The denial is strong in you. I never claimed it was a speedy recovery, but to pretend like the economy wasn't better than when he inherited is just intellectually dishonest. Like I said, you've been proven wrong. You asked for numbers, I gave them to you and now you are desperately trying to move the goal posts back because you can't admit you were wrong.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If Trump can manage that kind of economy over his tenure then I'll give him props. I'm just not confident he can go that long without breaking something.