How about those April jobs numbers?

archives said:
Shhh, nobody cares about that indicator anymore, it became irrelevant the day Trump took office, guess it relates depending on who is in the White House
Click to expand...

Remember when they used to scream about it?
 
Away from the optics, the decline in the unemployment rate adds to the evidence that most of the people sitting out of the job market are likely to keep on sitting out. The labor-force participation rate—the share of the working-age population that is either in a job or looking for work—slipped to 62.8% from 62.9%.

That is consistent with the view that the lower level of participation relative to a decade ago owes more to factors such as baby boomers reaching retirement than things like worker discouragement. Underscoring that, U6—a broader measure of job-market slack including people who say they want jobs but aren’t looking for work and those who say they can’t find full-time jobs— declined to 7.8% from 8%. That took it to the lowest level in nearly 17 years.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-...matters-1525447781?tesla=y&mod=article_inline
 
cawacko said:
Away from the optics, the decline in the unemployment rate adds to the evidence that most of the people sitting out of the job market are likely to keep on sitting out. The labor-force participation rate—the share of the working-age population that is either in a job or looking for work—slipped to 62.8% from 62.9%.

That is consistent with the view that the lower level of participation relative to a decade ago owes more to factors such as baby boomers reaching retirement than things like worker discouragement. Underscoring that, U6—a broader measure of job-market slack including people who say they want jobs but aren’t looking for work and those who say they can’t find full-time jobs— declined to 7.8% from 8%. That took it to the lowest level in nearly 17 years.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-...matters-1525447781?tesla=y&mod=article_inline
Click to expand...

Wow, you’ve sure changed your time on that, but at least now I agree with you!
 
Jarod said:
Wow, you’ve sure changed your time on that, but at least now I agree with you!
Click to expand...

How have I changed my tune by posting what the WSJ is reporting? The facts are the facts. I posted the facts. I say to Darth Omar the same thing I said to you. Post an article when you report on the economy so we can see all the information.
 
cawacko said:
Away from the optics, the decline in the unemployment rate adds to the evidence that most of the people sitting out of the job market are likely to keep on sitting out. The labor-force participation rate—the share of the working-age population that is either in a job or looking for work—slipped to 62.8% from 62.9%.

That is consistent with the view that the lower level of participation relative to a decade ago owes more to factors such as baby boomers reaching retirement than things like worker discouragement. Underscoring that, U6—a broader measure of job-market slack including people who say they want jobs but aren’t looking for work and those who say they can’t find full-time jobs— declined to 7.8% from 8%. That took it to the lowest level in nearly 17 years.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-...matters-1525447781?tesla=y&mod=article_inline
Click to expand...

What you are overlooking, and "Jarod" is incinuating, is that for eight years straight as the unemployment rate gradually shrunk down from nearly ten percent during the Obama Administration the right, particularly the right wing media, focused entirely and with enthusiasm on the "labor participation rate" as THE key economic indicator, yet today, hardly a whisper

And the same explanations you employed above were explained to them but to no avail, I can even remember Fox running it regularly just like the Dow, whose gradual ascend was just the oppsitte, seldom mentioned at the time
 
archives said:
What you are overlooking, and "Jarod" is incinuating, is that for eight years straight as the unemployment rate gradually shrunk down from nearly ten percent during the Obama Administration the right, particularly the right wing media, focused entirely and with enthusiasm on the "labor participation rate" as THE key economic indicator, yet today, hardly a whisper

And the same explanations you employed above were explained to them but to no avail, I can even remember Fox running it regularly just like the Dow, whose gradual ascend was just the oppsitte, seldom mentioned at the time
Click to expand...

Bam!
 
Jarod said:
He established the trend.
Click to expand...

Then you must thank Reagan for setting the trend that you credit Obama for.

"In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom--the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth--assets minus liabilities--of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...s-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/#281a58bb9ac9
 
Eagle Eye said:
Then you must thank Reagan for setting the trend that you credit Obama for.

"In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom--the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth--assets minus liabilities--of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...s-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/#281a58bb9ac9
Click to expand...

Uh, no, when Obama took over the trend on almost everything was stright down!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top