Job Gains For 2018 Almost As Good As During Obama Years, But NOT AS GOOD. Weaker Than

P

PoliTalker

Diversity Makes Greatness
"Altogether, 2018 was the best year for job creation since 2015."

Washington Post

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Before Trump supporters gloat about the job gains, they need to understand they have not risen to the bar set by President Obama.

Too bad for Trump supporters. Trump not as good as Obama. Oh darn.

President Obama was better for the economy than President Trump.

"2011: 2.091 million

2012: 2.142 million

2013: 2.302 million

2014: 2.998 millon

2015: 2.713 million

2016: 2.240 million

2017: ... 2.188 million"

"The (2018) economy added 2.6 million jobs,"

President Trump's First Year Of Job Growth Was Below President Obama's Last Four Years

2014 and 2015 added more jobs than 2018.

Obama better than Trump.

Obama - Strong.

Trump - weak.
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
except the people never actually picked trump
Click to expand...

It is true more people voted for Hillary.

We need to fix that.

It would be nice to abandon this repressive economy of Trump's, which in his words to the very rich: "You all just got a LOT richer," and build an economy which creates more jobs and better paying jobs.
 
PoliTalker said:
"Altogether, 2018 was the best year for job creation since 2015."

Washington Post

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Before Trump supporters gloat about the job gains, they need to understand they have not risen to the bar set by President Obama.

Too bad for Trump supporters. Trump not as good as Obama. Oh darn.

President Obama was better for the economy than President Trump.

"2011: 2.091 million

2012: 2.142 million

2013: 2.302 million

2014: 2.998 millon

2015: 2.713 million

2016: 2.240 million

2017: ... 2.188 million"

"The (2018) economy added 2.6 million jobs,"

President Trump's First Year Of Job Growth Was Below President Obama's Last Four Years

2014 and 2015 added more jobs than 2018.

Obama better than Trump.

Obama - Strong.

Trump - weak.
Click to expand...

What are the unemployment rates for the differing periods. It's obvious that it's harder to add jobs when everyone is already working and fewer people are searching for work. Why do you never look at the entire equation? Such narrow minded focus is either ignorance or dishonesty. Which is it?
 
Hello tinfoil,

tinfoil said:
What are the unemployment rates for the differing periods. It's obvious that it's harder to add jobs when everyone is already working and fewer people are searching for work. Why do you never look at the entire equation? Such narrow minded focus is either ignorance or dishonesty. Which is it?
Click to expand...

It is neither.

Call it spin.

Of course it is easier to post more job gains when the economy has been trashed.

It would also be equally disingenuous to give credit to the president for a rising stock market but not blame him for it when it falls.

Just as disingenuous as it would be to claim that President Obama deserves no credit for the recovery, and instead pretend that it is because of President Trump.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello tinfoil,



It is neither.

Call it spin.

Of course it is easier to post more job gains when the economy has been trashed.

It would also be equally disingenuous to give credit to the president for a rising stock market but not blame him for it when it falls.

Just as disingenuous as it would be to claim that President Obama deserves no credit for the recovery, and instead pretend that it is because of President Trump.
Click to expand...

I don't give presidents credit or blame for stock movements. The market is ruled by speculation.
I'd like to see the ratio of job growth to unemployment. It would be an interesting metric. It's much harder to fill a position when nobody needs a job.
 
tinfoil said:
I don't give presidents credit or blame for stock movements. The market is ruled by speculation.
I'd like to see the ratio of job growth to unemployment. It would be an interesting metric. It's much harder to fill a position when nobody needs a job.
Click to expand...

Right off the bat, knowing that the published unemployment rate is half the real number should give pause to your silly argument.
 
tinfoil said:
What are the unemployment rates for the differing periods. It's obvious that it's harder to add jobs when everyone is already working and fewer people are searching for work. Why do you never look at the entire equation? Such narrow minded focus is either ignorance or dishonesty. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Can you remember the number of time you complained about Obama employment stats, because you insist that 200.000 people enter the workforce each month, and you need at least that many jobs to break even. So, its shouldn't really be harder to add jobs.
 
Hello tinfoil,

tinfoil said:
I don't give presidents credit or blame for stock movements. The market is ruled by speculation.
I'd like to see the ratio of job growth to unemployment. It would be an interesting metric. It's much harder to fill a position when nobody needs a job.
Click to expand...

You know the BLS calls any part time job a job for the purposes of determining the unemployment rate, right?

If a worker only works one hour per week, that person is not counted as 'unemployed.'

It doesn't matter at all if they don't earn enough to get by.

That's why it is so disingenuous for us to have a poverty rate which exceeds our unemployment rate.

And we have people working full time jobs but still stuck in poverty.

That's not right.

If somebody is not lazy, and they work a full time job, they should not be living in poverty.

But many of our most powerful capitalists don't care about that.

They are fully willing to take advantage of the disadvantaged if it helps them to extract ever more wealth from mainstream circulation, to be added to their own fortune.

We only have our government to stand between capitalism and economic devastation.

It is important that we have a strong and powerful government to stand up to the most ruthless capitalists.

America cannot be great without a great big government.
 
floridafan said:
Can you remember the number of time you complained about Obama employment stats, because you insist that 200.000 people enter the workforce each month, and you need at least that many jobs to break even. So, its shouldn't really be harder to add jobs.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you logic.
First of all, can you cite a single instance of me complaining about Obama's stats?
Next, please cite me insisting 200K blah blah blah
Can you explain what you mean by your assertion? How is it possible that it would not be harder to fill jobs when fewer people are looking for work? You need to explain because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello tinfoil,



You know the BLS calls any part time job a job for the purposes of determining the unemployment rate, right?

If a worker only works one hour per week, that person is not counted as 'unemployed.'

It doesn't matter at all if they don't earn enough to get by.

That's why it is so disingenuous for us to have a poverty rate which exceeds our unemployment rate.

And we have people working full time jobs but still stuck in poverty.

That's not right.

If somebody is not lazy, and they work a full time job, they should not be living in poverty.

But many of our most powerful capitalists don't care about that.

They are fully willing to take advantage of the disadvantaged if it helps them to extract ever more wealth from mainstream circulation, to be added to their own fortune.

We only have our government to stand between capitalism and economic devastation.

It is important that we have a strong and powerful government to stand up to the most ruthless capitalists.

America cannot be great without a great big government.
Click to expand...

Neato speech. Got any solutions or just gripes?
 
PoliTalker said:
"Altogether, 2018 was the best year for job creation since 2015."

Washington Post

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Before Trump supporters gloat about the job gains, they need to understand they have not risen to the bar set by President Obama.

Too bad for Trump supporters. Trump not as good as Obama. Oh darn.

President Obama was better for the economy than President Trump.

"2011: 2.091 million

2012: 2.142 million

2013: 2.302 million

2014: 2.998 millon

2015: 2.713 million

2016: 2.240 million

2017: ... 2.188 million"

"The (2018) economy added 2.6 million jobs,"

President Trump's First Year Of Job Growth Was Below President Obama's Last Four Years

2014 and 2015 added more jobs than 2018.

Obama better than Trump.

Obama - Strong.

Trump - weak.
Click to expand...

Just one note:

Listing the total jobs created really doesn't give you the big picture, since the population grows over time. For example, you'd find a lot more jobs created in 2016 than 1963, but that doesn't mean job creation was better -- it's just that a given percentage of growth is a much higher job count today. A more meaningful comparison would be percentage of job expansion.

By those terms, payrolls grew 1.79% in 2018, versus 2.19% in 2014. So, the pace of job creation was 22.3% higher in 2014 than 2018, versus only 13.9% better based on raw count.

Anyway, taking Trump's two-year term together, payrolls are up 3.32%. That compares to 3.60% in Obama's last two years and 3.93% in the two years prior to that. It's been a slow-down in job creation, but nothing too bad. The only real concern is that the job creation we got was "bought" at the price of a vast expansion of deficits.
 
tinfoil said:
I don't follow you logic.
First of all, can you cite a single instance of me complaining about Obama's stats?
Next, please cite me insisting 200K blah blah blah
Can you explain what you mean by your assertion? How is it possible that it would not be harder to fill jobs when fewer people are looking for work? You need to explain because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

What I am saying honey bunch that as usual you are totally and completely full of horse shit. You ask me to cite, yet I have a dozen or two ID's of your to check, so just fuck off. Now, with 200,000 entering the workforce each month, if Trump cannot provide for those people with jobs, he is as much of a failure as you are.
 
yet I have a dozen or two ID's of your to check


WTF does this mean? You are a strange person. I have one account. Been posting with it since the site opened. At fullpolitics and politics.com I was stirfry
 
Hello tinfoil,

tinfoil said:
Neato speech. Got any solutions...?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Actually, I do.

Since working as we have known it is about to become history, why don't we simply jump the shark and institute a Universal Basic Income.

It would be simple.

Just tax the super-rich to pay for it.

Much of the government assistance bureaucracy could then go away.
 
Hello Oneuli,

Oneuli said:
Just one note:

Listing the total jobs created really doesn't give you the big picture, since the population grows over time. For example, you'd find a lot more jobs created in 2016 than 1963, but that doesn't mean job creation was better -- it's just that a given percentage of growth is a much higher job count today. A more meaningful comparison would be percentage of job expansion.

By those terms, payrolls grew 1.79% in 2018, versus 2.19% in 2014. So, the pace of job creation was 22.3% higher in 2014 than 2018, versus only 13.9% better based on raw count.

Anyway, taking Trump's two-year term together, payrolls are up 3.32%. That compares to 3.60% in Obama's last two years and 3.93% in the two years prior to that. It's been a slow-down in job creation, but nothing too bad. The only real concern is that the job creation we got was "bought" at the price of a vast expansion of deficits.
Click to expand...

Well said. sadly, I fully expect your comment to be generally disregarded.

Do you know how many heads you just went completely over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top