Jump to content

OT: Jobs... not good


concha

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/private-sector-jobs-february-2017-adp.html

Quote

 

Companies added jobs at a blistering pace in February, with a notable shift away from the service-sector positions that have dominated hiring for years, according to a report Wednesday.

Employment in the private sector surged by 298,000 for the month, with goods producers adding 106,000, ADP and Moody's Analytics said. Construction jobs swelled by 66,000 and manufacturing added 32,000.

The total shattered market expectations of 190,000, according to economists surveyed by ADP.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4293622/Trump-s-month-brings-massive-employment-boom.html

Quote

 

New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000

Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent

 


 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, legendsofthefall said:

Yawn...Obama added Millions of jobs under his watch. 

 

Orange boy has a long way to go to come even close to that...and he won't. 

Under Obama we saw consistent job growth, but it was tepid.  And I doubt you want to really get into the quality of the jobs added in terms of hours, wages...

If anything near the 298k stands up for February, it would be a better February number then we ever saw under Obama.

And when was the last time we saw a number shatter the predictions by over 100k?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

# 1  

 

Quote

New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000

Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent

 

Is this 4.7% unemployment now including those who are underemployed and/or have stopped looking? Wasn't that a big bone of contention when discussing whether or not the unemployment rate improved during the last presidency? Looks like using the lower number is acceptable now. Or has the percentage decreased by 20 points in the last month???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maxchoboian said:
Quote

New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000

Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent

 

Is this 4.7% unemployment now including those who are underemployed and/or have stopped looking? Wasn't that a big bone of contention when discussing whether or not the unemployment rate improved during the last presidency? Looks like using the lower number is acceptable now. Or has the percentage decreased by 20 points in the last month???

Unknown as the numbers are pending. The classic (U3) unemployment rate is a seriously flawed measure.

I think U6 is a better measure (includes discouraged/marginal/unintentionally part-time).  I'd also like to see the Labor Force Participation Rate increase. And to see Real Median Incomes increase.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, concha said:

Unknown as the numbers are pending. The classic (U3) unemployment rate is a seriously flawed measure.

I think U6 is a better measure (includes discouraged/marginal/unintentionally part-time).  I'd also like to see the Labor Force Participation Rate increase. And to see Real Median Incomes increase.

 

 

 

 

I have a question and I'm not being sarcastic.  It's an honest to goodness serious question.  Do you think anyone other than the elite (rich) are gonna see major improvement in their lives with Trumpy's "trickle-down" economic tax cuts?

 

And please keep in mind...there is no middle class.  Hasn't been for at least 25 years.

 

 

Rufus>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rufus69 said:

I have a question and I'm not being sarcastic.  It's an honest to goodness serious question.  Do you think anyone other than the elite (rich) are gonna see major improvement in their lives with Trumpy's "trickle-down" economic tax cuts?

 

I think there is an as good or better chance than with the alternative we thankfully avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, H.O.G. said:

Trump, the working mans new messiah, is set to undo a law requiring employers to pay overtime to certain salaried employees. 

In another year, half the working people kissing his ass right now, will hate his guts. 

 

What salaried workers get any overtime at all?

am not aware of any

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxchoboian said:

# 1  

 

Quote

New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000

Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent

 

Is this 4.7% unemployment now including those who are underemployed and/or have stopped looking? Wasn't that a big bone of contention when discussing whether or not the unemployment rate improved during the last presidency? Looks like using the lower number is acceptable now. Or has the percentage decreased by 20 points in the last month???

Trump using unemployment % with the size of workforce he inherited doesn't strike me as unfair reporting

are you suggesting he should include the millions under obama that left the work force (presumably because NOT working seemed a better choice to them)?

doesnt seem right, but to your point, it will be interesting to see trumps people add comments to future u employment figures that it's based on a larger work force after the variables for those millions that left adjust to provide more incentive to work than to not work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pops said:

Trump using unemployment % with the size of workforce he inherited doesn't strike me as unfair reporting

are you suggesting he should include the millions under obama that left the work force (presumably because NOT working seemed a better choice to them)?

doesnt seem right, but to your point, it will be interesting to see trumps people add comments to future u employment figures that it's based on a larger work force after the variables for those millions that left adjust to provide more incentive to work than to not work

When the unemployment rate was mentioned during Obama's tenure, those who didn't care for Obama argued that the low rate did not include underemployed workers or workers who stopped looking for jobs and were not receiving unemployment. It seems the low number was used above by Concha, who was the most vocal in arguing against using that number, to affirm strides being made by Trump. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it seems inconsistent to me to argue against the unemployment rate concerning Obama, while using it to show improvement under Trump?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, maxchoboian said:

When the unemployment rate was mentioned during Obama's tenure, those who didn't care for Obama argued that the low rate did not include underemployed workers or workers who stopped looking for jobs and were not receiving unemployment. It seems the low number was used above by Concha, who was the most vocal in arguing against using that number, to affirm strides being made by Trump. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it seems inconsistent to me to argue against the unemployment rate concerning Obama, but use it to show improvement under Trump?

I understand what you're saying (I think) and guess I'm not being clear

the reduction in the work force happened under obama, and it was material, and could be asserted as proximately caused by policies that made hiring difficult but provided soft landings to NOT work

that's obama over 8 years

i think concha is much more focused on # jobs just created than a % of unemployment, but even if a %, obama established the new baseline and it doesn't make any sense for the next administration to remind people that people left the workforce in the last administration

Again, I suspect that people will return to the labor force under trump (more jobs, less incentives to NOT work) and trumpeters may in the future remind us of that

-- i.e. Unemployment under trump is X%, same as under Obama, but based on +10 million people in labor force, etc

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, noonereal said:

 

 

what are these incentives not to work? 

You referring to crop conservation programs? 

Welfare spending increased 32% under obama and that doesn't even include Obamacare 

you can look up line item detail yourself -- not sure why you'd even ask your question unless you've been living under a rock

free cel phones for all?  Because our founding fathers certainly considered that an inalienable right

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...