Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Jobs, Pay Show Solid Gains in Trump's First Full Month (bloomberg.com)

Two anonymous reader share a Bloomberg report: U.S. employers added jobs at an above-average pace for a second month on outsized gains in construction and manufacturing while wage growth picked up, as the labor market continued its steady improvement in the new year. The 235,000 increase followed a 238,000 rise in January that was more than previously estimated, the best back-to-back rise since July, a Labor Department report showed Friday in Washington. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, and wages grew 2.8 percent from February 2016. While unseasonably warm weather may have boosted the payrolls count, the data represent President Donald Trump's first full month in office and coincide with a surge in economic optimism following his election victory.

68 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....

    1. Re:Yeah by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well most businessmen are republicans. So with the republicans back in power they will be more likely to invest more in their businesses when they feel optimistic. The economy isn't about policies but with people ability to take risks.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Yeah by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Informative

      The business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers. These numbers were precipitated by Obama over his last 8 years but to be honest he never inspired this level of confidence.

      Hell yeah! We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency, as reported in the summary, and even higher still in February 2016, which preceded the election. But wait, also the same thing in 2015, which preceded Trump's nomination. Bit of a dip in 2014, but even higher numbers in 2013.

      This totally supports your argument, so long as you avoid thinking about anything connected to reality.

      1-Month Net Change: All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted
      Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
      2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47
      2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255
      2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239
      2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
      2017 238(P) 235(P)

    3. Re:Yeah by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These numbers were precipitated by Obama over his last 8 years but to be honest he never inspired this level of confidence.

      This isn't confidence, it's exuberance. When fools start tossing money at Wall Street, it's time to run in the opposite direction.

    4. Re:Yeah by CAOgdin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assert "Well most businessmen are republicans." First, I'm curious where that statistic comes from...and I would discount the Republican party as a valid source.

      More importantly, I believe you can more validly say, "Well most business men are greedy, and the larger the business, the greedier they are, and in pursuit of their greed, they grease the palms of the Republicans in office."

    5. Re:Yeah by skids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently we need to find a sustainable way to have solid Democratic economic policies while keeping the business community under the misimpression that we actually have Republican economic policies.

    6. Re:Yeah by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure republicans feel great now.

      Just like a meth-head feels great right after inhaling.

    7. Re:Yeah by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's defining "businessmen" as "people who run actual businesses, not non profits."

    8. Re:Yeah by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To his credit he's been talking about reducing some of the ridiculous tax laws that makes it extremely foolish to repatriate monies back to the US. Remove these regulations and companies will stop sitting on cash and invest. Don't blame this specifically on Obama but the entire Democratic Party's approach to business. US corporate tax rates are extremely uncompetitive.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re:Yeah by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      complete and utter bullshit. The US has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world. They are sitting on it overseas because they want to pay NO taxes at all. And they don't like it because they wiggled out from under the taxes in such a way that the money is stick in their tax havens, unable to be used.

    10. Re:Yeah by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....

      Actually he HAS been doing things since November 8th that may have affected this in a positive way. Sometimes just talking about doing something from the bully pulpit the president (and president elect) has can have positive (or negative) affects on the mind set of the people. Just the prospect of new/better policies can have a positive affect even before they can be enacted.

      Case in point: Jimmy Carter and his "malaise speech" which was largely blamed for making the 70's seem worse than it was and depressing the country (not that his policies didn't hurt us too.) But it's clear that the president (and president elect) have quite a bit of power in this regard...

      I'll leave it to others to argue if what Trump has said helped or hurt, but it's clear that the markets have been on an upward slope since he got elected.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Yeah by lexlthr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The post was a little emotional, but the data is valid. February 2017 numbers are in-line (and slightly lower) than February 2016 and February 2015 numbers. It's part of a trend with some ups and downs and probably can't be attributed to the current administration. It's not a partisan issue, it's just data points. Trump can take credit for it, but it's probably no more deserved than the first months of Obama's first administration which would have been the result of Bush policies - or the first few months of George W's administration which would have been the result of Clinton policies. It's too bad these conversations devolve so quickly.

    12. Re:Yeah by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      Meh.

      Previous 3 Febs had roughly the same numbers.

      Economy & previous policies keep on trucking.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Yeah by greythax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ooh, nice mental gymnastics! You literally ignored an entire table of numbers to support your preconceptions, and accused someone else of ignoring reality. I wish I had some kind of award I could bestow on you.

    14. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama had *8* years of zero interest rate policy and an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. After 8 years of highly unconventional monetary policy, any objective observer should be extremely unimpressed with the performance of the U.S. economy during Obama's presidency. Despite all the kum-ba-ya feelings of having him as president, there were no animal spirits to be found in the real economy.

      Like it or not, despite Trump being vilified in the press and by the establishment, his election seems to have roused the animal spirits of the economy enough that the Federal Reserve is finally, after *8* years of recklessly loose monetary policy, is beginning to normalize policy as shown by its 25 bps hike and a highly-probably 25 bps hike next week.

      Wages in the Trump presidency are starting to rise more rapidly than during the "recovery" of the past 8 years and the establishmentarian Federal Reserve is almost certain to induce a nasty recession to ensure that the wage slaves don't get uppity with demands for wage increases that keep up with inflation.

    15. Re:Yeah by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      People have picked a side.

      The people who like Trump will give him credit for this and blame Obama's lingering policies for any bad months.

      The people who hate Trump will give Obama credit for this and blame Trump's new policies for any bad months.

      The people who hate both will give neither credit and wonder how long printing funny money and pretending the job market is fantastic will hold up.

      I had a friend back in college who during Bill Clinton's first term claimed that the economic boom we were experiencing was because there is 2 year delay before the economy fully reacts to policy. This number increased from 2, to 4 to 6 years as his time in office increased.

      I myself aligned heavily with the republicans back then- but even I realized that was bull.

      Nowadays, I realize the President doesn't have quite such a huge effect on economy, be it good or bad. The President is mostly a passenger on the economic journey, and the economy is a global thing. Sure, the President can and does impact the economy but he's not an all-important driving force of the country's economics. He's not even the main player. How the world is doing and what legislators do impacts economics much more than the President does, he can only help or hurt a little.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Yeah by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 5, Informative

      An interesting question. I've never had anyone questing the 'common knowledge' before and it occurred to me that while I've heard this I never bother to google it.
      Although If i had cared before I probably would have and I would suggest you do when you have such questions.

      https://www.americanexpress.co...
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      https://www.thebalance.com/pol...

      I didn't cherry pick these these were just on the top of the relevant results in google. Before you react it is good to research.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    17. Re:Yeah by GWXerxes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are sitting on it overseas because they want to pay NO taxes at all. .

      Maybe I'm confused. Aren't corporations sitting on income overseas because the tax laws in those overseas countries are more favorable than the ones in the states?

    18. Re:Yeah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a liberal lie. Unemployment under Obama was like 40%. It's 4% now under Trump because he saved the world and made America great again. The unemployment numbers were faked up until January 8th.

    19. Re:Yeah by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Informative
      That was true 15 years ago. But not after 2006.

      It is well known that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[1] However, it is less well known how the United States stacks up against countries throughout the entire world. Expanding the sample of countries and tax jurisdictions to 188, the U.S.’s corporate tax rate of almost 39 percent is the third highest in the world, lower only than the United Arab Emirates’ rate of 55 percent and Puerto Rico’s rate of 39 percent. The U.S. tax rate is 16.4 percentage points higher than the worldwide average of 22.5 percent and a little more than 9 percentage points higher than the worldwide GDP-weighted average of 29.5 percent. Over the past ten years, the average worldwide tax rate has been declining, pushing the United States farther from the norm. https://taxfoundation.org/corp...

      see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    20. Re: Yeah by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      The fact that you think NPOs are not "real businesses" just makes it clear to everyone you have no idea how an NPO works. They are very real businesses, I assure you.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:Yeah by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You can't pay earnings to your stockholders without declaring income. No nation in the world charges tax on gross. Only a few _clueless_ states and cities. Your point is moot (and wrong).

      The really important number is (1-Corporatetaxrate) * (1-capitalgainstaxrate), which is very consistent at about 45% over the developed world.

      Having the corporate tax rate as high as it is, does distort the market. Companies don't pay dividends and instead concentrate on growth. Which will bite us.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Yeah by SCPaPaJoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Speaking as a business owner, we always tend to hire more in the first quarter of the year. Our productivity suffers between Thanksgiving and the New Year because of all the vacations. It has been this way for us for the last 30-40 years. This isn't news, it's cyclical business behavior.

    23. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The large US corporations are in panic mode because of the new US President. He has already shown his willingness to label certain companies as anti-US or un-American. Lockheed watched their stock price drop over 20 points when Trump stated that the US was paying to much for the F-35 program and his willingness to possibly look somewhere else for a replacement program. Now the US has already invested to much in the program and the chances of starting up another program is near zero but the public statement still had a an overly large effect. Lockheed lowered the price of each plane by 15% within days along with Lockheed promising to lower the price even further. One tweet is all it took. Ford was getting ready to close a US production line and move the jobs to Mexico and Trump painted the company as un-American and Ford cancelled the production line move for the foreseeable future. One tweet was all it took. There has not been a recent President who has been willing to publically call out the business practices of any US corporation. The only time the government criticizes a corporation is after they get caught doing something illegal that cannot be swept under the carpet. Corporations abhor negative publicity of any kind and a US President can sink their stock prices with one off the cuff statement. In today's world the statement doesn't even need to be the truth. The prices may rise again when the publicity wanes but having a 20 percent reduction in your stock price, even for one day, is something corporations want to avoid at all costs. Corporations invest billions of dollars a year in buying politicians just to make sure things like this do not happen. In this last election cycle the politicians they bought lost the election leaving them with someone who is not beholden to their wishes.

      In the grand scheme of things the US President has limited power and almost every Presidential decision can be checked by the other two branches of government. But the US President has the largest megaphone in the world to shape public opinion. Trump is not a politician and his style of management doesn't mesh with his current job. Quite frankly I don't think he really wanted to be President. He is most likely as surprised as everyone else that he won. His challengers from both parties ignored him at first and then went and made the type of blunders that made Trump actually look good. All the rabid Trump haters still do not understand that their extreme actions and protests actually helped Trump win. It's all moot anyway because Trump has already accomplished what no other was able or willing to do. He demolished both the Democrat and Republican parties. He has totally exposed the big media conglomerates shoveling out and slanting the news to support their patrons political ambitions. This wasn't really a secret but by the end of the election they really came out of the closet in a blind panic trying to get Clinton elected and all thy accomplished was making Trump more popular. They are still doing the same thing today and if they don't start reporting news without an accompanying editorial line we might get stuck with Trump for 8 years. The US government runs on inertia that can't be thrown off course by a stupid President. Incoming administrations cannot undo all of their predecessors actions and chart a new course in 4 years. The incoming administrations always say they are going to change direction but rarely accomplish any of their stated campaign promises. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo in 8 years and all things considered that should have not been that hard of a task. I don't expect new wall construction in the Southwest or see a permanent ban on immigrants from certain countries. I can see the existing immigration laws being enforced in a stricter fashion. I can see more restrictions placed on H1-B visa recipients and see US corporations do a better job at prioritizing the hiring of US citizens over foreigners. Even on a superficial level this would be better.

    24. Re:Yeah by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well stated, AC.

      I would add that it's a folly to dismiss Trump as stupid. He's "used car salesman" smart. There are a lot of interesting and effective negotiation tactics that are available when you can throw ethics and long-term credibility out of consideration. Trump has not only read but written Sun-Tzu Art-of-War style treatises on business dealings... how to portray yourself as rich when you are poor, stupid when you are shrewd, slow when you're moving fast. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit sort of stuff.

      Some story I've heard quoted offhand (wish I could find the source) was about when he bought a yacht from someone. He had a minion go and thank the other guy's minions for selling it to him for a much larger price than he actually paid. The idea was to spread rumors that made it look like Trump was much richer than he actually was, and much more foolhardy with his money than he actually was, so other people would make mistakes negotiating with him later. This tactic plays well with a lot of the other numbers and statistics he makes up on the spot... he exaggerates everything he can, in order to make himself look better later. He made up that huge $4 billion figure for the Boeing Air Force One projects, so he can brag about saving a billion dollars later when it comes out closer to a more realistic figure. I think I've seen an article indicating he's already done this.

      Everything else he's been doing indicates that he's clearing the tables to maximize leverage for new negotiations -- firing all US ambassadors on day 1, threatening sky-high import/export tariffs, putting gag orders and hiring freezes on all US government agencies. It's clear that to do anything, you'll have to suck up to Trump first, and bring money and favors to secure it. But this is a standard business negotiation tactic, pull every string you can towards you first and make everyone else fight and bargain to get back the slack.

      So we can look forwards to some short term "wins". Hopefully we can keep him negotiating and dealing with our enemies, and our friends will be very understanding in the mean time.

    25. Re:Yeah by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Given that the economy usually does better under Democrats, and given that the economy is still recovering from the MASSIVE crash that happened under the last bout of Republicanism. I think the idea that it's all just the businessmen are suddenly happy that they're being lead by a Republican; I'd say that that's a bit of a stretch to say the least.

      I mean that's the thing about recovery, things trend upwards, and this story said things trended upwards. Personally I see zero chance that this is anything that could be ascribed to Trump.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    26. Re:Yeah by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, they're not. This is one of the outright lies that conservative dipshits continue to spout even with plenty of evidence to the contrary. The top marginal may be high, but the effective is lower than the OECD average. This is another one of those things that actually takes two working brain cells to understand, like the difference between the national debt and the budget deficit. Stupid people can't understand it, then say stupid things.

      In addition: https://www.gao.gov/products/G...

      In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability. Larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. Among large corporations (generally those with at least $10 million in assets) less than half—42.3 percent—paid no federal income tax in 2012. Of those large corporations whose financial statements reported a profit, 19.5 percent paid no federal income tax that year.

      There is no credit to give to Trumjp... he hasn't done a damn thing that would change ANYTHING related to this. He's a nothing more than a lying sack of shit politician who mere months ago was slamming jobs reports for being phony, yet now they're wonderful and all because of him. BULLSHIT. Anyone who believes that should do the world a favor and kill themselves because they're that fucking stupid.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    27. Re:Yeah by meglon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A higher marginal tax rate than Cuba, but a lower effective tax rate than Cuba. And the usual dipshits who can't understand anything continue to whine and complain about shot they know nothing about. If you don't understand the difference, you probably shouldn't say anything because it lets everyone know how fucking stupid you are.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    28. Re:Yeah by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      You do know that the global economy is doing quite well, right? Furthermore, the economy is actually in danger of getting overheated, which is why Yellen is raising interest rates. This has been a concern of hers for the past two years, it's nothing new. There are so many nuances regarding the state of the economy I won't pretend to understand it all but I sincerely doubt that two months of an erratic president could cause a great boom to the economy, especially when the economy has been doing well the last 6-7 years and this is in line with a global trend. In fact, I'm worried that Trump will cause too great of booms in the future with his absurd "pro-business" policies. The thing about "pro-business" policy is that it benefits business in the short term, which is fine with CEOs because they only have to have a short term success to acquire massive amounts of wealth. If Trump replaces Yellen in two years with someone who won't responsibly raise interest rates when the danger of inflation hangs over the economy, we could see another crisis similar to the housing crisis at the end of Bush's second term. That's the danger of deregulation. You create a boom-bust economy. Reagan did it in the 80s, Clinton did it in the 90s, Bush in the 00s. Obama was the first president in my lifetime that didn't fall for the laissez-faire bullshit and it was the first period of steady, gradual growth. The boom-bust works out great for those who acquire millions during the boom. For everyone else, it's a rollercoaster you're not strapped into.

      Your generalizations about optimism and taking risks are exactly what has caused all the busts in the past. Optimism is fine but that's not what happens during a boom. What happens is irrational overconfidence and that leads to horrible consequences.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    29. Re:Yeah by Gussington · · Score: 2

      He's defining "businessmen" as "people who run actual businesses, not non profits."

      Ok I can't speak for all American 'businessmen' (and women), but two of this richest most highest profile 'businessmen' I know of, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett tend to lean towards the Democrats. So on the surface this claim seems like bunk.
      And before you get angry, I'm sure there's plenty of support on both sides of the fence, but simply claiming that most 'businessmen' are Republican sounds a little moronic.

  2. Not Even the Pretense of a Technical Angle? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still, it's "Trump!" and that'll be good for several hundred posts... I guess that's the whole point, ennit?

  3. "first full month" means NOTHING by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of that has a single thing to do with Trump. Hell, there's things that Obama did in his first term that we'll just start seeing the effects of now. It's always been that way, the wheels turn slowly enough that it takes years for effects to become evident.

    1. Re:"first full month" means NOTHING by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not true, Stock market and business will act on expectations of future which is what is happening here with Trump in office. Of course over time we'll get into what you are interested in, what results Trump's actions will have and yes for many things the time delay will be years and for some things over a decade

  4. Haters gonna hate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People have a hard time accepting that one person can be both really good and really bad at the same time.

    To those who don't like Trump, he is all-bad, and they won't accept any attribution of benefits to anything Trump does.

    And vice-versa, of course.

    I abhor Trump's attitude towards, say, Snowden. I think Trump is an exploiter who doesn't care about justice, but just about power. On the other hand, my investment portfolio has been doing very well since he won. So, I recognize the good with the bad.

    1. Re:Haters gonna hate. by CAOgdin · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, you think that "employment" is an instantaneous measure of political prowess? Here'n all, I was under the mistaken premise of large-economy economics that it takes lots of work to create a sustainable grows in jobs, like more than the first two months. Gee, I wonder why it took Obama so-o-o long to reverse the downward spiral in jobs he inherited from Bush...probably not very good at his job, I suppose.

    2. Re:Haters gonna hate. by Proudrooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Business was punishing Obama for Obama-care by not hiring. Whether there was an upside or downside to the bottom line, there was an attitude of Obama isn't going to tell us what to do. Business and companies have been short-staffed as we have seen in the productivity statistics, but now the percieved pressure is off and businesses are hiring again.

    3. Re:Haters gonna hate. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      No, but thinking that favorable employment changes are an indication of political prowess IS political prowess :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Haters gonna hate. by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way you wrote that link to your google search is one way to look at the situation, but its incredibly 3rd grade and full of obvious emotional baggage unrelated to reality and seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind and who doesn't mind obscuring the facts.

      The fact is this: The natural repercussions of implementing that law led to lower hiring. This is not punishment of Obama by businesses. It is merely a natural outcome of what happens when you change regulations to this new state. Now, implementing these regulations could be considered punishment for the people they adversely affect, namely the labor pool, but the blame of that lands squarely on the shoulders of those who created the underlying structure. Namely, those who wrote the law and implemented it.

      Blaming "business" for some kind of concerted antagonistic action is just plain fucking stupid. Businesses follow the money and play by the rules that are handed down to them by government. If you don't like how a new law has changed how the majority of businesses operate, look at how the law was written.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    5. Re:Haters gonna hate. by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My issue is that nobody can draw even the slightest correlation between any policy move by Trump and these job gains. The idea that businesses are just hiring extra people because they have "faith in the future" is BS, you hire because you have need... need that is generated by demand for your product or service which grows over years, not overnight

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  5. First Month of Trump's Presidency? by i_ate_god · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trump has been negotiating with these companies to bring forward any plans they had for expansion.

      He has been doing that since November.

      Just an anecdote. But I have been looking for a job for 8 months. Lots of cold calls lots of resumes sent out. 0 traction. 3 interviews and 100 resumes sent out. Suddenly in the past week all hell broke loose. I now have 4 interviews lined up for the next week or so. 5-10 emails a day with job descriptions. The mood is most certainly different.

    2. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.

      It's actually quite simple - you have a leader who says he wants to put his country first and that makes investors and business people feel good enough to expand existing businesses and start new ones. That's why the stock market rallied after Trump's election - it's not based on an actual policy but a feeling.

      Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.

    3. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Animal spirits. Not joking.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.

      ...which totally explains why February jobs #'s were even higher in February of 2016, 2015, and 2013.

      I have a much simpler explanation: Its February.

    5. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Informative

      So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.

      It's actually quite simple - you have a leader who says he wants to put his country first and that makes investors and business people feel good enough to expand existing businesses and start new ones. That's why the stock market rallied after Trump's election - it's not based on an actual policy but a feeling.

      Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.

      You are full of shit. This was the 76th consecutive month of job growth. The stock market went up 50% over Obama's terms. Things are still just chugging along.

    6. Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? by wyHunter · · Score: 2

      Indeed, the "You didn't build that" really was a national confidence killer. And yes, it DID cost more jobs than anyone can imagine.

  6. new politics by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    Good thing we won't see the new inflation rate for a several more months, and pollution's latency has always been a classic.

    Maybe this is good idea for a political platform: don't worry about conservative/liberal principles; just look for fast indicators that you can increase at the expense of slow ones. Right and left will become obsolete labels, and debates will be between short-termers and long-termers.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  7. Re:Anemic growth is not normal by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Informative

    combined with unconstrined spending

    You are aware, right, that it's not the president that does the spending, it's Congress?

  8. Wait, What...? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because had we voted for Hilary there would be fewer robots?

  9. Wait a minute by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now I haven't followed a damn thing he did but I don't recall hearing anything about specific job improvement strategies. Plus it's been ONE month. So is it safe to say this is just something that sort of happened?

  10. Re:Anemic growth is not normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all due respect, you're comment betrays ignorance of both the Trump and Obama administrations respective stance on regulations. The Obama administration required cost-benefit analysis to be performed on new regulations, and required the benefit of the regulation to justify its costs. Trump, on the other hand, has issued executive orders requiring that the incremental cost of new regulation be zero, regardless of benefit.

    Effectively, the Trump administration is enabling a scenario where privileged businesses (those who can influence regulatory change) will be able to externalize their costs (such as the costs of pollution) onto individuals and other businesses. From an economic perspective, this reduces growth and efficiency since the actor best able to reduce the cost has no incentive to do so.

  11. Re:Fun times... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    Put your money where your mouth is and start shorting the market if you think it's so over-bought.

  12. Re:Anemic growth is not normal by CheeseTroll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Investors must have been absolutely *terrified* for the past 8 years, running the stock market up to record levels.

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  13. Wouldn't hire until Obama left? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    May be was just all those employers, like Bill Looman, who said they wouldn't hire anyone until Obama was out of office are now hiring again:

    Bill Looman, the owner of U.S. Cranes, LLC, told a local NBC affiliate, 11Alive, that he put up signs on his company trucks stating:
    "New company policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone"

    This link has a few photos of the signs.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  14. Promised to make life easier for small businesses by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs?

    It's not what they did, it's what they promised to do - which is primarily to lower the absurdly high U.S. corporate tax rate.

    Mind you, large corporations are already paying much less than the top rate. But here's the secret - all of us small and medium sized businesses without a building full of accountants WERE paying that top rate, or close to it. So the promise to lower that rate helps improve hiring from the large majority of job creation, small to medium sized businesses.... the rate lowering won't make life much different for the very largest corps since they were not paying a very high rate anyway.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. Re:It's just the uncertainty factor being removed by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me like most businesses are pretty unhappy when things are uncertain.

    Of course they are. When the NDP were elected in Ontario in the 1990's the TSE tanked overnight and we lost two ranks to our credit rating. When the Liberals were re-elected in Ontario ~3 years ago, it also cost another rank to our credit rating. Why? Because the liberals have fostered an anti-business environment and created an excessively expensive electricity market, while raising taxes through the roof, and spending like a drunken sailor. Businesses have fled Ontario over the last decade, even "clean" businesses like IT. When the NDP won Alberta they lost a ranking to their credit rating overnight, when the NDP won British Columbia same thing. Why? Because the NDP are anti-capitalism, pro-heavy regulation, pro-taxation. Businesses and investors believed and rightly so as it's turned out in every case that it would be exceptionally negative, and the economies stalled nearly overnight.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  16. Re:Fun times... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jobs are up. Stock market is up. Consumer confidence is up. Precious metals are down.

    For the eighth year in a row. Thanks, Obama!

    If you really think the economy is about to hit the fan, then you can make a fortune by betting against the experts.

    "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." — Warren Buffett

  17. Naah... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More like from the 1950s...

    Except that whole "Operation Wetback" thing.
    It didn't work then, apart from causing all the civil rights issues that it did, and it would work even less now.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  18. Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love the dumb fucks who think people who have been screwed are voting against their best interests if they don't vote Democrat. Democrats aren't going to do shit for these people. This is why they've stopped fucking voting for Democrats.

    Way to put up some strawman arguments, shoot them down, and call everyone who disagrees with you dumb fucks. This may be the least insightful comment yet for this article.

    No proposed solution to our economic problems will solve everything, and claiming Democratic voters think otherwise is asinine. Re-education of workers helps displaced workers, but it won't work for everyone. Relocating to areas with more jobs helps displaced workers, but it won't work for every family dynamic. Improved safety net systems helps those who fall through the cracks, but it can't be the solution for everyone. More equitable primary, secondary, and post-secondary education will also help, but it won't be enough for everyone. We need all of this and more to solve our problems.

    On the other hand, the are almost literally no programs suggested by the Republican platform which will help the working class. Gutting public schooling won't help, reducing financial assistance for health care won't help, economic protectionism won't help, reduced clean air and water regulations won't help, the list goes on and on.

    The Democratic party is far from perfect, and has been almost as disastrous for the working class as the Republican party has been. Emphasis on almost though, since after you strip away false rhetoric the Republican platform is nothing but the party of the wealthy elite.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  19. Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vote out the incumbents until things change. Eventually things will either change or we'll die.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Re:Slashdot in a nutshell. by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But that's how it's been with the Democrats for the last 8+ years. Anything bad that happened under Obama was Bush's fault, even after he had been out of power for almost 8 years and of course everything that was good was all his doing. Now it appears that anything good that happens under Trump is Obama's doing and of course anything bad is all his doing as well. It's a no win situation, and people will do some serious mental gymnastics to try and prove it no matter what the evidence says.

  21. Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

    Too bad Obama was such a lying bastard and didn't put in single payer during his first 100 days like he promised to.

    Everything that becomes of health care subsequent to the Affordable Care Act is directly related to how terribly this law was written, publicized, and implemented. Sorry, but when democrats overwhelmingly support the largest taxation bill in history disguised as a health care reform bill, and it doesn't fix the problems with health care, massively transfers wealth to insurance companies and big pharma, and actually makes some of the worst problems of health care worse any attempt made after that to fix it is just icing on shit.

    You only get one chance to do something right the first time. If you do there is no need to fuck with it after that. Popular support for it will keep it in place. Just look at medicare, social security, etc., ad nauseum. They were socialistic measures that some would call un-American. They worked because their initial implementation didn't completely fuck the people they were intended to help. Why is the ACA up for massive revision and even repeal without a huge groundswell and grass roots outcry against changing it? You guessed it! Everyone knows it is shit.

    Now people are used to the idea of meddling with it. Its not a fix it once and be done with it. We will get revisions to health care every 4-8 years now, in perpetuity.

    And the result? You fucking idiots just put our collective heads in the noose. By turning health care into a political football our government now gets to hold health care hostage from us. They get to decide who gets heath care, when, from who, and for how much. You trust these people with this power? I sure don't.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  22. Re: Thanks President Trump by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

    No, in the stock market, it really is a zero-sum game. Money that comes out is money someone else put in.

    The stock market isn't the economy.

  23. B.S. by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    And that doesn't stand for "Bachelor of Science" in case you're wondering. The stock market rallied when Pence came out and said: We know Trump said he was going to do all these really popularist things like tariffs and healthcare for all but trust me, that ain't happening. Until then it was in free fall.

    Obama's "You didn't Built it" was true and that stung like a motherfarker. There's a bumper sticker I saw the other day that made me laugh: "If you don't like socialism get off my public roads!". This is civilization. We work together to make things better. Remember the Dark Ages? A thousand years of no progress so a few kings and their retainers could claim everything themselves. Just keep telling yourself you're doing it for freedom, all the way back to monarchy and the divine right of kings. Good job.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. Re:Trump is against real pollution by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Improved crop yields, milder winters... hurricanes, storms, floods, an influx of starving refugees from Mexico when their farmland turns into desert.

    Remember, more heat means more evaporation - and what goes up, must come down.

  25. Re:It's just the uncertainty factor being removed by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    "any cost there may be for complying with regulations are deductible from your profits as business expenses"

    Uhhhhhh, yeah, and its profits which determine the success or failure of a business. Thus, higher costs and lower profits are generally a bad thing, especially when the expenditure has zero ROI. Plus, you not only lose profits, but also revenue because you're wasting time dealing with regulations when you could be running your business.

    You work *with* small business owners? Have you ever tried running a small business yourself? The government bureaucrats & their nitpicking bullshit regulations are a pain in the ass even when you're running a sole proprietorship. If you do any sort of manufacturing, the problem is seriously compounded. The amount of additional red tape involved in growing your business from '0' to '1' employees is insane. And we wonder why domestic businesses don't create more jobs?

    "businesses essentially pay zero taxes"

    Maybe giant corporations who can bribe elected officials for some special favors in the tax code and can then hire full time accountants and tax attorneys will figure out how to pay zero taxes. Small & medium sized businesses pay plenty.

    Big corporations have it very good in the USA because they have the capacity to deal with the heavy hand of big evil government. Small and medium sized businesses who can't afford full time regulatory compliance officers, accountants, lobbyists and lawyers get the shaft.

    That's the problem with big government worshipers. They think their big government is going to protect them from the evil big corporations. The reality is that the big corporations own the big government and can use that as an instrument to undermine their smaller competitors. Any new government regulations will always have a disproportionate impact on the smaller businesses.

  26. Re:Fun times... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    Put your money where your mouth is and start shorting the market if you think it's so over-bought.

    I'm building up a cash reserve to buy shares of dividend-paying stocks on the way down. I never buy into an up market.

    I think you're confused as to the nature of "shorting" - the gist of it is: you sell shares other people have and make the difference when they drop. If you are certain the market will tank, just short everything. If you are wrong (you are) you will get margin calls and go broke, but in the off chance you're right you make lots of money.

  27. Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. by whodunit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Republican platform is nothing but the party of the wealthy elite

    As a lifelong Republican, I'd like to point out that Trump's electoral victory - achieved against the streneous efforts of the GOP hardliners and the majority of GOP congressmen - may well incidate that the average conservative voter seems to agree with you. That Bernie got as far as he did against the polished, powerful Clinton machine (so powerful that she forced the Democratic party leadership to cut a deal with her so she'd stop challenging Obama's run for nomination,)and the DNP apparatus, indicates that the left wing is tired of their elitists too.

    Look for common ground - right now, I think you're likely to find it.