April Jobs Report: 211,000 Jobs Added, Unemployment At 4.4 Percent (npr.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

April Jobs Report: 211,000 Jobs Added, Unemployment At 4.4 Percent (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on Friday May 5, 2017 @02:40AM from the where-we-are dept.

An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The U.S. economy added 211,000 jobs to nonfarm payrolls in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Both the unemployment rate, at 4.4 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.1 million, saw only incremental changes in April. The new data follow disappointing results from March, when the Labor Department initially said less than 100,000 jobs were created. In April, some of the biggest job gains came in leisure and hospitality, health care and social assistance, financial activities, and mining, the agency says.

198 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good news for H1B's by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:42 · Score: 0

making America great again. News for nerds, stuff that matters.
Not really news by XXongo · 2017-05-05 02:43 · Score: 2

So, the unemployment news is "nothing particularly exceptional happened in the jobs and unemployment statistics this month, according to the Labor department".
1. Re:Not really news by WrongMonkey · 2017-05-05 03:13 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  No news is good news. The media tries to create as much hysteria as possible. So its good to have an occasional reminder that the general state of the country is on an even keel.
2. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book. I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'
3. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  4 months is probably not enough to really affect unemployment rate through policy. Let's talk again in a year.
4. Re:Not really news by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 03:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Well, 9 Months was long enough for GWB to orchestrate the biggest massacre in US History (9/11), and coordinate a huge "War for Oil" ... all the while being a "Idiot". And 8 years of Obama was also blamed on GWB. So, GWB, in 8 years screwed us for 16 years. Now, we're actually entering in the fallout of the last 8 years of Obama, and anything good for the next eight years is all on Obama, but all the bad stuff will be on Trump or GWB.
  Duh.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:Not really news by Jzanu · 2017-05-05 03:44 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You're not supposed to snort the kool-aid, its not cocaine.
6. Re:Not really news by HiThere · 2017-05-05 05:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's much worse than that. The unemployment rate is a jiggered number. What's significant is the labor force participation rate. (I'm not sure what it's currently called.) The way unemployment is figured you can have been out of work for a year and not be counted. And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)
  Governments play all sorts of tricks with their economic numbers to make them look good. Even when the numbers are honest you can't trust them without looking at the details.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:Not really news by Martin+Blank · 2017-05-05 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is still mostly Obama economic territory, but that's shifting, and will be affected by the recent budget deal. By October, it will be pretty squarely in Trump's court, especially if a new budget can get passed before then. Presidents don't have a lot of ability to affect the economy upward, but they can do a lot to send it downward.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
8. Re:Not really news by Dread_ed · 2017-05-05 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Funny that when people wrote this same thing during Obama's presidency they were flamed and trashed, modded down and ridiculed.
  Thank you for stating the truth.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
9. Re: Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:11 · Score: -1
  
  It is. So many companies are dropping h1b visa workers, reversing the exodus of manufacturing - we seen this - one call from trump and plants are not moved to Mexico or Canada.
  The truth is trump is having a positive effect. He does actually care about his country. He is 70 years old - older than most of us - he has seen so much more - and at the high level of decision maker - where it matters - what we never see.
  I will make sure trump doesn't get away and vote a 2nd term. I believe he may be remembered as one of the most effective presidents ever.
  And he talks like a regular person. Not hiding anything. Not sugar coating it. "You better believe it's happening".
  Just go to YouTube. Watch his videos on exec orders and other objectively like I did. I voted for Hillary. I thank god allah I lost.
  Speaking of god, he just signed an exec order to protect religion. Christian and Islam (real Islam not radical shiara craziness). We know what has been happening in the EU. Such violence.
  Because if trump, that isn't going to happen here.
  Unlike bill nye on Netflix promoting TV-14 children to "give a new person a handy j" (this is really said to children), trump is saving America.
10. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  "The media tries to create as much hysteria as possible" - Yeah because it's a semi-sentient hivemind, like you retarded Trumpies...
11. Re:Not really news by Plus1Entropy · 2017-05-05 06:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not a "trick"... it's exactly how Unemployment is calculated, always: 100 * (# people with jobs) / (# people in the workforce). This is not a number that requires you to look at the details at all, just the most basic understanding of what the hell it actually means.
  To be in the "workforce" you have to be actively looking for a job (it's not just "after a year"). If you spend 3 years actively looking for a job but remain without one, you will still be counted as "in the workforce". If we didn't do this, then "Unemployment" would be calculated much higher than it really is, with all the children, people in school, stay-at-home parents, retirees, etc. who shouldn't be counted as part of the workforce.
  The Labor Participation Rate is a different number, with a different meaning, and is not a "replacement" or "better version" of Unemployment. In the same way GNP is not meant to "replace" GDP, they represent different (albeit related) things.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
12. Re:Not really news by Martin+Blank · 2017-05-05 06:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  You're partially right (you can have been out of work for ten years but if you were actively looking, you're considered to be unemployed), but underemployment numbers have been declining, too. The U-6 number is down to 8.6%, the lowest it's been since November 2007. The lowest it's been on record (going back to 1994) is October 2000, when it reached 6.8%. The unemployment rate (U-3) was 3.9% at that time; most economists consider employment around the 4%-4.5% range to be full without overheating the economy, and the Fed had raised interest rates by about a percentage point since mid-1999.
  Note: U-6 is defined as "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force." Basically, everyone willing to work full time but not getting it. (Full time doesn't mean a single full-time job. If you work two part-time jobs that add up to 35 or more hours per week, you're considered a full-time worker.)
  
  And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)
  The LFPR is pretty clear on who is involved, though you need to understand a few definitions.
  
  The LFPR is defined as "the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population."
  The civilian noninstitutional population is defined as "persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."
  The labor force is defined as "all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in [the BLS glossary]."
  Employed persons are defined as "persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs."
  Unemployed persons are defined as "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."
  I snipped the definitions slightly for space, but they're all at this BLS link if you need more details.
  So the H1B worker is counted as participating, as is the illegal immigrant construction worker. It's all persons, not all citizens or all permanent residents. If you're 93 and retired, but living on your own and not looking for and not wanting a job, you're part of the civilian noninstitutional population, so you factor into the LFPR, but not into the unemployment or underemployment rates. If you're 15 and working a part-time job, you're not counted in the LFPR or employment or unemployment status.
  The LFPR, though, has a great deal of downward pressure on it from retiring Baby Boomers. That will level out eventually, and the LFPR may begin to climb as they die off, but the highest that it ever got was 67.3% in early 2000. Don't expect to see something above 70% unless there's a mass die-off of old people.
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
13. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  That's just rhetoric.
  Unemployment percentage is a useless number by itself. If the US has 330 million people, 1000 of whom are in the workforce, and 44 of them are unemployed, we have 4.4% unemployment, but that's a really small tax base!
  Now if you tell me that in 1998 that unemployment was 5% with 67 million people in the workforce but in 2017 we have 4.4% unemployment with 62 million people in the workforce, that tells us a lot more. Specifically, that tells me that the structural unemployment is greater in 2017 than it was in 1998 and we should be attacking that (hard) problem instead of trying to "fix" unemployment with monetary policy.
14. Re:Not really news by Plus1Entropy · 2017-05-05 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Unemployment percentage is a useless number by itself.
  You can say the same thing about any number. GDP is useless by itself because if I tell you it's "1.3 trillion Shmeckles" then your next question will be what the fuck is the value of a "Shmeckle". Shit, I guess I need more numbers to make GDP not useless.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
15. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  I think he does kool-aid enemas. That way it's get to his gray matter quicker.
16. Re:Not really news by fluffernutter · 2017-05-05 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes low employment rate is good. It means workers are in demand and salaries and wages should be going up. I look forward to that part.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
17. Re:Not really news by chihowa · 2017-05-05 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  To be in the "workforce" you have to be actively looking for a job (it's not just "after a year").
  This is where the "trick" comes into play. How is this number determined and how reliable is that determination? You act as if determining this is as simple as determining the number of people who live in the country (which is still surprising difficult to actually pin down).
  
  If you spend 3 years actively looking for a job but remain without one, you will still be counted as "in the workforce".
  
  By what mechanism would this be accomplished? The last time I looked for a job, I didn't register that fact with the federal government. How would they reliably know how many people are looking for jobs?
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
18. Re:Not really news by Plus1Entropy · 2017-05-05 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  How would they reliably know how many people are looking for jobs?
  The same way all of these types of things are done, with surveys.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
19. Re:Not really news by HiThere · 2017-05-06 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  The official definitions sound good. Now, how do they determine those numbers? Population comes from census, and that is known to undercount certain groups. Sometimes drastically. But it's possible to estimate (without known error bars) by how much. Employed persons comes from withholding taxes, etc., and is probably the most accurate number in the batch...though even there there's double counting of some people and missing of others. So there are reasonable ways of estimating the Labor Force Participation Rate, but the error bars aren't obvious. And illegal immigrants wouldn't be properly counted. And there are various other problems with the data, not all pushing in the same direction.
  But that's the important number, because that's the one that has a relatively straightforward meaning. Saying that someone is "discouraged from looking for work" isn't helpful. Does that mean they sponge off relatives? Does that mean they do part-time work and are paid under the counter? Does it mean they took up petty theft as a profession? What? Welfare often won't even cover the rent, so there's got to be something, and in a city you can't even really try subsistence farming.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
20. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-06 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  You just proved his/her point. Surveys are a most precious tool in statistics manipulation, you can always sample in the "right" way.
21. Re:Not really news by peawormsworth · 2017-05-06 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  4.4% is slightly better than Zimbabwe at 5.1%.
  source: http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
  Unfortunately, the unemployment rate says little about how many people are actually working. In Zimbabwe, about 95% of the population do not have gainful employment.
  However, 200k new jobs is good news.
22. Re:Not really news by Martin+Blank · 2017-05-06 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  You're asking questions that aren't meant to be covered by these numbers. That doesn't make them unimportant, but you need to look elsewhere for your answers. A discouraged worker is someone "not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify."
  Imagine a coal miner (to use a common example these days) who tried eight months ago to get a job at a local mine when he heard that a few positions were open. He didn't get the job, and so he stays home, not bothering to look for an other job (for whatever reason--it doesn't matter here). He thinks that no jobs are open in his career/skill set (coal mining) and so doesn't bother looking, but has done so in the last 12 months. He's a discouraged worker. There's no judgment attached to it, and that's important because it removes subjectivity. Asking where they get their money from invites subjective judgments, and for the purposes of the survey, it's best left out.
  Theoretically, even under-the-counter work is counted. The question asked is, "Did you do any work for pay?" not "Did you do any work for pay and get a proper paycheck with all appropriate deductions taken out?" One could do snow shoveling in winter in Chicago for 35 hours a week, collecting cash from neighbors, and be considered fully employed for the purposes of the CPS even though no taxes are being paid on that income.
  Ultimately, you're trying to tag LFPR as this hugely meaningful number, but it has all kinds of problems. It doesn't discuss reasons why someone is working (breadwinner lost job, spouse or child has to work to make up the difference), why someone is not working (unemployed, retired, stay-at-home spouse/parent, student, independently wealthy, sugarbaby), whether they would work if they were offered a position. It's a useful number to understand one specific trend in the job market, but it lacks so much information as to be meaningless without additional contextual data.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Real numbers? by FredrikKarlsson · 2017-05-05 02:45 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Is this real numbers? Can these numbers be trusted? Is the administration inflating the numbers? Ask your self this before sharing. last month they where weaker lots of data pointing to even weaker numbers ahead. Now suddenly its great numbers?
1. Re:Real numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the numbers were not that bad for March, the only real issue was the new job count, which had some problems due to weather and a some big loses in a single industry - retail. But unemployment, wage increases and other factors were just as good, and it's no surprise that as the weather improves so would jobs.
  The only projections for poor performance in the future were retail jobs, and I suspect those will be countered by the "pro business" handouts that re being given by the administration. It's not a conspiracy man.
2. Re:Real numbers? by Archtech · 2017-05-05 03:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Is this real numbers? Can these numbers be trusted?
  Is the administration inflating the numbers?
  No, no, and yes. (Except that the administration is deflating the unemployment numbers, not inflating them).
  http://www.shadowstats.com/ shows, in the graph on the home page, that true unemployment in the USA is currently about 22%. Explanation and details can be found in http://www.shadowstats.com/art...
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
3. Re:Real numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  >"pro business" handouts
  tell us again how transferring money to tax havens will benefit the US's economy.
4. Re:Real numbers? by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  U-6 is not "the true unemployment"; it's a measure including people who are underemployed, who are unable to get jobs because of their economic situation (e.g. single mothers who couldn't take a job if you begged them, because they can't afford daycare and you're not willing to pay enough), and so forth.
  Each unemployment measure has its uses. We're used to U-3 largely because it tells us how much competition is out there for a job of any sort; U-4 tells you how many people are out there actually unemployed, though. Underemployment (included in U-6) is another important statistic nobody looks at. The U-5 addition (people who can't take a job even if offered one, but wish they could) is fairly-unimportant in terms of unemployment measures.
  U-6 still doesn't tell you about a few interesting things, like how much employment is actually available versus your participating labor force. Unemployment includes the people in U-5 because those people are interested in working, thus are part of the participating labor force. Because of that, U-6 plus employed persons equates to all participating labor force. Thing is, U-6 includes underemployment; that doesn't tell you about whole jobs.
  If you have three underemployed working 20, 15, and 23 hours per week, you have 58 hours or 1.45 whole jobs between three people. A measure of whole jobs is useful; also useful is a measure of whole jobs counting part-time employment of people who want to be part-time employed as "whole jobs" (that is: if a working spouse has a 12-hour weekend job, that's a whole job because said person neither needs nor desires 40 hours of employment).
  So that gives you three whole-employment indicators we don't track: WE-1 (number of whole jobs, including all full-time workers plus the fraction of full-time hours worked by hourly-paid part-time workers); WE-2 (WE-1, plus part-time workers not seeking full-time jobs are counted as whole jobs instead of partial jobs); and WE-3 (WE-2, plus full-time workers and workers with multiple jobs exceeding full-time hours have their total hours counted and fractioned, such that a person working 60 hours per week counts as 1.5 whole jobs).
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
5. Re:Real numbers? by budgenator · 2017-05-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Is this real numbers? Can these numbers be trusted?
  Is the administration inflating the numbers?
  You mean like every administration ever? The unemployment rate is meaningless, the number that matter is The labor force participation rate.
  
  "The labor force participation rate, at 62.9 percent, changed little in April and has shown little movement over the past year," the Labor Department agency says.
  Unemployment rate is just how many people the Government has to pay unemployment benefits to, labor force participation rate is how many people are working. Some would argue that GDP PCap, Gross Domestic Product Per Capita, is important ($56,115.70 in the US).
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
6. Re:Real numbers? by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 03:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  But remember, if this was Obama, the answer would be exactly the opposite ... yes, yes and no.
  You see, Obama would NEVER do such a thing ... ever.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
7. Re:Real numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Labor force participation rate tells you exactly nothing useful. It literally measures the percentage of people defined as working age that are actually working.
  Therefore it counts as 'unemployed' or rather 'not employed' people who retired early, people who are full time students, people who are stay-at-home parents. It also counts as 'not employed' people who work under the table or for trade, people who survive on odd-jobs, Uber, etc.
  The unemployment rate (U3) does NOT come from the governments unemployment rolls. It comes from the household survey, which is a statistical sampling of calling people and asking them about their employment status.
  Anon Because Im Lazy
8. Re:Real numbers? by Archtech · 2017-05-05 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  'As new discouraged workers move regularly from U.3 into U.6 unemployment accounting, those who have been “discouraged” for one year also are dropped from the U.6 measure'.
  http://www.shadowstats.com/art...
  So there are many people out there who are not counted, even in U.6.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
9. Re:Real numbers? by Archtech · 2017-05-05 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Odd that this comment, and my reply to it, have been moderated "Flamebait" and "Troll" respectively.
  Apparently anyone who questions the official number can expect to be ruled out of order. And this isn't even Congress or the White House - it's Slashdot, where I thought people were capable of independent thought and (where warranted) scepticism.
  Maybe the US government is scrupulously truthful, after all. Who knew?
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
10. Re:Real numbers? by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  So, discouraged workers count mothers who quit their jobs and then become stay-at-home mothers because their husband raises enough money, even though these people are no longer interested in work; but stops counting them after one year, and appropriately tallies them as not in the labor force?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
11. Re:Real numbers? by Dread_ed · 2017-05-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  By lowering the corporate tax rate the US becomes a tax haven where companies will put their global corporate offices, employ locals, and ultimately pay their corporate taxes.
  This is the theory. It remains to be seen what actually will happen.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
12. Re:Real numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  > U-6 is not "the true unemployment"
  It is closer, so I'll respectfully disagree.
  > it's a measure including people who are underemployed, who are unable to get jobs because of their economic situation (e.g. single mothers who couldn't take a job if you begged them, because they can't afford daycare and you're not willing to pay enough), and so forth
  Including those is proper. More importantly you're ascribing causes without knowledge. This is basically making up numbers, which we already get vis-a-vis the unemployment news every administration released.
  > U-6 still doesn't tell you about a few interesting things, like how much employment is actually available versus your participating labor force.
  I guess one more red herring can't hurt?
  > If you have three underemployed working 20, 15, and 23 hours per week, you have 58 hours or 1.45 whole jobs between three people. A measure of whole jobs is useful; also useful is a measure of whole jobs counting part-time employment of people who want to be part-time employed as "whole jobs" (that is: if a working spouse has a 12-hour weekend job, that's a whole job because said person neither needs nor desires 40 hours of employment).
  Restatement of a questionable premise by allegory isn't compelling.
  > So that gives you three whole-employment indicators we don't track: WE-1 (number of whole jobs, including all full-time workers plus the fraction of full-time hours worked by hourly-paid part-time workers); WE-2 (WE-1, plus part-time workers not seeking full-time jobs are counted as whole jobs instead of partial jobs); and WE-3 (WE-2, plus full-time workers and workers with multiple jobs exceeding full-time hours have their total hours counted and fractioned, such that a person working 60 hours per week counts as 1.5 whole jobs).
  Oh there's another red herring. If a stat doesn't account for every niche scenario, we go with the statistic based on less information?
  How does this get modded up?
13. Re:Real numbers? by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, you can't tell the difference between a woman who has no interest in being employed because she wants to be a stay-at-home mother and a woman who can't get a decent job and so is a stay-at-home mother. Someone who can't get a good job might go to some sort of school instead, and hope to be better prepared when the economy picks up. If I were to lose my job today, I'd just call myself retired, although I currently intend to keep working for a while.
  If we had a count of people who'd be working if they could find a decent job (and we'd have to define "decent job" here), we could get a more accurate unemployment rate.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
14. Re:Real numbers? by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  You see, Obama would NEVER do such a thing ... ever.
  
  Right. No Democrat straw man would say anything bad about Obama. Protoplasmic Democrats are a bit more varied.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
15. Re:Real numbers? by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore it counts as 'unemployed' or rather 'not employed' people who retired early, people who are full time students, people who are stay-at-home parents.
  
  You do realize that some people retire early, go to school, or become stay-at-home parents because they can't find a job, right?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
16. Re:Real numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that some people retire early, go to school, or become stay-at-home parents because they can't find a job, right?
  Talking about me?
Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 02:48 · Score: 4, Funny

What about the 92 million unemployed Americans who are waiting for new coal mining jobs?
1. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:02 · Score: -1
  
  oh - now you suddenly care about unemployment numbers? I don't recall you pooh-poohing news like this when Obama was in office - in fact you trumpeted how good these numbers were and conservatives should shut up.
  Oh, I forget... you call yourself a conservative...
2. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  you are a fucking idiot and/or a stalker with no employability
3. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  oh - now you suddenly care about unemployment numbers?
  I've always cared about the unemployment numbers, especially since I was out of work for two years (2009-2010), underemployed (working 20 hours per month) for six months, and filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy.
  
  I don't recall you pooh-poohing news like this when Obama was in office - in fact you trumpeted how good these numbers were and conservatives should shut up.
  I don't recall telling anyone to shut up. As a moderate conservative, I'm a great believer in both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
4. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 03:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The we don't give a shit about unemployed miners attitude isn't really working out as a political strategy. What's the upside to piling on the already downtrodden coal miners? Where's the humanity in it?
  A coal miner might have skills that would translate to the oil business, or to working on big infrastructure projects like dams or roads, or mineral mining. But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries.
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die. I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
5. Re:Just a numbers game... by Archtech · 2017-05-05 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like an attempt to change the subject. This thread is about the latest official unemployment figures.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
6. Re: Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  But coal miners are all evil. So is anyone who cares about them.
7. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries
  Hillary offered a job training program assistance. When George W. signed a similar law after 9/11, I used the $3,000 tax credit to go back to school, get out of my dead end video game testing job and into my career in IT Support.
  
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die.
  That's the Republican healthcare bill.
  
  I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.
8. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  >As a moderate conservative
  good look trying to find someone to vote for.
9. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  good look trying to find someone to vote for.
  I vote for the best person for the job, not the letter next to their name.
10. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  You already made that joke. How fucking lazy are you?
11. Re:Just a numbers game... by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  We mine salt, metal, and other stuff.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
12. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  Why weren't conservatives crying about artificially propping up buggy whip, or typewriter manufacturers when those businesses were dying, like they are with coal miners?
  I come from a long line of 5.25 floppy drive manufacturers. Surely that gives me the right to carry on the family tradition, doesn't it? After all, that argument seems to be working for the coal miners. When is Trump going to bring that industry back?
  
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die. I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  You stupid fuck. People from the left, like Bernie Sanders, want to offer them an education, so they can acquire a new set of skills that better match the needs of today's society.
13. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You already made that joke.
  Not for today. And this is a variation of one I've done before.
  
  How fucking lazy are you?
  I wrote a Python script to scrape my 8,000+ comment history from Slashdot so I can copy and paste the same comment over and over again. Since some asshat complained about my using a CSV file to store comments, I added SQLite database as a save option. Still need to write the HTML, JSON, Markdown and XML save functions.
14. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Hillary offered a job training program assistance.
  Why would they trust Hillary when the people on her team have showed them nothing but hatred and contempt?
  
  That's the Republican healthcare bill.
  Grow up.
  
  Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.
  So what? Miners should listen to the side that expresses hatred and contempt toward them over the side that offers sympathy and phony promises?
15. Re:Just a numbers game... by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 03:57 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You really think the Democrats care about people's health care, or more concerned about creating another entitled voting class of citizens?
  I can assure you, as ObamaCare premiums were skyrocketing, as was deductibles, while choices/options were falling, the Democrats didn't give two shits for the people actually paying for their health insurance. They don't care, they pretend to care better than Republicans, which is why you think "hurry up and die" is only a Republican issue, when the reality is, "hurry up and die" is nature itself, and a key function of evolution. You believe in evolution, right?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
16. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  When George W. signed a similar law after 9/11, I used the $3,000 tax credit to go back to school, get out of my dead end video game testing job and into my career in IT Support.
  How many times have you copy/pasted that into a post in the past week? Come up with some new material already.
17. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Because you stupid fuck - the government didn't kill the buggy whip or typewriter manufacturers by artificially and arbitrarily increasing taxes and regulations on an industry for punitive measures... Y'know like the Democrats did for coal mining to (and this is from Obama itself) "shut down the coal industry" because he wanted to ingratiate his fat cat lobbyist friends (and increase dependence on big oil)
18. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:04 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  That's the Republican healthcare bill
  . Grow up.
  The House Republicans violated their own procedures by rushing the current version of their healthcare bill in 24 hours without hearings or being scored by the Congressional Budget Office. This bill is nearly identical to the last bill that got scored at kicking ~24M Americans off their insurance policies (translation: hurry and die). If the Senate do their job, the House bill die a quiet death or be radically rewritten.
19. Re:Just a numbers game... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-05-05 04:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The we don't give a shit about unemployed miners attitude isn't really working out as a political strategy.
  Speaking hard truths is "giving a shit". The people that really don't give a shit are the politicians exploiting these people for votes by promising to bring back coal mining.
  "Job training" isn't the answer either. Appalachia is a terrible place to locate any business other than resource extraction. The infrastructure is terrible, the schools are substandard, the people are close minded and uneducated.
  By far the best solution is to give these people some financial assistance to pack up and move somewhere else.
  I grew up in a coal mining county in eastern Tennessee. My grandfather died of black lung disease. I have plenty of relatives back there collecting welfare and living in trailer parks. My ticket out was a bus ride to Parris Island after enlisting in the Marines on my 18th birthday. I have other friends and relatives that left, and they are ALL doing far better than those who stayed.
20. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  How many times have you copy/pasted that into a post in the past week?
  Off the top of my head, once. I'll have to check my spreadsheet when I get home.
  
  Come up with some new material already.
  I have. You're too busy bitching about the old material.
21. Re:Just a numbers game... by phantomfive · 2017-05-05 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  I mineRedstone.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  I can assure you, as ObamaCare premiums were skyrocketing, as was deductibles, while choices/options were falling, the Democrats didn't give two shits for the people actually paying for their health insurance.
  I can assure you that as an IT Support contractor, contracting agencies have offered health insurance as part of a standard benefits package since ObamaCare got passed in 2010. Prior to that, there was no benefit package. My employer today offers a dozen different policies to pick from and my monthly cost is $250 per month for the same policy I used to pay $500 per month.
  
  You believe in evolution, right?
  As a non-practicing Christian, yes.
23. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  got scored at kicking ~24M Americans off their insurance policies (translation: hurry and die)
  Health coverage doesn't significantly affect health.
  You should still grow up.
24. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Why didn't [whoever] say [whatever] [whenever]?" Is always a stupid argument, and usually also a strawman.
25. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries
  Hillary offered a job training program assistance. When George W. signed a similar law after 9/11, I used the $3,000 tax credit to go back to school, get out of my dead end video game testing job and into my career in IT Support.
  
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die.
  That's the Republican healthcare bill.
  
  I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.
  Well, you seem to have missed:
  The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) declined by 281,000 to 5.3 million in April.
  Sooo, Trump is bringing something back.
  Yeah, I know it hurts.
  Don't worry - there's a good chance you have only 7 3/4 years of real economic successes to suffer through before you get to cheer on 8 years of "recovery to nowhere" again.
26. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Oh you mean the same way House AND SENATE Democrats violated their own procedure and long stated congressional traditions to ram rod Obamacare down the throats of the US (We have to pass it to see what's in it) and passing it in the congress with only a simple majority and nationalized the healh care system in the US? Or how it only passed the CBO because they fudged the numbers in how much lower the government would have to spend on healthcare in the future? (Hint - it was all a lie and health care costs by the government increased exponentially and Obama pulled money from other sources to pay off the insurance industry who couldn't afford to support the regulations on their own) (translation: hurry up and die).
  In fact if Obamacare hadn't been passed MORE people would be insured then they are TODAY *AND* would have better coverage - but now Obamacare coverage is disappearing in many states and insurance companies pull out of the exchanges leaving only the standard, sub-standard government coverage which is NOT sustainable in the long term as medicare costs have skyrocketed!
  Now put that in your stupid spreadsheet and see if you've commented on that!
27. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Health coverage doesn't significantly affect health.
  What does this have to do with Republican healthcare bill?
  
  You should still grow up.
  I'm not the one trying to change the subject.
28. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh you mean the same way House AND SENATE Democrats violated their own procedure and long stated congressional traditions to ram rod Obamacare down the throats of the US (We have to pass it to see what's in it) and passing it in the congress with only a simple majority and nationalized the healh care system in the US?
  
  Did you forget the Republicans vowed not to do the same thing as the Democrats did? Are you aware that the Senate Republicans are planning to use the same budget reconciliation procedure that the Democrats used to pass ObamaCare? Can we say hypocrites?
  
  Now put that in your stupid spreadsheet and see if you've commented on that!
  My Python scraper script only works with named accounts and not asshat accounts.
29. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Sooo, Trump is bringing something back.
  The only thing that Trump did in his first 100 days was get a Supreme Court confirmation. Everything else is bluster.
  
  Yeah, I know it hurts.
  I haven't noticed.
  
  Don't worry - there's a good chance you have only 7 3/4 years of real economic successes to suffer through before you get to cheer on 8 years of "recovery to nowhere" again.
  After eight years of slow growth under Obama, we're overdue for a recession. There's nothing that Trump can do to stop it.
30. Re:Just a numbers game... by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 04:37 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I had insurance before and after ObamaCare, My premiums have gone up every years, not down. ObamaCare was supposed to save money, but my deductable has doubled, my out of pocket / copays have gone up, my monthly contribution is doubled.
  Anecdotal evidence is best!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
31. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  As one AC to another, you're full of it.
  PPACA was publicly debated for over a year, the misquote you are using was about how the regulations (which hadn't been written yet) to support the law would work out. As opposed to the AHCA which hasn't even been scored by the CBO yet.
  The truth is you have no idea how Obamacare (PPACA) affected insurance and premiums. You are just regurgitating the soundbites you've been fed by Breitbart and Alex Jones.
32. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Anecdotal evidence is best!
  I'm happy to have insurance after being without for 10+ years. If the Republican healthcare bill become law, my insurance policy will disappear.
33. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  oooh, an internet insult
34. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  You changed the subject to health care.
35. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Oh BS -
  The CBO scored Obamcare several times - each time they "rewrote" the legislation (decreasing government funding times but increasing tax revenues) to get the CBO to score it as a "win". The whole thing was for political cover only and to get the talking points they needed "This'll save the government money! How can we lose?!" In reality the numbers mean nothing. Any budget goes wrong practically the first day it goes into affect (like any software schedule).
  The truth is I know exactly how Obamacare has affected insurance and premiums - insurance carriers are exiting the Obamacare exchanges in many states because the carriers cannot sustain Obamacare plans without MORE government funding.
  Did I get that from Breitbart and Alex Jones?
  No - I got that from CNN
  http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/1...
  How about CNBC - is that too "alt-facts" for you?
  http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
  The truth is you have no idea what you're talking about.
36. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 04:58 · Score: -1
  
  Speaking hard truths is "giving a shit".
  No it isn't. Giving a shit is giving a shit. Trying to re-brand hatred and contempt (or mere disrespect and disinterest) as "speaking hard truths" is PR.
37. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  You changed the subject to health care.
  No. You used the term "hurry and up die," which is associated with the healthcare debate. On a related note, Congress extended healthcare for retired coal miners and their relatives in the recently approved budget bill.
  https://www.change.org/l/us/congress-extends-healthcare-for-retired-coal-miners-and-their-families
38. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  This from someone who cheered when hundreds of thousands others lost their insurance, and more importantly, their access to their doctor of choice as Obamacare passed.
  We have to pass the bill to find out whats in it.
  You get to keep your doctor
  The insurance cost will drop by $2500 a year on average for a family
  If your mother is 90, she won't be covered for a pace maker. Perhaps she should just take a pain pill.
  All that shit was said by Obama and the DNC congress. And YOU support all of it not caring how much it harmed others. Iowa now will have ZERO insurers in the state, but you don't give a crap because you got yours. Typical liberal... "I got mine, you didn't vote the way I wanted, so screw you"
  Now is time for you to start threatening to shoot people because they point out your crap, and from what I am seeing that is pretty much everyone else.
  I should send your posting log to your government office. You post more during the day, and only during weekday working hours, than you probably do your job. California is being ripped off by you, illegally I would like to add.
39. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry that coal is a cancer causing pollutant that needs to be shut down.
40. Re:Just a numbers game... by timmee · 2017-05-05 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  >I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  Because he gives them false promises that changing trade deals and repealing regulations are going to bring back their jobs. Scrap all the trade agreements, remove all regulations, hell, shoot a "job-stealing" dolphin or two, nothing will bring back the jobs because the economics have changed, including massive automation. Trump might as well have promised to burn down some national forests or chew some bubblegum, because it would certainly bring back all of the lost blacksmith jobs from a few centuries ago.
  No one wants people to be unemployed, that leads to social instability. But people do not hesitate to take advantage of frustration and fear to get elected.
41. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Now is time for you to start threatening to shoot people because they point out your crap, and from what I am seeing that is pretty much everyone else.
  You're aware that because of this nonsense I wrote a Python script to scrape my 8,000+ comment history from Slashdot? I can prove that I never threaten to shoot anyone and I can prove that an asshat falsely accused me for six weeks.
  
  I should send your posting log to your government office. You post more during the day, and only during weekday working hours, than you probably do your job. California is being ripped off by you, illegally I would like to add.
  Be my guest. Here's the governor's contact info.
  https://govnews.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
42. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  > Because he gives them false promises that changing trade deals and repealing regulations are going to bring back their jobs.
  He repealed the regulations.
  He's renegotiating NAFTA.
  In that sense he's kept his campaign promises.
  Will that bring back the coal jobs? Maybe/maybe not - I'm not up on what the market demand is (and how much the infrastructure has changed since Obama tried to regulate it out of existence) but it should increase the jobs pool overall for industrial labor.
  As for people using fear to get elected? Talk to the socialists.
43. Re:Just a numbers game... by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, he has plenty of choices.
44. Re:Just a numbers game... by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  People with expensive insurance who choose not to buy insurance are not "kicked off their insurance policies".
45. Re:Just a numbers game... by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I know how the ACA affected my premiums. They have almost tripled since 2012.
46. Re:Just a numbers game... by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think they like his promises which have yet to be proven false more than they liked Democrats promises which have proven to be false.
47. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  >You're aware that because of this nonsense I wrote a Python script to scrape my 8,000+ comment history from Slashdot? I can prove that I never threaten to shoot anyone and I can prove that an asshat falsely accused me for six weeks.
  https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
  > My Python scraper script only works with named accounts and not asshat accounts.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
48. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Funny that I hear conservatives use it all the time (eg - Why ain't nobody ne'er done complained' when Obamer gone an' done banned dem Mrslums from en'erin' 'Murca on his watch. Yeeee-haaaaaawwwwwwww!!)
  Yeah, go fuck yourself.
49. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  > My Python scraper script only works with named accounts and not asshat accounts
  That's correct. With the link to my comment, I can trace back to the root of thread. Here's an example of such a thread.
  https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10391247&cid=54083637
  Read more about this in my blog post and thanks for the ad revenue!
  https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/03/21/have-i-threatened-to-shoot-you-today/
50. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Other remedies were offered, though they weren't easy options and didn't involve going back to more coal mining, which is why it was a tough option to choose. People in that region largely said "no thanks".
  The clear, contrary message was "19th century style or nothing". You're right that in that circumstance Trump's bogus promises that the clock could somehow be turned back would be attractive to people. Unfortunately, coal isn't getting cheaper, safer, or less polluting by comparison to natural gas or to wind and solar. It isn't in more demand domestically or internationally. Worse, increasing automation/mechanization continues to tear a wide swath through what job market remains within the coal industry. The decline due to automation has been unfolding over multiple decades, and is not merely as a result of Obama's policies.
  It's not about "not giving a shit", because that just isn't true. It's that this is a challenging problem and people said "no" to the other options. That's their call, but claiming other people don't care is unfair. Some do.
  Unfortunately there are some people who evidently don't care, because they'd rather have a tax cut for billionaires and say "screw you" to the people in Appalachia who do want to change jobs.
51. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  They should stop doing that and use better arguments. Also "the other guy did it too" is also a stupid argument.
52. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's their call, but claiming other people don't care is unfair. Some do.
  No, it seems fair. A group of people who show open contempt for you almost all the time, but then try to make nice for a week or two prior to an election, doesn't care about you. Hillary wasn't fooling anyone.
  If you want people to start believing you care, then stop the "deplorable" talk start rebuking leftist haters. Rather than telling a coal miner to go to school to get a job as a nurse, help him get a job drilling for oil in Texas or mining copper in Arizona. Then maybe he will start believing you care.
53. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Fucktard, look up this new thing called "Natural Gas"; it replaced coal.
54. Re:Just a numbers game... by Martin+Blank · 2017-05-05 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  We have to pass the bill to find out whats in it.
  Bad phrasing taken way out of context. I despise Nancy Pelosi and think she should have left office long ago, but she was talking about the legislative process. You can't know what's going to be in a bill until the amendments are voted on and the final bill is passed, at which point all the claims about it could be laid to rest one way or the other. The votes took place after dozens of hearings and included many Republican amendments that were accepted. Anyone following could know what went into it before the final votes were taken.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
55. Re:Just a numbers game... by skam240 · 2017-05-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so Democrats are bad because even though they talk about helping people they MUST be only doing it to create more dependants. And the reason this has to be their motive is...? Because you say so?
  And let me guess, modern conservatives keep it real by straight up telling us they dont think social programs should exist and whose only plans seem to all revolve around shoveling money at rich folks to the benefit of no one else and are thus the good guys?
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
56. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  As a non-practicing Christian, yes.
  Cremier, why have you given up the Christian practice?
57. Re:Just a numbers game... by luis_a_espinal · 2017-05-05 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  The we don't give a shit about unemployed miners attitude isn't really working out as a political strategy. What's the upside to piling on the already downtrodden coal miners? Where's the humanity in it?
  A coal miner might have skills that would translate to the oil business, or to working on big infrastructure projects like dams or roads, or mineral mining. But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries.
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die. I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  I used to care for their plight. But then I saw how they voted, consistently, for a party who was actually telling them it would do things against their best interests. And in doing so, they have dragged us all down. So my empathy tank is now empty. Metere quod seminas.
58. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Cremier, why have you given up the Christian practice?
  I went to a non-denominational Christian Church in the San Francisco Bay Area for 13 years. I got kicked out because I accused the leadership of being morally corrupt. The way they put me out of the fellowship proved that they were morally corrupt (i.e., more about them and less about God). That was 12 years ago. I'm no a longer a believer in organized religions.
59. Re:Just a numbers game... by skam240 · 2017-05-05 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Obamacare was never intended to lower everyone's insurance prices and Id be willing to bet a shit ton of money that your insurance rates were going up before Obama Care.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
60. Re:Just a numbers game... by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  To repeat, since you are a moderate conservative, good luck trying to find someone to vote for, regardless of letters next to names.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
61. Re:Just a numbers game... by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  It may be just me, but trusting someone who has silent contempt for me doesn't seem all that appealing either.
  
  hen stop the "deplorable" talk start rebuking leftist haters
  
  Exactly how often did Clinton use the word "deplorable"? Exactly how often did Trump insult people? Methinks there's a double standard here.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
62. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries
  Hillary offered a job training program assistance. When George W. signed a similar law after 9/11, I used the $3,000 tax credit to go back to school, get out of my dead end video game testing job and into my career in IT Support.
  
  The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die.
  That's the Republican healthcare bill.
  
  I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
  Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.
  
  Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.
  That's untrue.
  Trump wants to get rid of all those pesky environmental, safety, and financial regulations that hamper American business and give tax breaks to the mine owners.
  He can't help it that neither the miners nor the mine owners think that ramping up the coal industry would actually help anything. "Trickle down coal"? Both miners and mine owners say what they'd really like is help in finding alternative industries to move into.
  Sometimes when you build it, nobody comes. Even with the best incentives in the world, the only way to revitalize coal is to find some other use for it than burning it.
63. Re: Just a numbers game... by fyzikapan · 2017-05-05 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much this. A lot of those mining communities are connected only by crappy roads and the schools are garbage. Training is a decent place to start though. It'll help places along major highways and eventually that can flow out to the less well-connected places. It's going to be a long, difficult slog to make things better though. Actually improving the situation is hard, so they vote for the liar who promises them prosperity without effort instead, and then they continue to suffer. The extreme social conservatism doesn't help, either. Even if people realize that coal is not the future, they still vote for people who are committed to not helping them, simply because doing so means some minority might get screwed even harder. I consider myself very, very lucky to have gotten out.
64. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  Right. Exactly the same way you're not "kicked out" of your apartment when your landlord makes the rent ten times higher in order to make you "voluntarily" leave. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Tell that to the person making $15K a year whose new insurance bill is $15K a year. No kicking out, no sirree! He's just choosing not to buy insurance.
65. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-05 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how often did Clinton use the word "deplorable"? Exactly how often did Trump insult people? Methinks there's a double standard here.
  Nope. Trump should also clean up his act.
  The original post was about coal miners. If it was about Mexicans and whether they should trust Trump, I'd suggest he might want to take a similar approach. But it's not. And no one is trying to deliberately end an industry that primarily employs Mexicans, whereas the same can't be said for American coal miners.
66. Re:Just a numbers game... by david_thornley · 2017-05-08 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Coal is dying as a power source for several reasons, many of them technological. Natural gas has been a cheaper option for some time, and renewables are at least getting there. Pretending that there's a big future for coal mining or blue collar factory work is cynical and condescending.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
67. Re:Just a numbers game... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-08 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Suck it up, buttercup. Coal mining is a dying industry. The argument is perfectly legitimate. Just because you say otherwise doesn't make it true.
  Donald has proven that over
  and over
  and over
  and over
68. Re:Just a numbers game... by Kohath · 2017-05-09 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Coal miners could do other similar work in other industries. There will be blue collar jobs for at least the next 50 years -- as long as the miners needs jobs.
Trump claim credit for "meaningless" figures yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:51 · Score: -1

Maybe it's his retarded baby-talk and repeating of himself that caused the unemployment numbers to drop? I mean, let's pretend he affects this somehow, Trumpies cmon you have to come up with SOMETHING plausible..
Such titles make me puke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:53 · Score: -1

Slashdot is read in the whole world not U.S.A only.
Does Trump believe these numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:54 · Score: -1

They BLS numbers were all FAKE NEWS prior to January.
1. Re:Does Trump believe these numbers? by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  In light of the fact that employees at the BLS are overwhelmingly Democrats, that makes total sense.
Know what makes me laugh & happy? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 02:55 · Score: -1

See subject & see the PAID FOR "Soros minions" failing vs. the truth here + here's the truth of that https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Soros+paid%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ - hahahahaha!
APK
P.S.=> Has he even PAID you boys yet or are you just "Shillary Bots" (& again, here's the truth of that too https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hillary%22+and+%22bots%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/ & "you & yours" are in for a BIGGER surprise in 2018 (which I'll withhold, for now - you chose the wrong team & worse, you don't even GET who/what (better term is latter) they represent) - just remember I said that... apk
1. Re:Know what makes me laugh & happy? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  This was in the results of your search. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/1...
Nothing new, except perhaps "yours" by s.petry · 2017-05-05 02:56 · Score: 1

Is this real numbers? Can these numbers be trusted? Is the administration inflating the numbers? Ask your self this before sharing. last month they where weaker lots of data pointing to even weaker numbers ahead. Now suddenly its great numbers?
No (see "Statistics" 101), No, and Yes. This is not something new or unique either. The Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc.. numbers were all bullshit too. The only difference is in how much bullshit goes into the published statistics, and of course who's party holds power when the numbers get published.
One thing for sure though, is that there is more market optimism today than we have seen since the Reagan era. Optimism does not always translate to mass scale positive results, but my stocks sure are doing great.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by xanthines-R-yummy · 2017-05-05 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative

https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...
Yes, unemployment is open to interpretation and yes, there are different ways of presenting the data. The "usual" figure is U4, but for others U6 might be more meaningful. I think U6 is probably a better estimate, but that's just my opinion. What ISN'T my opinion is that no matter what number you use, unemployment is creeping downwards.
1. Re:Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by xanthines-R-yummy · 2017-05-05 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  Oops, I meant U3 is the usual or official unemployment rate, not U4.
2. Re:Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by ErikTheRed · 2017-05-05 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Here's what's stupid. Business owners have to report detailed payroll data at least every three months (small business) or more (monthly or weekly, depending on size and state). We could have explicit, accurate data with a simple SQL query. But instead we have a building full of people playing guessing games and sticking their thumbs (or worse) on the scale and producing what are basically flat-out fairy tales.
  
  --
  
  Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
3. Re:Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Explicit accurate data that doesn't include a large segment of the economy. That completely ignores the ag sector, family run businesses, etc
Please, please, please stop quoting U3 numbers by ErikTheRed · 2017-05-05 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

U3 numbers are complete bullshit. Everybody who is paying even the slightest attention knows they are complete bullshit. They are so full of bullshit that they're not even useful for comparative / trending purposes. They have literally only two forms of utility: political propaganda, and targets of mockery. It doesn't matter if it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. Even U6 is extremely sketchy: surveys multiplied by guesswork.

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
1. Re:Please, please, please stop quoting U3 numbers by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  U-3 tells you what kind of job-seeking competition is out there. As the available employment increases, U-4 discouraged workers would become U-3 active workers, slowing the fall of U-3. That mean U-3 tells you how competitive the job market is.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:Please, please, please stop quoting U3 numbers by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it does matter what party the administration is. The BLS employs almost exclusively Democrats. There was not a single donation from a BLS employee to Donald Trump. This fact does not change depending on what party is in the White House.
I can't make sense of this word salad by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:06 · Score: 0

Care try again?
As unemployment gets lower, so will job growth. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:08 · Score: 0

As unemployment gets lower, so will job growth. It's only natural. Too many people work without paying taxes, therefore count as unemployed or they are too comfortable living with mommy, daddy or sugar daddy.
1. Re:As unemployment gets lower, so will job growth. by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Too many people work without paying taxes, therefore count as unemployed or they are too comfortable living with mommy, daddy or sugar daddy.
  You got too many alternative facts mixed up in that statement. Just focus on one. No need to do three at a time.
2. Re:As unemployment gets lower, so will job growth. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, working for a sugar daddy is hard you know....
Thank you President Trump! by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2017-05-05 03:11 · Score: 4, Funny

So happy to see these numbers. President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln and Reagan. Keep up the good work, sir!

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
1. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:13 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Be careful, saying anything positive about the Trumpster around here is a good way to lose a lot of karma around here.
2. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  This. If King Barry added 200,000 jobs, the media swooned and creamed their pants. Scumbags, the lot of 'em.
3. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  You're a moron, thanks President Trump! You made this kind of illiterate idiot possible!
4. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  As they say, it's the boom, and not the slump, that's the time for fiscal responsibility. Now's the right time for fiscal responsibility.
  It would be nice if Trump were to really hit the rich hard with some high taxes and pay down some of the US national debt - or at least balance the budget.
  And it would also be a good time to cut back on some of the big ticket spending items in the US budget - like the US military.
5. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why I have taken to using AC on such posts.... The fascist left is coming unglued and they know the gig is up come 2018 when they will lose even more votes in both the House and Senate. They are pulling out all the stops if you listen to Maxine, Nancy and the rioters at Berkley. 2020 will be all Trump unless he gets tripped up on some scandal (real or imagined) that actually sticks.
  Go Trump, stay the course, you are winning sir..
6. Re:Thank you President Trump! by jareth-0205 · 2017-05-05 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pretty sure you're joking here, but since commenters are already taking you seriously I will just add that you can't put any job figures, good or bad, down to this administration yet. They have currently achieved nothing, no legislation, no budget, nothiiing. Any changes now are leftover from whatever was already happening.
7. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  The "Lincoln" part may have been laying it on thick enough that the sarcasm will get recognized by enough people.
8. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  You're an illiterate Trumpy moron breathing your own self-infatuated fumes.
  http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/06/news/economy/obama-over-11-million-jobs/
  http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508600239/what-kind-of-jobs-president-has-obama-been-in-8-charts
  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/barack-obamas-criminally-underrated-jobs-record/506594/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
  https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218
9. Re:Thank you President Trump! by fahrbot-bot · 2017-05-05 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln and Reagan. Keep up the good work, sir!
  Be careful, saying anything positive about the Trumpster around here is a good way to lose a lot of karma around here.
  I think it was more likely a reference to the fact that both Lincoln and Reagan were shot.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
10. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Nidi62 · 2017-05-05 03:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So happy to see these numbers. President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln...
  How dare you compare Trump to a loser who couldn't even stop the Civil War! Sad! You need to compare him to a real winner like Andrew Jackson, a man so great that he was able to motivate people and get them moving all across the country!
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
11. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  I think it was more likely a reference to the fact that both Lincoln and Reagan were shot.
  Too bad Kennedy was a Democrat. Otherwise you could probably talk Trump into believe that the best way to be remembered as a great President is to get shot in office.
12. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that if someone is illiterate, they cannot read what you posted, regardless of their views on Trump.
13. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  These facts are only true if you believe, I have my own facts which tell me unemployment is at 137%.
14. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Syria used chemical weapons 29 times on civilians while Obama was in office, after him declaring the "red line".
  Syria used chemical weapons 1 time since Trump took office. I suspect he won't again. Now Russia and Iran are working together to make a "safe zone" in Syria to prevent need for refugees from Syria, a plan Trump ran on.
  So for him doing nothing, it appears Syria, one of Obama biggest disasters, is getting cleaned up by the adults. Or are you telling me Trump had nothing to do with it, in which case a rock in the Oval Office is more effective at positive change than Obama had been for 8 years?
  Done nothing, indeed. Of course there is this whole unemployment at 10 year low thing (lower than Obama at ANY time of his two terms).
  No one is believing you liberals anymore. You don't even try and lie convincingly anymore.
15. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  And so great that he probably would have stopped the Civil War if he hadn't already been dead 16 years earlier!
16. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Adding 200,000 jobs in the midst of recovering from a huge recession *is* a big deal.
  This is an incremental improvement continuing a long trend of incremental improvements.
  Context matters, as it turns out.
17. Re:Thank you President Trump! by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  Obama was in office for 2922 days (if my calculations are right), Trump for about 100. If Syria used chemical weapons 29 times while Obama was in office, and once when Trump was, they're on almost exactly the same schedule. You suspect that Syria won't use them again, but that's not actually evidence of anything other than your mental state. The difference is that Trump launched an expensive and ineffectual strike against a Syrian airfield, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. There was something to be said for taking the airfield out entirely (which is not saying that's a good idea), but none for firing dozens of expensive missiles to put it out of action for a few hours. Some people say that Obama looked weak because he didn't resort to military action there, but Trump looks like he couldn't do anything if he tried.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Trump claim credit for "meaningless" figures ye by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:14 · Score: 0

You're a racist.
U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:16 · Score: 2, Informative

We really need to stop with this U3 garbage. It is a meaningless number. It was contrived for the sole purpose of LYING to the American People about the health of the economy. Here are some economical chickens that Trump is going to bring home to roost:
#1 It is being projected that there will be more than 8,000 retail store closings in the United States in 2017, and that will far surpass the former peak of 6,163 store closings that we witnessed in 2008.
#2 The number of retailers that have filed for bankruptcy so far in 2017 has already surpassed the total for the entire year of 2016.
#3 So far in 2017, an astounding 49 million square feet of retail space has closed down in the United States. At this pace, approximately 147 million square feet will be shut down by the end of the year, and that would absolutely shatter the all-time record of 115 million square feet that was shut down in 2001.
#4 The Atlanta Fedâ(TM)s GDP Now model is projecting that U.S. economic growth for the first quarter of 2017 will come in at just 0.5 percent. If that pace continues for the rest of the year, it will be the worst year for U.S. economic growth since the last recession.
#5 Restaurants are experiencing their toughest stretch since the last recession, and in March things continued to get even worse: Foot traffic at chain restaurants in March dropped 3.4% from a year ago. Menu prices couldn't be increased enough to make up for it, and same-store sales fell 1.1%. The least bad region was the Western US, where sales inched up 1.2% year-over-year and traffic fell only 1.7%, according to TDn2K's Restaurant Industry Snapshot. The worst was the NY-NJ Region, where sales plunged 4.6% and foot traffic 6.3%.
This comes after a dismal February, when foot traffic had dropped 5% year-over-year, and same-store sales 3.7%.
#6 In March, U.S. factory output declined at the fastest pace in more than two years.
#7 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not a single person is employed in nearly one out of every five U.S. families.
#8 U.S. government revenues just suffered their biggest drop since the last recession.
#9 Nearly all of the big automakers reported disappointing sales in March, and dealer inventories have now risen to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.
#10 Used vehicle prices are absolutely crashing, and subprime auto loan losses have shot up to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.
#11 At this point, most U.S. consumers are completely tapped out. According to CNN, almost six out of every ten Americans do not have enough money saved to even cover a $500 emergency expense.
The US Economy is NOT ok
1. Re:U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 04:15 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  1) Retail is dead. Probably has more to do with Amazon than anything else. I can go to Amazon, pay less, have it delivered than get it locally at the neighborhood store. Hell, I'm buying more and more stuff via Amazon simply to save money.
  2) is a repeat of #1
  3) is a repeat of #1
  4) Atlanta FED is only one, and may be "regional". Since you didn't post a source, I don't know.
  5) In my area, restaurants are booming business. I suspect that will change when Min Wage get raised and Robots take over. Any job that can be replaced by a robot probably should be.
  6) Factory Orders are up, not down. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/04... "Excluding aircrafts, nondefense orders were up 0.5 percent, the sixth straight month of positive growth. " - http://www.econotimes.com/US-f... Of course, I can cherry pick numbers that describe exact opposite of your un-documented cherry picked numbers.
  7) Labor Participation rates are the lowest in 40 years. This one is on Obama, the Democrats and Republicans for not addressing during the last 8 years. Must be GWB's fault.
  8) Tax reciepts are at record levels ... - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
  9) We've been saying for some time that sales have plateaued at a high level, - http://www.businessinsider.com...
  10) Have no idea where you get these facts.
  11) "The US Economy is NOT ok " Yup, pretty much what a lot of people have been saying for the last 15 years or so. I personally blame both the D and R parties for not caring enough about the economy, and more concerned with Men peeing in the Girls Bathroom and who can marry who, and "hands up don't shoot", and just about everything else, but the economy.
  IMHO, the Government should get the fuck out of the way of people who want to be productive, and work. Stop punishing success, and rewarding failure. Stop the ever increasing tax burden on middle class, and focus on actually making EVERYONE's lives better.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
2. Re:U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  I totally agree with your 'IMHO.' In most cases, government is the problem, not the solution.
  There's a lot that rings true in the GP's post. I subscribe to many information services as an active investor in middle-market financials. In the analysis of the BDC sector (my main area of focus) I am frequently looking at the health of various areas of middle market investment, and the news is not as rosy as the media makes it out to be - not by a long shot. The middle market finance arena is going through a time of severe uncertainty right now where NAVs are hurting and dividends are not being covered.
  Also, I don't know how closely you've been following the markets this week but retail REITs have been absolutely freakin' hammered this week on the terrible news out of retail.
  In any case, I am not harping out made-up numbers. My income lives or dies by being aware of what is actually going on versus what the media tells main street is going on. And, I can tell you first hand that those of us who actually do have a dog in the fight are very concerned.
  This is the same shit that happened in 2007. Retail investor euphoria over fake news promulgated by the main stream media about how the economy was on fire when the reality was that it was not good at all.
3. Re:U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  > Yup, pretty much what a lot of people have been saying for the last 15 years or so.
  2010-2011 the populist opinion was that the economy was rip-roaring.
  -1 for trolling.
4. Re:U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I have no doubt there is a bubble in the market, similar to 2007, for essentially the same reason. However, rather than blaming everyone but the people responsible (Republicans and Democrats in congress), we're blaming the people trying to make a buck doing whatever they can (often shady) to avoid or comply with stupid regulations in creative ways.
  I am not familiar with REITs except in a very general sense, but Real Estate has been fucked up since Frank-Dodd social engineering via legislation was enacted. Rather that understanding the crux of the problem in under represented communities, they blame everyone and anyone for those problems, rather than the people actually responsible.
  People are looking for security in a world less secure than it was a few years ago, in spite of all the people in DC promising to protect them from whatever boogie man triggers the fear instinct in people.
  There is no security, except that which you provide for yourself. If you're looking for others to secure your blessings, you'll always be disappointed.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-05 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was there in 2010-11. The only people who thought it was rolling were the delusional democrats who just had a couple full years of owning Senate, House and White House. That's why the Republicans won the house, then the senate, and now the White House. They will likely lose the house in 2 years, the Senate and possibly the White House in 4, because they are that stupid.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Where The April Jobs Were: It Was All About Minimu by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:18 · Score: 0

How is it that with the labor market supposedly near full employment, and the unemployment rate sliding to another post-recession low of 4.4%, wages simply can not rise?
The answer was once again to be found in the quality of jobs added, because despite the poor headline payrolls print in March, the quality of jobs added that month was actually quite better than recent trends. This is where April disappointed: according to the BLS, the bulk of jobs added were once again in low or minimum-wage sectors such as leisure and hospitality, which added +55,000 jobs of which food services and drinking places workers, aka waiters and bartenders, added another +26,000. Another low-paying sector - education and health - added 41,000 jobs in April.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-05/where-april-jobs-were-it-was-all-about-minimum-wage-again
What bugs me about this by rsilvergun · 2017-05-05 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

is Obama got the blame for post-Bush recession (which to be fair was caused by deregulation started by Clinton) and now Trump gets the credit for Obama's work fixing things.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:What bugs me about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nah - as a Trump voter these numbers suck just as they did under the Obama administration.
  It's just funny watching the Obama voters on here suddenly agree.
2. Re:What bugs me about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  You can't read, you just admitted you voted Trump.
3. Re:What bugs me about this by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  Obama legitimately was in charge all through the turn-around of the economy. That wasn't residual Bush-administration policy causing the Great Recession to clean itself up; it was either the economy fixing itself or the Obama administration fixing it.
  Trump's administration is setting themselves up, though. These UE numbers are too low. There's a bubble somewhere here, and Trump's policies don't work toward market stability; the bubble's going to pop, and pop hard, and he's claiming responsibility now for the current market. Whether you want to blame the bubble on Obama or on the market players, Trump's loudly taking responsibility for it right now, and he's doing nothing to keep it from eventually bursting and bursting hard.
  Both Bush and Clinton were warned about the housing and dot-com bubbles. I don't see anyone warning Obama or Trump about what's happening right now.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
4. Re:What bugs me about this by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see anyone warning Obama or Trump about what's happening right now.
  We're overdue for a recession by traditional economic measures. Since Hillary lost the election, it won't be called the Hillary and/or Obama Recession.
5. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · 2017-05-05 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  For the most part, the president neither deserves credit nor blame for recessions or growth. There are too many pieces to an economy, and the president is only one small part of it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:What bugs me about this by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Politically, reality doesn't matter. Your accountability relies on being able to convince people you were or were not responsible. Trump's administration wants to be responsible for this end of the bubble, and will realize they really don't when it pops.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:What bugs me about this by MMC+Monster · 2017-05-05 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nah - as a Trump voter these numbers suck just as they did under the Obama administration.
  It's just funny watching the Obama voters on here suddenly agree.
  As an Obama voter (and someone who voted for Secretary Clinton), I think these numbers aren't so bad.
  An unemployment rate of 4.4 percent isn't too bad, and recent data shows people that are re-entering the workforce was steady.
  Unemployment rates that drop too much from where we are may cause inflation. I think the current rate could survive an increase of the minimum wage. But what do I know. I'm not an economist. I bow to the likes of Krugman ( https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.... https://twitter.com/paulkrugma... ) on things like this.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
8. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · 2017-05-05 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  If we're talking about political skill, one of the (few?) skills Trump has, is making excuses. And somehow convincing people to accept them. I guess every politician has that skill to some degree, but it's strong in the orange one.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re:What bugs me about this by thegarbz · 2017-05-05 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's just politics. By the 3rd year people realise the new boss isn't bringing shit to the table.
  Except that Trump has a negative approval rating. ... Only president ever, and he's only 100 days in. Let's give Trump all the credit for everything. He needs every last bit of it.
10. Re: What bugs me about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  (which to be fair was caused by deregulation started by Clinton
  If you are going to be fair, the Graham-Bliley-Leach Act was a Republican plan, so while you can say it started under CLINTON, started by is going too far.
  The most you can do is blame him for not vetoing it, but that is hardly what you said. You failed to name the act, or it's writers.
11. Re:What bugs me about this by Solandri · 2017-05-05 06:02 · Score: 1
  And the misconceptions go a lot further than most people think.
  
  The President's budget doesn't go into effect until the year after his inauguration. So the first year of his presidency, he's coasting on the previous President's budget.
  
  The President merely suggests a budget. It's Congress that puts whatever they want into the budget. The President only gets to sign or veto it. No line-item veto. So if you want to blame (or credit) a party, it'd be more accurate to look at which party was in control of the House and Senate the previous year. Do this and there's pretty much no correlation between party and state of the economy.
  
  The economy would go in boom/bust cycles without any Presidential (or government) input. It's what engineers call an underdamped stable system. To truly judge the impact of a President on the economy, you'd have to predict what the economy would've done without any government input, and compare against that. The correlation between President and economy is probably a coincidence because the average time constant of this boom/bust cycle seems to coincide closely with the 4/8 year presidential term.
12. Re:What bugs me about this by Bartles · 2017-05-05 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
13. Re:What bugs me about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not a fan of Trump either, but what the hell is a negative approval rating? Counting non-existent/imaginary people as disapproving of Trump in addition to 100% of the populace disapproving of him as well?
14. Re:What bugs me about this by dszd0g · 2017-05-05 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  The president alone can have an impact by the appointments they make (like the federal reserve). Congress has an impact. Whether you can blame the economy on the president alone I agree is complicated. I wouldn't call the president's part a small part though; I believe the president has a significant impact on the economy. Sometimes, you can point to specific actions causing recessions or growth.
  The previous recession was almost certainly caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999; this can be directly blamed on congress (Republican) for passing it and Clinton for signing it (Democrat). So you can't really blame that recession on one party or the other; they did it together. Obama and congress did have an impact in ending the recession through economic stimulus packages and keeping interest rates low.
  If Trump and Republicans move forward with Trumpcare which moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will hurt the economy. If they pass tax reform that also moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will also hurt the economy. Trickle-down economics doesn't generally work and the only time it may have worked is Reagan. It has caused recessions in recent Republican presidencies. The one example where Reagan ended the recession with tax cuts was also mixed with economic stimulus packages and the combination tripled the national debt. It isn't clear if the tax cuts or the economic stimulus was responsible for the recovery. Taxes were also higher at the time and there are some theories that trickle-down economics only works when taxes are prohibitive (the top tax rate was 70% when Reagan cut it, not the around 40% it is today). Every time trick-down economic policies are implemented income inequality in this country worsens; so in reality money trickles up from the poor to the wealthy. The economy did great under Clinton even though he raised taxes. The economy did poorly under George W. Bush even though he lowered taxes.
  Keynesian economics has a better track record than trickle-down economics and is pretty much the complete opposite (lower taxes and stimulate the poor, higher taxes on the wealthy). It failed in the 70s during the oil crises and hasn't been popular since. Obama's policy was somewhat based on Keynesian economics, but he included some tax cuts on the wealthy too so it wasn't pure Keynesian.
  Herbert Hoover tried trickle down economics and it contributed to and failed to end the great depression (the stock market crash was the major cause of the great depression, not trickle down economics, but it made it worse). Roosevelt used Keynesian economics and it ended the great depression.
  So if you study history in this country, yes, the president's economic policy has a huge impact on the economy. Trickle-down economics has caused recessions or depressions for pretty much every president except Reagan. Chances are if Trump and Republicans enact it again; we will have another recession and it would be completely fair to blame it on them.
  
  --
  This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
15. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · 2017-05-05 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  ok, so I read your post, and it is really odd that every economic policy you don't like is Republican, and every economic policy you do like is Democrat. What are the odds of that?
  
  Most likely, you have internal bias, which was compounded by mainly reading things you agree with. Seek out things you disagree with and read them. Your cognitive biases will disappear.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
16. Re:What bugs me about this by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's similarly odd that the economy does better with Democrats as President than Republicans as President. There's some solid evidence that the Democrats are better at running the economy.
  I like it when the facts confirm my biases.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
17. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · 2017-05-07 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not really odd, since given any two groups, one of them is likely to be better than the other. It would be odd if they were exactly the same.
  
  Also, policies implemented in one presidency often don't take effect until a later presidency (for example: Carter hired Paul Volcker who didn't really manage to tame inflation until the Reagan administration). Anyone who doesn't take that into account is prima facie an idiot.
  
  But don't worry, I'm sure you take such things heavily into account when the statistic doesn't confirm your biases.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
18. Re:What bugs me about this by david_thornley · 2017-05-08 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty consistent, so it doesn't look just like random chance. I haven't run the numbers.
  In order to calculate delayed effects, it's common to attribute the performance of the first year of a president's term to a previous president. Last I checked, that seemed to improve D performance over R.
  Really, given two parties, it seems reasonable that one would have better economic policies than the other. Are you just upset because your letter comes in second?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · 2017-05-08 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  In order to calculate delayed effects, it's common to attribute the performance of the first year of a president's term to a previous president.
  Do you really think that's accurate?
  
  Last I checked, that seemed to improve D performance over R.
  
  Of course it does, if it didn't, the news sources you read wouldn't add that in.
  
  Are you just upset because your letter comes in second?
  No. I'm a member of neither party, and voted Green last election.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Where is the "people stopped seeking jobs" caveat? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 03:21 · Score: 0

In most previous reports there was always someone pointing out that the true unemployment figures were probably much, much worse because it never counts people who stopped seeking jobs. Did that suddenly change and people who had stopped looking for jobs are now slowly re-entering the job market and finding jobs? Or did it just stop being mentioned because the people previously wielding it like a cudgel didn't want it used against them? Somehow, I suspect the latter.
Either the people saying that were always full of shit anyway (which is what I believe) or things aren't significantly better even though they would like them to look better.
Re:Where is the "people stopped seeking jobs" cave by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-05 03:48 · Score: 1

For a while the official unemployment rate didn't budge at all. If you read the monthly reports carefully, more and more people got hired each month. That should have driven down the unemployment rate further. It didn't. Looks like the slack of unemployed people got absorbed into the economy last year. Now that "full employment" is a talking point, expect inflation to become a hot topic as employers struggle to find workers.
Re:Where is the "people stopped seeking jobs" cave by bluefoxlucid · 2017-05-05 03:49 · Score: 1

U-4 is published. Even U-6 is only 8.6%, and it counts people who stopped looking.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
211000 new Jobs? by ilsaloving · 2017-05-05 03:52 · Score: 2

I didn't realize cloning has become so effective....
Now the only question is can we make enough black turtlenecks to keep up with demand?
Re:Where is the "people stopped seeking jobs" cave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, but "don't believe these phony numbers. The number is probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."
Direct quote from Donald Trump at the tail end of last year.
Did 24-38% of the population suddenly find jobs? How could that even be possible when the number of jobs added doesn't come close to being equal to that percentage of the population? Or are there still millions of uncounted people, and things still aren't better?
It's impossible for things to have gotten that much better in a few months, so either Trump lied to begin with and is given credit for things he didn't do or he's silent about things still not being better and is given credit for things he hasn't made better. Either way, saying that in the first place was such a strategically stupid idea that I can't believe anyone would support a leader with such an infantile intellect who thinks that tomorrow won't come or that people will forget.
MUH RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:36 · Score: 0

Muh Russian hackers are to blame! Look at how hard they make Americans work. Russia Russia Russia!!!!!
More Fake News from Drumpf by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:42 · Score: 0

Here is a detailed explanation as to why this jobs report is totally fake news.
https://seekingalpha.com/artic...
Presidents have very little control over the econ. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:43 · Score: 0

Presidents have very little control over the economy - if any. I wish that myth would just die - but unfortunately, politicians keep it alive to either take credit for a good economy or blame the other guy for a bad one.
No really, sit down and try to find something really specific that a President can do all by his lonesome self (there is none). Folks love to bring up FDR but his ideas had to go through Congress for one. And the New Deal did jack shit for the economy.
Regan had nothing to do with us getting out of the 70s stagflation - Volker is to take credit for that.
The 90s boom? That's all Greenspan's easy money and the tech boom. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with that.
Obama getting us out of the Great Recession? Nope. Bernake is to get credit for that - along with the normal business cycle.
And Trump? If he gets Congress to pass an infrastructure spending bill (yes, it's needed) and the lowering of taxes (that's gonna happen); we will end up with another trillion dollars in debt. Will it make the economy surge? Nope. 2% growth is what we're gonna have in the future and there's a very good reason for it. (See Pickety)
Thanks, President Obama!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 04:56 · Score: 0

Holy fucking whoosh, dude. Parent is making a joke.
From the recession that Dubbya left us in, the unemployment rate skyrocketed. President Obama steadily brought it back down throughout the entire term of his presidency. We can't go much lower than where we are now.
Any job creation we're seeing certainly isn't the work of Donald. These jobs are the result of plans that were well in the works long before Lying Donald came along.
So parent is obviously making a joke.
P.S. - Thanks, President Obama!!
Jobs? Or something more substancial? by Opportunist · 2017-05-05 05:22 · Score: 2

Creating 200k jobs is easy. Destroy 100k jobs that can actually sustain a family and create two separate jobs that can't. Presto job creation. Now pit the people who need those pittance jobs to make ends meet against each other and watch the race to the bottom unfold.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Jobs? Or something more substancial? by Opportunist · 2017-05-05 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  two separate jobs for each job you destroyed... you get the idea.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What does Steve Jobs' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 05:51 · Score: 0

sister know about unemployment?
Is the unemployment number still relevant? by ErichTheRed · 2017-05-05 05:55 · Score: 1

From what I know about the unemployment number's survey process and recent trends in employment, I wonder how relevant it actually is. The government only surveys 6,000 people out of 300+ million, and defines employment as any job.
These days, there are a lot of underemployed people, people stringing together gig economy jobs, etc. Also, in the past it was pretty much assumed that unemployment was a temporary thing -- the factory laid people off during slow times and hired them back, or there were a ton of places to jump to. Now, it seems like full time work is getting harder to find and keep.
Obviously, improvement is good. You personally only need one full time job, and the closer we get to full employment, the further the pendulum swings back over into the worker side of the spectrum. But certainly, there are a lot of people that the official employment statistics don't capture.
1. Re:Is the unemployment number still relevant? by david_thornley · 2017-05-05 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Statistically, you need a sample of fixed size to get results of the desired reliability. It doesn't scale with the size of the population. It has to be a representative sample, but if the sample isn't representative the size doesn't matter until it gets close to the population size.
  There are various statistics showing unemployment and underemployment rates. They all have their uses.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Where is the "people stopped seeking jobs" cave by HiThere · 2017-05-05 06:00 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, predicting that people will forget is pretty much an accurate prediction, unless it's about sex.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Trump claim credit for "meaningless" figures ye by micahraleigh · 2017-05-05 06:15 · Score: 1

I'm not saying the enemies of Trump rely entirely on name calling ... but they kind of argue like they are.
Best since 2008. by XXongo · 2017-05-05 06:22 · Score: 4, Informative

It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book.
That might be exceptional, but it isn't true. It is the lowest level in a decade. Here's a graph of the unemployment rate since the 1960s:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
where you can see the rate dropped below 4.4% many times.
Here's a graph (from six months ago) looking just at the last 15 years:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
and you can see the rate was below 4.4% right until the 2008 economic crash hit. You can also see that 4.4% is nothing exceptional, simply the continuation of the trend.

I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'
Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."
1. Re:Best since 2008. by MachineShedFred · 2017-05-05 08:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You do know that the lowest unemployment level in a decade is saying the same thing as 'the lowest unemployment rate since the Great Recession" right?
  You literally said 'it isn't true' and then said the same thing while talking about the 1960s and things that were before the collapse, which is way out of scope for anything being talked about.
  Great Recession not Great Depression.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
FAKE NEWS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 07:33 · Score: 0

Engineers laid off our now working two jobs waiting tables, and the statistics show that as a job gain.
It's the kind of reporting done by Snake Oil salesmen and Charlatans.
No word on the composition. by sethstorm · 2017-05-05 08:45 · Score: 1

Those numbers means nothing without knowing how many displaced were able to re-enter versus how many went to new entrants.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Still unemployed since mid December 2016. by antdude · 2017-05-05 09:14 · Score: 1

I know a lot of people getting laid off from my previous employers too. Some of us are still unemployed. I am almost on my fifth month. It's difficult/hard to find local and remote jobs with my disabilities and experiences. :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Labor force participation ticks down! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-05 20:26 · Score: 0

> According to the April jobs report, labor force participation ticked down slightly to 62.9% from 63.0% in March.
>
> -- *Business Insider*, 19 hours ago, http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-april-2017-2017-5
The unemployment rate went down *because* the labor force participation went down! Labor force participation is at 40 year lows! Unemployment rates are political propaganda.
He'll just start a war by rsilvergun · 2017-05-06 08:01 · Score: 1

and everyone will rally behind him like they did Bush. The press has been touching on the subject (somewhat fearfully) that he's basically a sucker for praise and adoration and the only time he's gotten that so far is when he bombed the shit out of Syria & Afghanistan. Right now I'm guessing he's choosing between North Korea & Syria. NK is easier but Syria has oil so it's a tough call.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:He'll just start a war by thegarbz · 2017-05-06 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Bush had high approval ratings before the war and they dropped after it started.
  Trump is starting from negative. War won't get him anything.