Slashdot Mirror
November Jobs Report: Economy Adds 228,000 Jobs; Unemployment Steady (npr.org)
An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in November, according to the monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate remained steady at 4.1 percent, unchanged from October. "Employment growth has averaged 174,000 per month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 187,000 in 2016," the agency's Acting Commissioner William J. Wiatrowski said of the report. The number of unemployed people was "essentially unchanged at 6.6 million," the bureau said. Of that number, 1.6 million are considered to be long-term unemployed -- workers who have not had jobs for 27 weeks or more. "Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9 percent in November," the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. Other groups saw little change from the previous month. As for wages, the agency says, "In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 cents to $26.55. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 64 cents, or 2.5 percent."
Well, if you don't have the reading comprehension skills to see that they're talking especially about manufacturing jobs, then I suppose that might explain why your who notion of employment revolves around wearing a Walmart smock.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Really. So you think that the people who sneak across the border and are up for deportation because they've committed crimes are the ones that would be eligible for higher paying jobs in the sectors we're talking about?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is the number we should be looking at. Did the number of government jobs grow or shrink? You can't fire these people easily and they get a pension for life Public sector jobs will always be a net drain on the economy because they produce nothing of value that can be exported.
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Not for 228,000 those people. Besides, not all people work. You have retirees, permanently disabled & children that don't participate in the workforce, so the impact is more significant that you might think, especially since it's just one month.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
No, at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years (6.6M/228k=29 months). Full employment is not really a good thing for the economy as it means that employers seeking new employees to meet any rise in demand are unable to find them and it means virtually nobody is looking for a better job. If labor force participation was closer to the norm from the last 30 years I'd say 4% unemployment is just about perfect. Whta's odd though is that unemployment is that low but wage inflation is so low. Perhaps it's a combination of global competition and the relatively weak labor force participation that's keeping wage growth in check, historically with 4% unemployment you'd expect wage growth about twice the current rate (which is barely beating low inflation).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"We've added 228,000 new jobs! They pay 9 dollars an hour, and require at least two bachelors and 5 years of previous experience."
Seriously. Why the fuck should I give a shit about the job market in the US? Especially if 99% of those "created" jobs include the phrase "Hello, welcome to Walmart".
There's a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report in TFA; here it is again. I believe this is what you might be looking for, since those Walmart jobs you disdain are almost exclusively part-time: "The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but was down by 858,000 over the year. "
A tight labour market means you will be treated with respect from employers. It means you can have a family based on a full time job.
Only the agents of the 1% want an "unemployed pool".
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Sorta like a 0.1-0.2mm/month rise is a "rounding error at best" compared to the depth of the ocean, I suppose. Yet we still try to measure it and draw conclusions about the long-term aggregate effect.
These days it only takes about 100k/month to keep up with population growth, so a year at a rate like this and you'd end up with about 1.5 million net new jobs. That's not insignificant.
This has been the rate of growth for about 8 years now, with most of it being under Obama.
Don't hide from numbers just because the party that you don't like is in power, and they are showing good numbers that will make elections tight for next year.
We know that voters will vote with their wallet as the prime consideration. Now we have real problems, that are not being reflected by the economy. However ignoring the numbers, will not help push the agenda, you need to recognize the truth and work with it.
Companies are currently optimistic about how the republicans are deregulating everything. Thus driving a renewed expression of growth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
To make a note, manufacturing jobs have been on the rise for a few years now. Just because it is a manufacturing job, it doesn't automatically make it a good one.
Having done IT for manufacturing companies, there is an hierarchy for job.
Machinists and Welders are at the top.
Floor workers are in the middle
Dock and shipping are at the bottom.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There is a high likelihood of USA attacking Iran if she gotten her rightful appointed throne
I'm not sure if you are trolling or just an idiot. You really think a war with Iran would have been a good thing? The stupidity of that comment is just stunning. Please do the human race a favor and don't reproduce.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Voters don't vote with their wallet... they vote for whoever promises to shit on the people they don't like, and they don't care if they get shit on a little too.
I'm sorry, are you trying to suggest that a random unemployment story, submitted by an AC, is not propaganda? Or are you just saying that you don't care?
at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years
We are at full employment right now, which the Federal Reserve considers anything below 5.2% U-3 unemployment. We have been at full employment since the summer of 2015. Arguably the definition of full employment may need to change a bit considering the participation rate is lower today than at other times of "full employment" in recent history, but probably not by much.
For instance when we were at 5.2% U-3 in the 90's, U-6 was at about 7.2. When we hit 5.2% U-3 a couple years ago, U-6 was at about 7.6%. This could arguably mean that full employment should be considered closer to 4.8% today, which we reached in early 2016.
As for this month's job figures, remember new people are born and the population is rising. Around 125k jobs per month is what it takes to keep unemployment steady. This is clearly shown by the fact the total number of unemployed mostly kept steady this month (although with population growth a steady number of unemployed does mean the unemployment rate is dropping).
At the 2017 new job rate it would take closer to 12 years to see 100% employment (even if that was technically possible). The reality is we will see this slow growth of jobs for a little while longer until the next recession and then it will bounce back up.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
There's a lot of stupid packed into not that many words.
Have you considered apply for a position at Winzip?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Which is actually rather stupid.
Without competent people to receive materials and inspect them, the business is dead in the water. My company had had quite a hard time finding competent people who can understand the manufacturing system, the various technicalities required to inspect materials for conformity, etc. Without these people, product could not be built.
Same for shipping. We have no less than 6 major shipping companies we use. Each has separate packing requirements, documentation requirements, schedules and rates. Add to that the fact that the product is highly sensitive and requires reams of documentation, and special handling and packaging. While it's no rocket science, it's definitely not burger flipping.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I found the CNN headline interesting:
Another strong jobs report: Unemployment rate remains at 17-year low
This on CNN's front page, with their usual "impeach Trump!" stuff above and below. CNN continued:
--
The report also showed that on average weekly paychecks increased by 3.1% over the last 12-months, the first time that reading has topped 3% in nearly seven years
--
When CNN feels obligated to mention that paychecks are rising faster than they have since Bush budgets, that's interesting.
We have 300+ million. Of that roughly 200+ million are working. So adding 228k is roughly 1/1000 or .1%. with unemployment steady, it means that ~228k were laid off and then rehired elsewhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now, let's see what happens over the next year or so. And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold. And since trump has not pass a single item that really impacted the economy, this remains Obama's.
He has removed a bunch of anti-business regulations that Obama had put in place by Executive Order, so there's that...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
they're talking especially about manufacturing jobs,
They are talking about manufacturing jobs because of political rhetoric, not because it shows any new trends. Manufacturing jobs grew by 126,000 per year from 2010-2016, but of course the White House only factors on 2016 where the was job loss in the sector. If you wanted a more liberal cherry picking of data you would look at 2014 where manufacturing jobs rose by over 200,000 (which is higher than 2017 end of year projections).
Put into context, manufacturing jobs dropped by about 600,000 per year from 2001-2010 until the previous administration turned that around. Perhaps if this White House was able to get manufacturing job growth back to the 600,000 per year we saw in the 60's (adjusted for population size) then that would be a paradigm shift as compared to the last decade. But 100,000-200,000 manufacturing job growth per year is simply the trend we have been seeing for the past 7 years.
But like jellomizer wrote in his response it is more important to look at what type of manufacturing jobs are being added. My assumption is it matches most other job growth, which is a very small amount of high paid professionals and a very large amount of below living wage low skilled jobs.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Nope. Best thing we can do is phase in e-verify over 2 year period while pushing robotics. This would give ppl and business time to adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I have stopped replying to ACs but will make exception here. The fact is that fewer ppl are available due to retirement. Basically, u are looking at an anomaly going on because many retired still need decent insurance.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Perhaps it's a combination of global competition and the relatively weak labor force participation that's keeping wage growth in check, historically with 4% unemployment you'd expect wage growth about twice the current rate (which is barely beating low inflation).
Give it time. There's some lag proportional to corporate inertia for labor to get negotiating power, but if job growth continues rising wages are inevitable.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
None of those regulations impacted business except for coal. And few of those actually impacted them either. Coal is picking up due to exports and trump pushing more subsidies for them. However, Nat gas/wind will continue to cause utilities to shut down coal plants in America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Same thing that had been happening for the previous 6 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There's at least 60% of the population in the job market. Which is at a minimum 200 million so it's close to 1/10th of one percent. Significant? And you pretty well have to take employment figures as unsubstantiated because who other than the gov't knows how many people are working? You're taking it on trust.
Exactly, the general trends have not changed much for about 6 years: unemployment has steadily nudged down and the stock market has steadily nudged up. There were a few shorter-term bumps and spikes along the way, but the medium-term trends have been consistent. Same for inflation and GDP. Trump hasn't changed the general trend-lines (within typical noise levels).
That being said, we are due for a recession based on past "business cycles", which are typically on a decade cycle. An upward trend of this current length is rare. It will either break recovery duration records, OR a recession will soon hit as the normal cycles usually bring.
I wonder what T would blame the likely recession on? Further, I hope it's NOT a deep recession, because the coming tax cuts are further draining away our ability to have a "rainy day" stimulus. They ignored the boy-scout motto: Be Prepared.
Table-ized A.I.
It's comparable to the numbers lost per month during the recession. So I'd say it's reasonably significant. I personally started a new job in November so maybe I'm biased.
Pay (and prestige) for any job does not depend on the impotance of the job alone - never has. Any business would be in trouble without someone to clean the toilets.
It's not about importance, but about value of and difficulty in hiring (or replacing) 1 additional person, vs the number of people willing and able to do the job. The more that people either want to do the job (because it's cool) or are able to do the job (even if it's a shit job), the less it will pay relative to similar work, and usually the lower in the pecking order it will be.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This means we cannot have growth because companies will not be able to hire new people
The low unemployment figures published by the labor department have factored out a huge number of employable people that supposedly "gave up" looking for work (according to labor.) The actual pool of available workers is much larger than what the unemployment number suggests. The is corroborated by the fact that wage growth has been modest despite the low unemployment rate; the pool isn't actually empty yet.
Removing people from the "work force" to improve the unemployment number was an obvious and widely criticized tactic during Obama's time. If this growth continues I predict that at some point the labor department will be forced to correct this and factor people back in, otherwise they'll end up with some absurdly low figure that is difficult to explain. We're getting close to that point now; the calculation is already making "record low unemployment rate" headlines. If it gets into the 3's or even lower there will be "ALL TIME RECORD" headlines at which point the jig will be up and everyone will be questioning the legitimacy of these figures if only because they'll make Trump look good.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Well, it's the 86th month in a row of job-growth, and the whole "world economy is surging" to pick from a WaPo headline today.
Crediting an 11-month administration with 75 previous months of growth, and prosperity 10,000 miles away in economies not that interlocked with America's, would be a stretch.
The other 75 months are no great credit to Obama, either, as he was much-constrained from economic actions by Congress holding that "Power of the Purse". Recovery could have come faster, as up here in Canada, say. Whereas places with even *more* of the "austerity" than what the US Congress inflicted through sequestration and cuts to States, had the triple-dip recession...Britain for example.
But when you totally tank your economy through bank malfeasance (again, Canada never deregulated our banks, so none failed or needed bailouts), you can't help but have growth after while, no matter how badly you mismanage. Kids keep getting bigger; young people need homes, salaries have fallen painfully and labour is cheap. Money is even cheaper, since there's less to invest in.
"Growth" isn't always good. Sometimes is means "things fell really far and are really bad for a lot of people". Things are not remotely yet back to where they would have been if there'd been no bank collapse. A whole generation has had its early employment years sabotaged.
Trump's got very little done legislatively except for the corporation tax cut. More regulations have been repealed than have been passed
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
Which demonstrates that if you do little except cut taxes and deregulate, the US economy will tend to pick up speed.
And look at Apple. They've just paid Ireland what the EU demanded they pay, even though Ireland didn't want it
http://www.zdnet.com/google-am...
If the EU forces countries like Ireland to charge more tax, and Trump cuts corporate taxes in the US while bullying companies to invest, there's an argument that companies like Apple might decide to move some cash back. E.g. this sort of deal
http://www.businessinsider.com...
But even in this context, Apple backing a big manufacturing plant could be a significant political win for Trump. Foxconn's display plant could create 30,000 to 50,000 jobs in the US, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Apple has 80,000 US-based employees.
Where could Foxconn build factories in the US? It depends on which states give Foxconn the best incentives. Pennsylvania seems to be in the lead for either a "molding facility" or the display plant. A trade official from Pennsylvania was at Foxconn's holiday party, Nikkei reported.
"I have to tell other states to hurry up or we'll go ahead and sign with Pennsylvania," Gou said.
Tim Cook could virtue signal about how he's creating US jobs. Apple and Foxconn would get given an Ireland like tax deal by the state and federal government.
Purists will say this is rather unorthodox economics - basically Trump bulled Cook into doing it and arranged for tax breaks. Still that's the way business works, why shouldn't government?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Not for 228,000 those people. Besides, not all people work. You have retirees, permanently disabled & children that don't participate in the workforce, so the impact is more significant that you might think, especially since it's just one month.
It might also be less significant that you think. A net gain of 228K could mean that, e.g. 500K jobs were replaced by 778K lower paying jobs.
The "breakeven" point is usually over 100K per month, btw. Also, we are on track to add 156K fewer jobs for 2017 than 2016. Just more factoids to think about.
Have taxes already been cut?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
So they don't publish U-8?
That's news to me.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It's passed the House and Senate, albeit in slightly different forms
http://www.businessinsider.com...
You don't need to actually cut taxes to affect confidence - if the perception in the markets is that they will fall that's enough to cause some change in mood.
And both the House and Senate bills cut corporation tax from 35% to 20%, though Trump suggested off the cuff it might only go to 22% to finance other cuts. Still even 35% to 22% is a pretty drastic cut.
The UK rate is 20% in 2016, falling to 18% in 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
This measure sets the Corporation Tax main rate for each year from the financial year beginning 1 April 2017 to the financial year beginning 1 April 2020, reducing the Corporation Tax main rate by 2% by 2020.
The Corporation Tax main rate for 1 April 2016 is set at 20%. The rate for 1 April 2017 is 19% and sets it at this rate for 1 April 2018 and 1 April 2019. The rate for 1 April 2020 is set at 18%.
Ireland is 12.5%
https://www.idaireland.com/inv...
But that's for trading income. Other rates apply for non trading, financial services, and manufacturing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The EU has declared Advance Tax Rulings of the sort Apple got illegal state aid.
Of course now the UK is leaving the EU, I'm sure it will offer the equivalent of Advance Tax rulings for companies like Apple on profits they move from somewhere else to the UK. I mean, if the UK would have got 0% tax otherwise, even 1% is an improvement.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold.
Maybe a little longer for Trump - his hands are really tiny. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
To be honest, reducing unemplyment rates by removal of long-term unemployed was a Republican invention. My son would come home from jr. high loaded with talking points about how Bush was hiding the real unemployment rate, which he could quote. It wasn't such a fun talking point as it grew and grew under Obama.
We need something like 230k new jobs a month to keep up with population growth, so this month is a bare minimum of health. We need better for years to chip away at it and induce long term (and NEET) back to work.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yes, but with the economic growth now being stronger, it's likely these jobs are more private sector producing jobs rather than public sector make work, alas. Or at least, one could hope. Who knows, with the amount of lying that's been going on since the Labor Department lied for the Obama unemployment percentage.
Did I not mention that we had a hard time finding someone who could and would fill the position?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Now, let's see what happens over the next year or so. And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold. And since trump has not pass a single item that really impacted the economy, this remains Obama's.
Well, the one win Trump has going for him is the bully pulpit. Last I heard, illegal immigration had pretty much stopped. Not because there was a wall or anything tangible but because Trump is pounding the issue. Likewise, Trump hasn't done much for business but sit there and say how much he likes business. Thing is that this gives business confidence and they'll act on that as like the stock market, it's not rational. Still, there's not much going on that seems all that different than what has gone on before. Still, captain of the ship gets the credit or blame no matter if they had anything to do with its fortune or failure.
Sorry to burst your bubble of Canadian Exceptionalism, but Canadian Banks Got $114 Billion From Governments During Recession. this is data based on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and works out to $3400 per capita. This was tenfold the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto industry bailout.
Maybe a little longer for Trump - his hands are really tiny. :-)
No, they just look tiny on someone 6' 4", 250 pounds, and with a huge.... ego.
The rumors of buying smaller pens at the Oval Office for him are just that, a rumor. They are actually crayons.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So, the likely tax cut is part of the multiple year trend?
I'm trying to follow.
And I'm sure England with get an apple office, but I'd bet pretty big they keep a bigger one in the EU.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
There are entry level positions where I work that have gone unfilled for months in spite of (a) only needing a high school diploma (b) start immediately full time with benefits.
These arent exactly high paying jobs ($24K/year) but they beat minimum wage, are not labor intensive, the cost of living in quite low in the area ($10K/year apartments are not uncommon) and the company also offers free training and in-house hiring preference for a significantly higher paying unionized position (starting $60K/year) as they open up.
Benefits include health insurance, tuition reimbursements, and child care reimbursements.
These positions go unfilled for months on end. One entry level ($24K/year) department only has about 20% of the staff it should have, so a higher paid, unionized, department (%60K/year) is floating workers to pick up the slack.
This very real struggle to get workers isnt an anomaly. This is the new normal. The right price for the labor is demonstrably higher than $24K/year and demonstrably below $60K/year, and the company is paying on average somewhere 'tween the two.
I dont see retired people jumping on board for that insurance. I see nobody jumping on board for it.
"His name was James Damore."
So, the likely tax cut is part of the multiple year trend?
My point is that a 35% tax rate is grossly uncompetitive and encourages companies to structure their business to generate less profits in the US, e.g. by opening offices elsewhere. That of course leads to them paying less UK tax. 20% is more competitive.
And I'm sure England with get an apple office, but I'd bet pretty big they keep a bigger one in the EU.
Why? Once the UK leaves the EU it's unlikely the EU will put tariffs on UK exports. And even if they do the UK can put tariffs on EU exports to the UK. Since the UK buys more from the UK than it sells, and under WTO rules it is legal to use the tariffs you collect to pay your exporters' tariffs, that wouldn't matter.
And a UK Apple office wouldn't be exporting goods anyway. It'd do what the Irish Google office does. And outside the EU the UK can set taxes in its national interest, unlike Ireland which was forced to have a higher tax rate on Apple than it wanted.
And outside the EU the UK is free to sign trade agreements with non EU states. Like the US for example, which is the UK's largest export customer.
Add in the fact that the UK doesn't need to accept quotas of the migrants Merkel unilaterally admitted but instead can decide to admit the immigrants it needs and keep out those it does not and I'd say that the UK will be far better off outside the EU. Having control of taxes, tariffs, and immigration means you can decide on policies that are in your national interest not in the interests of France and Germany who basically run the EU.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Others and I are still unemployed. I'm almost my year! :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Thanks for that link!
To the news story about how that number is from a think-tank essay hotly disputed by the bankers assn and the Dept of Finance, both.
If loaning banks money (and making a few billion profit on it) , at a time when all the big American banks they would normally rely upon for liquidity are locked up, is a bailout, then every government is bailing all the time.
What company and location?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
https://qz.com/286213/the-char...
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
illegals have not been stopped. If you read the real data, it is that they are catching less of them and the level returned to levels under W.
The problem is that under 8 years of W, illegals grew from 5M to 12M MINIMUM. Many would argue that it grew more.
Under O, we were catching/releasing anybody with kids, so, the illegals simply turned themselves over. A such, it sounds like a lot, but it is not.
This is the same issue when ppl are saying that illegals commit fewer crimes. Turns out that it is based on CONVICTIONS. So, lets say that you have an illegal that does a burglery or is caught selling drugs. Most of the DAs simply turn them over to ICE and send them on their way. They do not count.
In addition, illegals will run from any crime. In Colorado, I saw a car hit another one. The one at fault drove off and I pursued. SInce his car was badly damaged, he stopped at walmart and tried to run. I stood in his way and said that he had to wait for police. He reached into his pocket making it look like he had a gun and then told me to let him go. I simply stood my ground and wondered if I would see my 1 y.o girl again. Thankfully police arrived then, and no, he did not have a gun. Found out later that since nobody was killed, they simply deported him. No convictions.
Finally, consider the fact that high paying jobs in Mexico is $10/DAY, while in America, I have seen McD paying $12 / hr. Construction for illegals pays $20-$25 / hr, and with no taxes taken out.
Believe me, Trump has not even slowed down illegals. He is arresting more than under O, but he is actually deporting fewer. The reason is that under O, they were required to ignore anybody that was not known to be violent. As such, nearly everybody that was caught under O was deported. With T, they are grabbing and all illegals and unless they are known as violent, they are taking the case to court and flooding them. So, we are now spending almost DOUBLE what we did under O and getting less results.
I do agree that 'mood' does make a difference. Under O, the far right MSM (faux, breitbart, daily stormer, etc) were constantly claiming that the economy was crashing. And yet, it grew after the first year. Starting with T winning, they have screamed that the economy is booming, and yet, it is growing at the same rate as it did under O.
OTOH, the regular MSM simply prints out what is. As such, they are not causing up/downs.
Regardless, Trump really has done very little to improve or harm this economy. It is been going on O's leadership. That will change within 6 months of their passing this tax bill. That will make an impact. Good or bad, we will see.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
on a side note, one thing that I heard is that he is supposed to address illegals in jan/feb,. From what my GOP rep says that they will likely do e-verify, but he would not answer about real penalties for businesses that hire illegals. He did say that he thought that DACAs would be part of that, but we will see. If they phase-in e-verify over 2 years, and push automation, they could improve our economy a great deal and might even cover the damage that I expect from their tax bill.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The U-6 unemployment rate and the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 take the factors you mention into account, without being skewed by retiring baby boomers. I even mentioned the U-6 unemployment rate in my post, so I'm not sure why you are responding with your anti-U3 rate rhetoric to my post.
You are correct that a 5.2% unemployment rate today is not as good as a 5.2% unemployment rate 20 years ago. But a 4.8% unemployment rate is, more or less.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Unless the "rest of the world" was thriving and currencies tightly coupled to the price of oil were *all* doing poorly. The coupling of the Canadian dollar to the price of oil across 2014 and 2015 is a graph to review here.
the data is from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. it's a Crown Corporation of Canada that generates non-partisan data, and not a 'think tank'.
But over the course of a year, 2.5 million jobs can really move the needle. Of course, you have to reduce the destroyed (layoffs, company shutdown , etc) from those created, so the net jobs is the main concern.