College grads are getting jobs.
In retail.
When have they said that? The GOP response to job questions is deregulate and lower taxes. I haven't heard them say a thing about government getting involved in retraining citizens for the new economy. That's been a democrat position the last few elections.
7 years ago, maybe. Now, nope.
During the worst of the recession, nearly half of young college graduates started out underemployed in non-college degree requiring jobs, but only about 1/5th of those were in retail/food service. That is not so now. It is down to 1/8th of college graduates underemployed in 2016. Not ideal, but obviously much better.
Working as a Barista After College Is Not as Common as You Might Think** Liberty Street Economics
Unlike you, I can provide evidence to back up my assertions.
I am just wondering where all the Trump supporters are. But when you think about it, picking and choosing what aspects of reality to which they adhere is their specialty.
Real Time Economics - WSJ creation slowed in December but other details pointed to a tightening labor market. The economy added 156,000 jobs last month, while the jobless rate rose slightly to 4.7% as more Americans entered the labor force. Workers’ hourly wages grew 2.9% over the past 12 months, the strongest yearly gain in more than seven years. Here’s how economists and analysts reacted to Friday’s report.
“For the year, the economy averaged job creation of about 180,000 per month—a solid result, but one that represents the slowest pace since 2012. While this is partially reflective of the slowdown in the pace of economic growth, it also reflects a labor market that is increasingly tight. Employers are simply having a harder time filling open positions as the economy nears full employment.“—Jim Baird, Plante Moran Financial Advisors Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ?Very Close to Full Employment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
If we are at full employment, wages are rising, and the people who have dropped out of the work force still aren't coming back in, does it still make sense to gut our budget with tax cuts for the wealthy to spur job growth, try to balance the trade deficit with tariffs, and spend a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we will have to borrow when the economy isn't really in need of the boost? I say no. There's a lot of good in Donald Trump's vision. Western universalism is a failed policy. We should start looking out for our own interests first and let go of trying to westernize China, Russia, and Islam. But with Trump's lack of ability to admit when he's wrong and lack of trust in official figures and academic analysis, I don't see how this ends well. It seems like we will have a Fed increasingly trying to counteract ill advised, inflationary moves by Trump.
Trump has already changed his stance on things as he is briefed indicating he is flexible and will adjust to changing situations. However he is still not in office so all is nothing but conjecture until he actually does something. It is amazing all the crystal balls and prejudging. Talk is cheap as most of the previous presidents have proven.
At least you think it is evidence.
Real Time Economics - WSJ creation slowed in December but other details pointed to a tightening labor market. The economy added 156,000 jobs last month, while the jobless rate rose slightly to 4.7% as more Americans entered the labor force. Workers’ hourly wages grew 2.9% over the past 12 months, the strongest yearly gain in more than seven years. Here’s how economists and analysts reacted to Friday’s report.
“For the year, the economy averaged job creation of about 180,000 per month—a solid result, but one that represents the slowest pace since 2012. While this is partially reflective of the slowdown in the pace of economic growth, it also reflects a labor market that is increasingly tight. Employers are simply having a harder time filling open positions as the economy nears full employment.“—Jim Baird, Plante Moran Financial Advisors Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ?Very Close to Full Employment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
If we are at full employment, wages are rising, and the people who have dropped out of the work force still aren't coming back in, does it still make sense to gut our budget with tax cuts for the wealthy to spur job growth, try to balance the trade deficit with tariffs, and spend a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we will have to borrow when the economy isn't really in need of the boost? I say no. There's a lot of good in Donald Trump's vision. Western universalism is a failed policy. We should start looking out for our own interests first and let go of trying to westernize China, Russia, and Islam. But with Trump's lack of ability to admit when he's wrong and lack of trust in official figures and academic analysis, I don't see how this ends well. It seems like we will have a Fed increasingly trying to counteract ill advised, inflationary moves by Trump.
It's undeniable that all figures are looking up for but a few. Wages, employment, what else is their as far as the American public is most concerned? Obama will leave Trump with an economically stable economy, as did Clinton leave Bush2, to F-up. The economy is humming.
I suppose GDP growth could be a bit better. Wages are on the uptick, but definitely have room for a lot of improvement. We might even be hurting for labor pretty soon, especially with Trump's immigration policies, so that might push wages up, though that won't help GDP growth.
The one area I think Trump will defintely help is the regulatory burden on businesses. We've dropped from #3 in the world to #8 during Obama's presidency, consistently getting lower every year, according to the World Bank Ease of doing business report. The time it takes to start a business has doubled during his turn. I'd like to see us climb up that list again.
Thing is that anything starting with the premise that we are at under 5% unemployment in any way, shape, or form, is starting with a lie....carry on.
Yeah. I measure by outcomes. I agree wages have room for improvement. After being repressed for forty years, it’s about time (more factors to do with that).
With Trump’s immigration policy, doesn’t that improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition, as you imply?
I’m not sure how Trump’s immigration policy would not help GDP growth, in and of itself. It could actually improve GDP per capita (PPP). Any help?
What would convince you that the jobs reports are accurate? If Trump endorsed them? Cause you know he will once he thinks he can take credit for them on Twitter in a couple months.
I would view jobs reports developed in the private sector as accurate. Government statistics about politically charged issues don't have credibility with me.
Ok. In the chart below, one of the lines is the government estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. The other line is the ADP estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. Which one is more accurate, red or blue, and why?
Since the charts didn't post, I'll leave the interpretation up to you.
Whoops. Let's try again: Which line is more accurate in your opinion?
I think this graph is a little easier to understand. FYI your god emperor is the guy with the tiny hands tweeting in the top right.
Obviously they are the same. Looks like somebody used the government numbers under their own name.
Nope. The red line comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment survey, while the blue line comes from ADP (Automatic Data Processing) which process about 20% of private sector paychecks in the U.S.
There is certainly variation between the two, as they are calculated separately using different samples, but most times the difference is small. For example, in December, ADP showed an increase of 153,000 private sector payroll jobs, while BLS only showed an increase of 144,000.
So...you have claimed you'd believe private sector over government, but what do you do when they match?
For Unemployment, Gallup runs their own survey and while the differences between the Gallup and BLS rates can be large, they're never statistically significant in that BLS has a margin of error of +/- 0.2 percentage points at 90% confidence while Gallup has a an error of +/- 0.7 percentage points. So considering those to ranges always overlap and the BLS sample is about 4 times as large ...30,000 adults/month for Gallup and 60,000 households for BLS (close to 120,000 individuals)...and Gallup only counts age 18+ while BLS uses 16+ there's never any clear difference between the two.
I would view jobs reports developed in the private sector as accurate. Government statistics about politically charged issues don't have credibility with me.
Cause the private sector has such a great track record with being honest about politically charged issues (cough: cigarettes causing cancer, CFCs, food safety, pharmaceuticals and "alternative medicine", oil companies on climate change, etc).
We have the government do these things for a reason. Private industries could manufacture a labor crisis to get the governments to cut regulations and lower taxes. If President's really had the power to fudge the BLS numbers, why did Obama and Bush let them get so bad in the first place?
Ahh...the non-partisan government...just here to protect us from ourselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?