US economy added 312,000 jobs in December

[ludin]

And that's why the market's flying ...

markets are not a good trend of economic success.
right now markets are operating over emotion vs rational thought.

if they were operating more rationally then we would not have these huge swings we see.

 

[Conservative]

Bls.gov posted over and over. 146 million employed Jan-Mar 2008, Dem Congress record employment so apparently that is irrelevant to you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

“Highest number of jobs created since the late 90's.”

As usual, you provide no evidence to support what you claim. Regardless, one month does not make the economy.

“All good news thus that news has to be ignored by the radicals”

As usual, you continue to ignore the fact that today’s economy is sailing on the wind from the Obama economy. The rate of employment growth, job creation and unemployment is no better under Trump than was under Obama. You can’t, as I’ve advised you before, prove any significant difference.

BTW, the % wage increase shown in the article you linked is misleading. It is not “real wage difference” because it does not account for inflation. I don’t know what the inflation rate was for the 12 mos. ending in December, but in November it would put the 12 mos. wage increase at about .2%. Furthermore, real weekly wages went DOWN because of fewer average hours worked per week. Your main thrust is to cast aspersion. Trolling.

If you can’t back up your claim, as I’ve advised you before, your claim is unfounded for lack of evidence and you lose the debate.

As I've said before, if you reply with nothing different to support what you say, like statistical evidence, do not expect another reply from me.

obama didn't have an economy.
that was the whole problem.

 

[ludin]

Tell that to the millions who gained employment thanks to Obama’s policies after losing it to Bush’s and the Republicans policies. Did Obama hand over a good economy, or not?

umm the people that lost their jobs in 2017 due to the mortgage lending crisis was all liberal polices going back to clinton.
please educate yourself on what actually happened.

no obama handed over a stagnant economy without the inflation.

otherwise obama would have been the carter 2.0 of stagflation.

 

[Conservative]

Again, you didn’t cite any source or fact to refute what I posted. Then, again, you make another unsupported claim over the wrong time period:

“When the recession started there were 146 million Americans Employed, when Obama left office it was 152 million, 6 million gain. Trump has gained 4.7 million in 2 years.”

Did you know that the Great Recession started more than 19 months before Obama took office?

Gave you a brief response to this earlier but now back at my computer. Obama took office January 21 2009, the recession began in December 2007 and there were still 146 million Americans employed in Jan-Mar 2008 per BLS.gov. That at the time was record employment. Obama inherited a Democratic Congress, TARP, no budget, and had his stimulus for shovel ready jobs passed almost day one. We never got back to 146 million until 2014 and since 146 was the record that is what he was hired to do and with population growth and that booming economy you people claimed he created the 146 should be the base not the 142 million when he took office and regardless since 146 million were employed the lost jobs that returned aren't new jobs created, 146 million to 152 million were new jobs created, 6 million in 9 years, 8 years of which were Obama's

 

[Conservative]

umm the people that lost their jobs in 2017 due to the mortgage lending crisis was all liberal polices going back to clinton.
please educate yourself on what actually happened.

no obama handed over a stagnant economy without the inflation.

otherwise obama would have been the carter 2.0 of stagflation.

You are never going to get a radical to admit they are wrong on any issue. Amazing how there were 146 million Employed with a Democratic Congress in January-March 2008 and when those jobs were lost then returned somehow those were new jobs created?? Liberal logic?? No, reality says 146 million was the base Obama was hired to return us to and when jobs were lost with his stimulus in place that shows the failure of the stimulus but doesn't change the base of 146 million. 146 million in January-March 2008 to 152 million January 2017 is 6 million NEW jobs over a 9 year period of time. Just goes to prove that the Obama recovery was the worst in history

 

[Kushinator]

You are never going to get a radical to admit they are wrong on any issue. Amazing how there were 146 million Employed with a Democratic Congress in January-March 2008 and when those jobs were lost then returned somehow those were new jobs created?? Liberal logic?? No, reality says 146 million was the base Obama was hired to return us to and when jobs were lost with his stimulus in place that shows the failure of the stimulus but doesn't change the base of 146 million. 146 million in January-March 2008 to 152 million January 2017 is 6 million NEW jobs over a 9 year period of time. Just goes to prove that the Obama recovery was the worst in history

Why would you reference the household survey in a thread that is about the establishment survey? The 312k number for December 2018 is for total non-farm payrolls. We know why... you like to pick cherries to help garner support for your intellectually vacant ideology. It only works on the weak minded.

 

[bluesmoke]

-----

 

[bluesmoke]

-----

 

[bluesmoke]

-----

--------

 

[bluesmoke]

-----

------

 

[bluesmoke]

--------

-----

 

[bluesmoke]

-----

 

[bluesmoke]

obama didn't have an economy.
that was the whole problem.

And you give no reasoning behind your claim, let alone any supporting evidence. Remember, in the post to which you replied, I stated: “If you can’t back up your claim, …your claim is unfounded for lack of evidence and you lose the debate.”

 

[bluesmoke]

Gave you a brief response to this earlier but now back at my computer. Obama took office January 21 2009, the recession began in December 2007 and there were still 146 million Americans employed in Jan-Mar 2008 per BLS.gov. That at the time was record employment. Obama inherited a Democratic Congress, TARP, no budget, and had his stimulus for shovel ready jobs passed almost day one. We never got back to 146 million until 2014 and since 146 was the record that is what he was hired to do and with population growth and that booming economy you people claimed he created the 146 should be the base not the 142 million when he took office and regardless since 146 million were employed the lost jobs that returned aren't new jobs created, 146 million to 152 million were new jobs created, 6 million in 9 years, 8 years of which were Obama's

You just simply refuse to give the bls tables that you used to get the figures you give. What’s so hard to show others your source? BLS has many tables. If you won’t let me see the source you are working with, you’re being rather coy, to say the least. You also refuse to recognize the fact that Obama inherited the Great Recession, which resulted in a DECREASE in the number of employed from which point Obama had to go. From where employment went up over 15M. My BLS stats may be from different tables than yours. However, you won’t show me your source, will you? If you did, the figure might even be higher. Show me yours and I’ll show you mine. It’s your original claim. It’s up to you to show the evidence source or your claim is unfounded and your point of debate is lost.

“the lost jobs that returned aren't new jobs created”

That’s your own created definition, not that of the BLS. They go by “jobs growth”, being the increase in jobs from one month to the next, regardless of if the prior month was down from the month before.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

US economy added 312,000 jobs in December, blowing past expectations | Fox Business



Another month and economic results ignored by the left. Highest number of jobs created since the late 90's. Shows how those so called tariffs have hurt this country.

Keep focusing on the negative while Americans are going back to work. Total employment increase since Trump took office, 4.8 million, Previous months revised upwards as well. All good news thus that news has to be ignored by the radicals

Who's ignoring it?

The economy has been rising since 2009. And yet apparently, everything was doom and gloom from 2009 to 20th January 2017, then all of a sudden the economy became great, literally over night.

 

[Conservative]

It isn't that difficult for find out which tables used because the same tables that the federal government uses to report the official unemployment rate. educate yourself instead of having somebody else provide all the information for you

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative]

Who's ignoring it?

The economy has been rising since 2009. And yet apparently, everything was doom and gloom from 2009 to 20th January 2017, then all of a sudden the economy became great, literally over night.

The problem is you give Obama credit for increasing employment when the reality is the only employment he increased was part time for economic reason employees . But Obama is out of office so why do you insist on propping up failure?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Frigidweirdo]

The problem is you give Obama credit for increasing employment when the reality is the only employment he increased was part time for economic reason employees . But Obama is out of office so why do you insist on propping up failure?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

No, the problem is here you're making assumptions about me.

I don't see the president having that much positive impact on the economy.

I don't think Obama did much beyond being a steady captain of a ship. So the ship arrived at port, do we praise the captain for doing it? Not really. So many other factors.

But at the same time I don't see Trump as having done much to increase the US economy either.

Perhaps they did things which had a slight impact, positive and negative, difficult to tell because we can't see the alternative reality.


The problem is voters are often stooopid. They see the economy is going well and they love their leader. They see the economy is going badly, they get rid of them.

Funnily if you look at Europe after the 2008 crash, which had more to do with the US than with their own countries, and every country changed leadership, either from right to left or from left to right, except Germany (well the German's economy seems to be bad when everyone else has it good and good when everyone else has it bad).

Shows that people vote for things they don't understand.

And this thread, what's the point of it? Yes, you can have more jobs added, but what does it REALLY MEAN? And is anyone talking about what it really means or just going off into ANOTHER (depressingly boring) argument about Trump.

 

[Conservative]

No, the problem is here you're making assumptions about me.

I don't see the president having that much positive impact on the economy.

I don't think Obama did much beyond being a steady captain of a ship. So the ship arrived at port, do we praise the captain for doing it? Not really. So many other factors.

But at the same time I don't see Trump as having done much to increase the US economy either.

Perhaps they did things which had a slight impact, positive and negative, difficult to tell because we can't see the alternative reality.


The problem is voters are often stooopid. They see the economy is going well and they love their leader. They see the economy is going badly, they get rid of them.

Funnily if you look at Europe after the 2008 crash, which had more to do with the US than with their own countries, and every country changed leadership, either from right to left or from left to right, except Germany (well the German's economy seems to be bad when everyone else has it good and good when everyone else has it bad).

Shows that people vote for things they don't understand.

And this thread, what's the point of it? Yes, you can have more jobs added, but what does it REALLY MEAN? And is anyone talking about what it really means or just going off into ANOTHER (depressingly boring) argument about Trump.

That is because as you and others continue to show you have no understanding of the private sector and how incentive plays a role in creating employment as well as economic activity. I cannot believe how bad the education system has become in this country today, sad that far too many have no understanding of economics, civics, or the private sector

 

[Frigidweirdo]

That is because as you and others continue to show you have no understanding of the private sector and how incentive plays a role in creating employment as well as economic activity. I cannot believe how bad the education system has become in this country today, sad that far too many have no understanding of economics, civics, or the private sector

No, it's not. I understand that incentives can play a role in the economy. However these incentives might boost the economy for a short while, and then maybe these boosts turn out to be nothing much later on, or in fact help to make boom and bust worse.

However the set up of the country is far more important than any single president. You look at Trump's figures and they're not spectacular. Coming out of the worst post war recession you're more likely to see highs. And then what? You see highs and you see more massive lows at some point in the future. His figures merely follow on from Obama's figures. Though to suggest they're Trump's or Obama's is kind of ridiculous in itself.

Yes, the education system in many states is poor, doesn't give kids the skills they need. But then some people, most right wingers, think it's better that they keep the money they got, rather than spending it on improving education for kids who might end up competing with their kids for jobs.

 

[smallvoice]

That's definitely a good sign. The market is pretty competitive and it's pretty good if you're looking for work.

It's pretty good even for those of us who aren't looking....

 

[Conservative]

No, it's not. I understand that incentives can play a role in the economy. However these incentives might boost the economy for a short while, and then maybe these boosts turn out to be nothing much later on, or in fact help to make boom and bust worse.

However the set up of the country is far more important than any single president. You look at Trump's figures and they're not spectacular. Coming out of the worst post war recession you're more likely to see highs. And then what? You see highs and you see more massive lows at some point in the future. His figures merely follow on from Obama's figures. Though to suggest they're Trump's or Obama's is kind of ridiculous in itself.

Yes, the education system in many states is poor, doesn't give kids the skills they need. But then some people, most right wingers, think it's better that they keep the money they got, rather than spending it on improving education for kids who might end up competing with their kids for jobs.

Not sure what data you are looking at but the Trump economy has been the best two years in modern history and that was hurt by 7 interest rate hikes..Not sure where you get your information but bet none of it comes from official sites.

So in your world spending money in the name of compassion is more important than getting results?? The only compassion bureaucrats get out of spending goes directly back to them in power. your problem however is you have no concept as to the role of the federal and state governments, states have term limits so you don't like the gov't change it

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Not sure what data you are looking at but the Trump economy has been the best two years in modern history and that was hurt by 7 interest rate hikes..Not sure where you get your information but bet none of it comes from official sites.

So in your world spending money in the name of compassion is more important than getting results?? The only compassion bureaucrats get out of spending goes directly back to them in power. your problem however is you have no concept as to the role of the federal and state governments, states have term limits so you don't like the gov't change it

Okay, and can you tell me that if Hillary had won, that the economy wouldn't have been "the best two years in modern history"?

Also, the problem with "the best" is that when it comes to the economy, it can sometimes lead to the worst. Too much growth in a short period of time isn't always a good thing (at least for the normal people).

In my world, money is not the most important thing.

Imagine if the 2008 recession had not been anywhere near so bad. That might have stopped millions of people losing their homes. Might have stopped millions of people losing their jobs too.

But the US govt seems hell bent on massive boom and bust because this benefits those who play the stock markets.

 

[Media_Truth]

And this is my case for not wanting more H1Bs, H2Bs, or even seasonals at this time. I want supply and demand to increase American workers' wages, through free-market mechanisms.

The spending power of the average American continues it's downhill spiral. In addition the job growth has slowed down. Here's a June 2019 article.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

U.S. employers added the fewest workers in three months and wage gains cooled, suggesting broader economic weakness and boosting expectations for a Federal Reserve interest-rate cut as President Donald Trump’s trade policies weigh on growth.
...
“The disappointing payroll result suggests uncertainty surrounding trade tensions are starting to extract a larger toll on the domestic economy. The payroll diffusion index, a measure of the breadth of hiring in the labor market, also worsened, sending an additional warning that tariffs are hindering job creation.”