The five month jobs report is out and Donald Trump saw a gain of 863,000. Impressive yes? Not so fast.
Clinton 1st term - 948,000
Clinton 2nd term - 1,400,000
Bush 1st term - Lost 400,000 going into recession
Bush 2nd term - 1,200,000
Obama 1st term - Lost millions due to the Great 2008 Recession, turned around Jan 2010
Obama 2nd term - 1,000,000
Feb - Jun 2016 - 955,000
Not sure I'm following this - you're comparing a 5 month gain of 863,000 to a four year gain of 948,000 and implying it is much worse. How does that work?
Or comparing a gain of 863,000 during a period of nearly record low unemployment to a gain of 1,000,000 during a period of extremely high unemployment while the economy recovered. Again, how does that work?
This looks like playing with numbers, giving only a part of the whole story, to prove a non-existent point.
I figured every one would understand that the time period is the same, save for the last comparison.
But to be clear, each period is 5 months in length, Feb to Jun at the beginning of each term, save for the last comparison. That period is as described.
As to the high unemployment, that is why I included the other data.
BTW, I thought your side has been trumpeting for 8 years that unemployment is HUGE and 93 million are still jobless (Trump - 8/2015, 2/2017).
So which is it? 93 million jobless or "nearly record low unemployment ".
Can it not be both? Given how "unemployment" is defined, I don't see why not.
Somehow I don't think so. It can't be day and night at the same time. It makes no sense to say unemployment is low to make one point, and unemployment is high to make another at the same time.
However, you can pick one definition, whether it be the official definition or the Trump definition and then trying make a point using just one of them. But two different baselines will fail every time.
Sounds like we're saying the same thing. Using the same term (unemployment) for two very different things will result in nothing but worthless spin every time. As I'm sure you know all too well, statistics and numbers can be used to prove anything at all...as long as one never understands or investigates what the number refers to.
Agreed, since I do understand statistics very well, I am able to discern when they are being used correctly and when they aren't. In this case, those who say asserting unemployment to be high and low in the same breath base that on the faulty assumption that participation rate (what Trump is saying is huge) and the official unemployment rate are independent of one another.
The fact is they are not. For Trump's number to be true then, because there is a loose mathematical link, then official unemployment must be huge as well. Since unemployment is not huge, but very low, that implies what Trump says is wrong, which it is as has been proven elsewhere.
Therefore "Can it not be both?" you ask. The answer is no.
I was referring to "unemployment" being the number of people listed on unemployment roles as actively looking for work and drawing unemployment insurance (typical govt. figure) vs the number of people of working age, health, ect. that are not working (figure produced by those wishing to show it is high). Thus, depending on which is being referred to, it can be either high or low. Or, if the "topic" is the two different definitions rather than an actual number of unemployed it can be both, showing the disparity between the two definitions.
There is a loose correlation between the two, but in recent years it has widened and loosened considerably as entitlements increasingly provide for needs without requiring work. And for a while (not so much this year) we had thousands (millions?) that had been taken off the roles (insurance ran out) but were still looking for work.
Other than jobs funded by tax payer dollars can anyone tell me how a president can create jobs? Other than creating a job friendly environment? And, if this is the manner in which a president can affect job creation in America can they do it within the first half year of gaining office? I would think anything within the first year would be indicative of the previous administrations efforts on that front, not the current administration.
IDK if you believe Reuters but:
The Trump economy in seven charts - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e … SKBN19S2RG
seems too early to tell
Has he enacted any significant legislation yet?
Don't you really mean he spent 20% of his time on trips which included a couple of hours on the links? I really don't believe Trump has averaged 5 hours per day swinging a golf club.
Oh excuse me, I meant 20 per cent of his time as President at one of his golf clubs. Not actually golfing.
Today POTUS went golfing for the 20th time of his presidency. He has literally been on the golf course for 1/5th of his presidency. https://t.co/HJX5P7c5TA
— Jason Kander (@JasonKander) April 30, 2017
but I'm s-u-r-e that he was doing "Presidential Stuff" the whole time, thinking up policies and MAGA.
And the remainder of his time attacking key Western institutions like the judiciary, science, the social safety net, and the free press.
He should golf more.
We don't have a social safety net, just a vast system of unearned (and often unneeded) entitlements. The judiciary is badly broken, as shown by the latest SCOTUS decision and deserved a several slap on the wrist (or dismissal from the bench). The "science" you refer to is unproven and very badly affected by $$ and the free press is as free as it ever was.
To be fair, it's been six months. And it's a gain, so I'm not entirely sure why there's a complaint. I mean I think the guy's a sleezeball but this seems a little weird. Also, the economy is influenced by waaaay more factors than what, I feel ,he's had time to affect.
Outside of a possible reaction by employers to the election of one they think will promote business interests, there is nothing Trump has done that can possibly have affected the employment figures. Not yet.
But desperation drives some to find "reasons" to show Trump is ineffective if they can't show simple wrong. So we hear things like this.
Wrongo. The reason for this post is Trump's insistence that he has done the best job of any President in history (to use his hyperbole) in creating jobs. This clearly shows he is fabricating a fake reality.
It can only be your reality if you choose to accept it. And if you do so, knowing he hasn't had time to do much of anything, you deserve to live in a fantasy.
And it can only be your reality to think that he is failing because there hasn't been a massive job creation yet if you choose to accept that. And if you do, you deserve to live in a fantasy.
by leeberttea6 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/ar … employmentThis is interesting, in spite of high unemployment some firms are having trouble hiring! One of the reasons sited in this article is extended unemployment...
by ahorseback2 weeks ago
However anybody who passed ONE math class knows the answer . Unless you took liberal arts flower design and clay pottery class instead ?-Housing sales ,prices up-Unemployment down-Job creation up-Corporate...
by phion4 years ago
The title is misleading, because I have no answer as to why he does. Can those of you who plan to vote, or voted for Obama the first time give some valid reasons?
by crankalicious4 months ago
Do you care how many times President Trump has visited his golf courses during his short presidency? if not, that's fine, but Trump himself made a very big deal out of how many times President Obama played golf and is...
by tobey1005 years ago
For those of you who still believe Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, can lower the level of the oceans, is for the little guy, let's look at a few facts and not what NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and 81% of...
by Grace Marguerite Williams16 months ago
To progressives & liberals, what are the ways that you all believe that Bernie Sanders will improve the United States? Do you believe that Mr. Sanders have the political experience to improve employment &...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.