Why is Trump doing worse than predecessors on Job front?

1. 89

   My Esotericposted 7 years ago

   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

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
      2. 89

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         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 ".

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Can it not be both?  Given how "unemployment" is defined, I don't see why not.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
   2. 60

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
2. 80

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   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

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Has he enacted any significant legislation yet?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Spends 20% of his time golfing.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Baloney.  He has not possibly spent an average of 5 hours per day on the links.  Perhaps in the same town, perhaps in a motel owned by the golf course, but NOT "on the golf course".

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               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.
               
               Try again?

               replyreport
3. 71

   AshtonFireflyposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to 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.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport