The US adds robust 263K jobs; unemployment at a 49-year low at 3.6%
April's jobs report showed that solid economic growth is still encouraging strong hiring nearly a decade into the economy's recovery. https://on.wgrz.com/2VaiP9b
I hope that can help the numbers of people experiencing homelessness in unsheltered locations increased for a second straight year by 9%. At least tent cities people have 2 or 3 jobs to juggle.
Pew research center survey countries, that asked... is their country better off today than 50 years ago. All told, a majority of respondents in these 20 countries said they were better off.However, the U.S. wasn’t one of them.
One in five American households have ‘zero or negative’ wealth.
Or 'zero or negative' expectations, derived from constantly being told they are poor.
Fact is that it is easier to live today than it was 50 years ago. Far easier, and without taking charity. Even at the very bottom of the pay scale it is still easier to live. Problem is that people have decided they require a house full of luxuries in order to survive today; luxuries that were either rare or nonexistent 50 years ago.
You are spot on..."you can't take it with you." Happiness cannot be bought.
Sure, most brainwashed people today, will live beyond theirs means, not like 50 years ago. I'm lucky, never got caught up on a 5 days on two days off job. Yet, most did get stuck and along with the national debt and their cuts at $ 60,000 average debt for every man women and child. Plus, most did not have personal debt, like most do today. 50 years ago, most had saving accounts, most houses were paid for or shortly paid for, unlike today.
Rarely seen a drunken bum in an alley way, today panhandles every where you go and food stamps for every third person. Every Major city has a tent city. Cost of living is 10 times greater in general. Did the wages match? no. At least GEO wages went from 25 times greater than the average persons to 600 times greater today and luxuries they have, vs. have nots. Don't believe the fake numbers Trump and gang gives you. Look at the writing on the wall.
Move out of the democrat state. Red States are performing better. Too much Socialism.
I've been moving out between two places. PEI Canada and Columbia. Where the people have more power than the Goverment. I choose no evil vs lesser of the two evils.
Then why are you meddling in our affairs? You don't like it when we meddle in yours. Stay out of it. It's quite clear you have no idea what's going on, and you're quite misinformed and ill educated.
Always have been homeless, always will be. Plenty of jobs and opportunity in America. I will say sanctuary cities are not helping the problem or further addressing the problem of the mentally ill that fall through the cracks.
Agreed. The fact the current administration has managed to continue the reduction in unemployment rate which started in 2010, is definitely good news:
It is, and it should be getting a lot of positive coverage...
We are over two years into the Trump Presidency... so this is all his Administration's doing, he deserves all the accolades.
He rolled back Obama regulations, got America out of TPP and Paris Accord agreements that would have crushed the American Middle Class, has re-worked NAFTA and told China its free ride is over.
Every positive economic outcome has everything to do with his Administration, in spite of the resistance from Congress and the poor decisions of the previous administrations.
"Every positive economic outcome has everything to do with his Administration"
Falls in unemployment are always good news, but unless I have misunderstood the above statement, it's hard to describe it as anything other than a lie.
As I pointed out, the unemployment rate started falling in 2010 and continued to fall from 2010 - 2016. So continuing that trend is great, but it is a continuation nonetheless.
Is it so hard to acknowledge that at least one of those positive outcomes you mention did as a matter of fact start, and continue for 6 years, under the previous administration?
Why would someone even try to pretend that's not the case? It's literally a matter of public record. And why does even good news have to include untruths? I'm not being facetious, that's a serious question. Just seems very strange to me.
"Good news is good news."
Yes, and lying is lying.
Falling unemployment is good. But the statement "Every positive economic outcome has everything to do with [the current] Administration" is a lie.
I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think the above statement is accurate.
It's good news no matter how it is dissected or scrutinized. More people are working. That is awesome.
"It's good news no matter how it is dissected or scrutinized."
And acknowledging good news doesn't preclude pointing out a lie.
A ten-year continuous fall in unemployment rates is great, but there is no need to lie about the origins of that positive outcome.
Do you believe it necessary for anyone to lie about such a simple truth?
Yes. If they feel the need to protect their pre-conceived biases.
Here is a "simple truth".
Trump will be re-elected so long as the economy remains good.
If you think otherwise, feel free, but such thoughts will prove no more truthful than the lies that he was a Russian puppet or the delusional hopes that he would resign before his first year was up.
We can all speculate Ken.
What we can't do is change objectively verifiable facts.
The downward trend in unemployment did in fact start in 2010 under the previous administration, and continued for six years. I'm not sure why you feel the need to deny that.
Is continuing low unemployment suddenly not good news, just because we have Obama to thank for starting the trend? That doesn't make any sense. To quote Kenna McHugh from this very thread "Good news is good news".
But let me be a bit more generous. Perhaps you misspoke, or perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. Feel free to set the record straight about what you meant.
In my experience the degree to which a political commentator is willing to distort reality, is directly proportionate to the degree to which they are ideologically entrenched.
So if you did mean to say the previous administration played no part in the downward trend for unemployment rates, then clearly in your case the degree of entrenchment is quite high.
When the unemployment rate dropped from 9.8% to 4.7% under Obama, the far right including people on here would shriek that the numbers were all lies.
They sure didn't trumpet the "good news" then.
Funny how those lies under Obama have become the truth under Trump.
Perhaps because employment didn't rise nearly as far as unemployment dropped; the result of not counting those people without work but no longer drawing unemployment.
Funny how the whole story isn't being told here...
The unemployment rate:
1. Dropped under Obama from 9.8% to 4.7% after he inherited a massive recession.
2. Has dropped under Trump from 4.7% to 3.9% after he inherited a booming economy.
Which President deserves more accolades?
1. It dropped after he inherited a massive recession...and spent a trillion dollars buying his way out of it - the tried and true method that has been used in the past. It didn't fall very fast, and was still high when Obama left, but it dropped.
2. It dropped under Trump to the lowest we've seen in decades, after he inherited a very slowly (slowest in history) recovering economy. It was hardly "booming".
Odd how those two, very pertinent, facts were left out, isn't it? That the recovery was extremely slow, and that Trump produced the lowest unemployment we've seen in a long, long time.
Irrelevent and misleading as usual.
1. "It didn't fall very fast, and was still high when Obama left". A decline from 9.8% to 4.7% is not fast and still high? Seriously?
2. How is a massive decline in the unemployment rate and a massive jump in the stock market not evidence of a booming economy?
Trump is holding onto the Obama economy with a massive tax cut that is skyrocketing the deficit and national debt.
But fake conservatives on here keep avoiding that point, don't they?
Anyone can deny the truth by corrupting logic and truth.
Unemployment has been going down since Obama took over the Oval Office from George Bush.
Do you give credit to Obama for the massive decline in unemployment during his Presidency?
That is correct. 4.7% unemployment is high. Seriously.
A massive jump in the stock market is evidence of a booming economy. Particularly after everyone predicted another recession when Trump was elected and the market skyrocketed instead.
No, it's not. The long-term average is 5.75%.
I don't see what "everyone predicted another recession when Trump was elected" has to do with the facts I posted about unemployment under Obama and Trump.
Given the number of lies that pour out of the mouths of conservatives, why should we even believe that the economy is doing well? Given how much Trump lies, why is the news about the economy being accepted as the truth? Given how much he lies about everything else, isn't it reasonable to assume he's manipulating the numbers to make himself look better?
I'm not saying I believe the economy is doing poorly, but it's like listening to a child or the boy who cried wolf. Under Obama, the stock market went up and up and up (more than doubling), but that was somehow a bad thing. Unemployment steadily went down and employment went up, but that was somehow a bad thing. But under Trump, who had the benefit of the momentum from a growing economy, all that was bad news under Obama is good news under Trump.
My question is this: why should I believe liars?
The unemployment rate is declining because of retirements by Baby Boomers.
Actual job growth is no different now than it was during the last 6 years of Obama.
https://www.thebalance.com/jobs-report- … cs-3305732
Regarding liars, yep, the country is flooded with them. That's why it pays to get news from credible and independent media and not blogs and social media.
The recession ended and millions went back to work under Obama. And under Trump, without that massive unemployment or the trillions spent, to draw from, millions more continue to be added to the workforce. Yet it is all due Obama buying his way out of a recession. Right!
Guess it's all in how you spin it. Perhaps we should give all the credit to Lincoln, who produced millions of ex-slaves that then got jobs.
Given how much Trump uses false numbers to make himself look better, why shouldn't I just assume the number on the economy is a lie also? It's not hard to believe he would tell whomever to make sure the economic numbers look good.
Please feel free to stay on point. Are you claiming the chart and facts I posted are wrong?
Wrong? Probably not. But presenting a one sided view? It is. Here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192 … ince-1990/
Both total employment and non-farm employment is at an all time high. This seems important, to me anyway, but while not denied by your link is shunted aside and ignored. And neither was caused by Obama, although he did his part in ending the recession and taking employment back to where it was before that period. Gains since then are not particularly due to anything he did but to actions taken by Trump in cutting taxes and regulation. Perhaps to trade negotiations but that has yet to play out to the end.
So I'll keep asking this question: as a reasonable person, why should I believe anything the Trump government tells me?
Apparently, Trump has spent years telling us he is the most successful person to run for President, but the NY Times revealed today that, in fact, he's one of the biggest failures, reporting the largest losses of anyone on their taxes. So this successful businessman is actually a huge failure. This genius is, apparently, not a genius.
So again, why should I believe anything he says or anything his minions say. And again, I'm not asking to debate the truth of what he says, I'm asking to discuss why a known, proven liar, should be believed.
This is wonderful news, and hard to look at in any other light... Very happy with the way our economy continues to boom. Thank you for a positive post.
As evidenced here, no matter how good the news some will find reasons to complain.
Trump unemployment rate of 3.6 is one of the worst hoaxes of modern times. Like his claim of global warming is a chinese hoaxe.
The red pill, which is said to be a symbol of his “desire to return to reality.” There's no blue pill presented, however. Red pill and blue pill have become slang for accepting truth even though it's difficult, or rejecting it to cling to a comfortable falsehood.
Why do you believe it is good news and why do you believe that what is being presented - the unemployment rate - is true, particularly given this administration's consistent penchant for saying things to make itself look good?
I wish I could play back the UN crowd laughing together at Trumps speach about his administration economics record being the best in American history.
The real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20%. Don’t believe the 5.6. Don’t believe it. That’s right. A lot of people out there can’t get jobs.” And in May 2016: ”You hear a 5% unemployment rate. It’s such a phony number. That number was put in for presidents and for politicians so that they look good to the people.” A month after his victory in the US presidential elections, he was still sticking to his guns: “The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.” Pre election even Trump himself said Obama's umployment record is more like 20% to 40%. What makes Americans think he will be honest again?
Oh, that's right. Remember when Obama touted his unemployment record? Republicans said the real unemployment rate was 30%.
If there is 263,000 new jobs under Trump.
What is Trump going to do, when totally legalized marijuana becomes legal. There will be triple that amount like 780,000 mostly decent human being, looking for jobs when released from prisons per year. More than all violent criminals combined.
What are those poor lawyers, judges, police, prison guards, chemo oncologist, drug cartels, pharmaceutical employees and etc (mostly useless jobs) going to do for jobs?. Not a bad post to open up.
If all pot type products were legalized nationwide, the number of jobs would jump dramatically. The folks you mentioned would still have a job as well, because there will always be crime.
But, with the legalization of Cannabis and Hemp products, we would see an increase in farm, retail, construction material, textile, fuels, manufacturing, etc. job areas. We would also see a large increase in tax revenue. So...even though I am not a person who uses the THC product, I am very pro-legalization.
I'm more with you on this. I'm playing a Devil's advocate. Prohibitions and wars on drugs will never works, for instance in the last 85 years where drugs wins times a 1000. It's only create more salvery and crimes all round. Prisoners have increased by 10 times in the last 40 years. Butt, who really cares, besides enableing the wealthy greed and creating more insanity.
While we would see some small retail shops going up, because of the way it will be set up, the rest of the employment gain probably won't happen.
Farms, for instance, won't produce corn anymore - they'll switch to hemp. Construction materials from hemp will simply replace other products, with no net gain in employment. Same for textiles, fuel and all the rest of it - any job gain will be offset by job loss in the products being replaced.
I don't agree with your assessments...as it would imply that we would no longer have a need for corn, or cotton, or various forms of fuels...
Now, for somethings it may replace it, as in certain fuels or plastics...and some types of construction materials, but it wouldn't be able to completely replace all of them...at least not yet. So it would create more jobs at least for a time period.
There would also be jobs created in refining, manufacturing, packaging and a few others areas besides just a few retail stores. I know a few folks in Washington state that are in the business and there are more than a few areas that it creates jobs.
But, you are correct that over time, it would eliminate some other jobs as it would replace them.
I respectfully suggest you look up the stats for hospitalizations, car crashes, addictions and other problems that have increased in states that legalized marijuana.
Legalization will increase costs to society while increasing the revenues you describe.
There is little doubt that auto accidents, as well as other accidents, will rise. It is well documented that people high on pot do not have the same responses or abilities as those that are not.
Colorado has been 90% more positive overall from legalized marijuana. As far as the number of highway deaths involving Colorado drivers who had marijuana in their system grew again in 2017, a new state study shows.
At the same time, traffic fatalities in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.
The reason for this seeming contradiction: Marijuana can remain in the bloodstream for weeks, so a positive blood test may not mean a driver was stoned at the time of a deadly crash
Or the reason is that people don't get as high, hiding in the closet, as they do while walking down the street. Or that the "legal impairment" number is way too low. Or that is primarily young people smoking weed and they have the most accidents anyway.
Either way, it would seem that marijuana has a direct link to the number of accidents, doesn't it? If you indulge you have a higher risk of crashing...and of harming/killing someone else.
Weed crosses all ages, professions and cultures.
Weed is sold like liquor that must be concealed in a locked bag in your car.
Police can't test by blood because many medical marijuana patient will be over the limit. They test by physical walking the line or other ones like that.
Beside they tested people stone on pot vs alcohol drunks, the stoners did much better in test. Yet, the two mix together is where police like in Holland are very strict about in controlling. In a intelligent & harmless way.
Really? You're now claiming that the same percentage of those over 60 smoke it, compared to those under, say, 30? I think the only way you could show that is if you count those under 10 as being "under 30". Technically true, but obviously not what is intended.
That being high is better than being staggering drunk isn't saying much. And it does not address whether driving ability is impaired at all.
First, did you read the article? The short article speaks nothing about Trump or Obama. It states "... the government reported that the U.S. economy grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the January-March period — the strongest pace for a first quarter since 2015."
Hubbers are making their own comments about the past and previous Presidents, which has nothing to do with the article.
Don, Did you read the article? The article speaks of this last quarter, which was not expected so it is good news.
And did you read the statement I'm replying to?
Ken's statement was: "Every positive economic outcome has everything to do with [the current] Administration".
That is demonstrably false.
So (again) low unemployment is great, but Ken's statement suggesting the previous administration played no part in a 10 year downward trend in unemployment, is false.
I don't think acknowledging good news prevents us from also calling out falsehoods where we see them.
Also, I'm genuinely interested to understand how someone could seemingly be so entrenched that they are willing to distort reality rather than acknowledge that the previous administration played a role in the downward trend in unemployment rates. That seems rather bizarre, and somewhat extreme to me.
California has a law about driving under the influence of any drug or alcohol. The law is there for a reason. A police officer spoke to the school's PTA and reported Washington and Colorado has higher auto accidents related to marijuana.
I know marijuana impairs peoples thought process. I observed a couple trying to figure out which brand of coffee to buy while stoned out of their minds. They are probably still in the grocery aisle trying to figure it out. These poor souls don't even realize their predicament. It's sad.
Funny how pot is a mind drug. Yet as stone as they maybe, they have more sense more often, not to drive til it wears off than a drunk on alcohol. Your Colorado and California accident stats are greatly debatable. Yet cherry picking questionable of the 10% possible negatives of marrijanna. Has been politicans best con artist job for 85 years. Trump rather kill illegal good horticulturists at the boarder than switch sales at home.
They and they should know what they are doing while stoned.
They are not crisp on weed, still knowing what they doing. Have you ever gone to big outdoor marrijanna festival. More laughing than any place I have ever been. No fighting , no vandizing, no throwing up and party til late and get up on time for work. Not the same story on alcohol.
by Sharlee 2 years ago
My question - President Trump was well known for this statement. "You will get sick of winning." Are you sick of winning? Trump's economy once again this month beats projected unemployment numbers... 18 year low. ...
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
life really is all about perspective...yours, mine, theirs, anyone's...you got one they got one...isn't truth always somewhere between the lines of either side's perspective?http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/ … cared.html
by OLYHOOCH 9 years ago
I thought you all said we need jobs. Funny thing. Every month I see a figure like this and I say to my self, this JOB ISSUE, is like, THE OBAMA BC ISSUE. ( Here they are, you just cant see or find them.) We say one thing, they say another. Well, anyway here is there version.The United States...
by WeStand4Freedom 11 years ago
Impeachment of a President One would think that the impeachment of a president is not conducive in showing him support.”Give him a chance,” people say. President Obama, to be exact, has been in office for a year now. He has done a lot of damage in that year. I have seen not one promise...
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
The headline of this article caught my eye. I was in Boston the year Rosie Ruiz faked winning the Boston Marathon.So now Paul Ryan claims he ran a marathon in under 3 hours when he didn't?Is that a big deal? How about citing the CBO as having endorsed his budget plan when they did no such...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 2 years ago
Someone from Trump's inner circle wrote an op ed in NYT, saying what Never Trumpers and others have said for 2 years? What will happen in the next 90 days? Will GOP Congress investigate?
Copyright © 2021 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|