2017 had the worst job growth since 2012

[realibrad]

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

We still have some room to improve there.

 

[bshole]

But if we're at full employment, then why does Trump obsess with job creation?

This is the great part: you either have to admit that Trump lied about job creation being a vital issue, or admit that he lied about being able to create jobs more effectively than Obama.

"Job creation" is code for "wealth transfer" from what I can tell.

What is upsetting to me is that I agree with a corporate and small business tax cut. If the Republicans had just done that and then increased the personal tax rates on those who benefited, it would of been something that I could have backed. No borrowing, no wealth transfer, just more competitiveness for American companies internationally. But no.... they just had to make it into yet another looting of the lower classes by the wealthy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh me AND... the leading experts on the topic. The educated people that conservatives loathe so much.

The fucktard Republicans are using the exact same playbook that was used just prior to the Great Depression..... the exact same playbook..... the exact same playbook....



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...epression-1929-robert-mcelvaine-a8086781.html

ROFLMAO

 

[Commodus]

I have no idea what Trump thinks about this or much of anything....and I'm definitely not going to defend him.

You probably should, given that he's running the country and the Republicans are toeing his line.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

We still have some room to improve there.

I doubt we'll see that much improvement as baby boomers are starting to retire in droves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You probably should, given that he's running the country and the Republicans are toeing his line.

Your deep concern will likely be enough for the two of us.

 

[brandonbull]

So it IS Obama's fault!

Trump has been colluding with the Russians to keep job growth low. I heard Christopher Steele is documenting that Trump was reported to be meeting with hookers and Putin in a Moscow McDonalds and ordered Sarah Sanders to limit job growth.

 

[Thump553]

You know who's keeping down wage growth, and preventing full-time employment? Amazon. They "employ" (but not really... according to them), so many thousands of people, in so many states, but they are all working "gig jobs", but more-or-less permanent Amazon employees, but they get NO employee benefits, of the sorts that a traditional full-time employment agreement would give.

Basically, the new face of capitalism. Where finding a full-time job with benefits, is impossible, unless you're born into the 1% CEO crowd.

You raise an excellent point about what modern employment is. But absent some sort of wage control system (like communism) it is an irrefutable economic law that high demand plus low supply means rising prices. If DSF was correct about us already being in full employment wages would have to already be rising, Clearly that isn't happening. I would in fact argue that we are entering into a period of DECLINING real wages, after the effects of Trump's actions to raise health care costs and transfer wealth from the middle class to the aristocrats are taken into effect.

BTW The Donald himself frequently claimed that the official unemployment rate was phony, that the actual rate was far higher, when he was on the campaign trail. he reversed 180 degrees once he took office and took credit (big surprise).

Finally I would not equate the current GOP actions to what led up to the Great Depression, that had different causes. Instead they are pretty much mirroring what GWB did, with his tax cut and sugar rush to the economy. By the time this crash occurs, the GOP gutting of Graham-Rudmann should be complete, however, so the chances of this being a Great Depression II are increasing daily.

 

[brandonbull]

"Job creation" is code for "wealth transfer" from what I can tell.

What is upsetting to me is that I agree with a corporate and small business tax cut. If the Republicans had just done that and then increased the personal tax rates on those who benefited, it would of been something that I could have backed. No borrowing, no wealth transfer, just more competitiveness for American companies internationally. But no.... they just had to make it into yet another looting of the lower classes by the wealthy.

So the rich get a big tax increase? Where does that extra tax money go?

 

[Engineer]

BTW I have seen next to no evidence of rising wages, which is the best indicator we are reaching "full" employment.

I saw a recent report that said that wages were flat for the 70% between the bottom 20% and the top 10%. 20% group was moving up quite fast. Indicates that many jobs and competition in the lower end area.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You raise an excellent point about what modern employment is. But absent some sort of wage control system (like communism) it is an irrefutable economic law that high demand plus low supply means rising prices. If DSF was correct about us already being in full employment wages would have to already be rising, Clearly that isn't happening. I would in fact argue that we are entering into a period of DECLINING real wages, after the effects of Trump's actions to raise health care costs and transfer wealth from the middle class to the aristocrats are taken into effect.

BTW The Donald himself frequently claimed that the official unemployment rate was phony, that the actual rate was far higher, when he was on the campaign trail. he reversed 180 degrees once he took office and took credit (big surprise).

Finally I would not equate the current GOP actions to what led up to the Great Depression, that had different causes. Instead they are pretty much mirroring what GWB did, with his tax cut and sugar rush to the economy. By the time this crash occurs, the GOP gutting of Graham-Rudmann should be complete, however, so the chances of this being a Great Depression II are increasing daily.

I'm not saying this..the economists are saying this...along with various theories regarding the delay in wage growth. It's pretty much a given that it's going to happen...as well as inflationary pressure coming along with it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I saw a recent report that said that wages were flat for the 70% between the bottom 20% and the top 10%. 20% group was moving up quite fast. Indicates that many jobs and competition in the lower end area.

I'm seeing a ton of help wanted signs for low end jobs. I'm hoping for improvement in the manufacturing sector soon as well since unemployment is currently at a record low of 2.6% in November....coming in below 3% for the first time ever.

 

[HTFOff]

Trump has been colluding with the Russians to keep job growth low. I heard Christopher Steele is documenting that Trump was reported to be meeting with hookers and Putin in a Moscow McDonalds and ordered Sarah Sanders to limit job growth.

 

[UberNeuman]

I have no idea what Trump thinks about this or much of anything....and I'm definitely not going to defend him.

Go Team Pedo.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I doubt we'll see that much improvement as baby boomers are starting to retire in droves.

Not only that more and more people are going to college etc... That number is where it's always been projected to be once all factors are considered.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...decline-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate

 

[realibrad]

I doubt we'll see that much improvement as baby boomers are starting to retire in droves.

I do not believe that retired people are factored into the participation rate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Go Team Pedo.

Go Team Derp!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I do not believe that retired people are factored into the participation rate.

Don't they leave the work force and greatly influence the participation rate?

https://philadelphiafed.org/-/media...nes-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.pdf

CONCLUSION
Analyzing people’s reasons for not participating in the labor force provides a relatively clear idea of the causes of declines in the labor force participation rate. The number of disabled persons has been steadily rising; retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010, at which point it started to make a large impact on the overall participation rate. In particular, the decline in the participation rate in the past one-and-a-half years (when the unemployment rate declined faster than expected) is mostly due to retirement. Furthermore, nonparticipation due to enrollment in school has been another significant contributor to the secular decline in the participation rate since 2000.

There is no question that more workers dropped out of the labor force due to discouragement during and after the Great Recession and that there are more discouraged workers now than before the recession. These facts clearly reflect the continued weakness of the U.S. labor market. However, it is not clear whether the overall participation rate will increase any time soon, given that the underlying downward trend due to retirement is likely to continue.

Several studies try to separate “cyclical” factors from “structural” factors when explaining the behavior of the participation rate.15 However, the foregoing analysis casts some doubt on the usefulness of such labeling. For example, the label “cyclical” often implies — whether implicitly or explicitly — that declines in the participation rate explained by “cyclical” factors will reverse as the economy improves. However, this presumption may not hold. In particular, the decision to retire is clearly affected by cyclical factors, but this decision is unlikely to be reversed.​

 

[umbrella39]

I do not believe that retired people are factored into the participation rate.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

There are 95 million not in the work force.

90.6 million of them do not want a job.

Only 4.8 million want a job and of those 4.8 million, only 1.9 million were actively seeking work.

So 2.9 million of the 4.8 aren't even looking. Of that number, 482 K aren't even available to work.

Only 469 K that are actaully looking are discourgaged about job prospects.

And the biggest chunk... 55 million of that 95 million are 55 years old and over. Baby boomers who are retiring or nearing retirement.

 

[realibrad]

Don't they leave the work force and greatly influence the participation rate?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

What is the 'Participation Rate'
The participation rate is a measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force. It refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. During an economic recession, many workers often get discouraged and stop looking for employment, resulting in a decrease in the participation rate.

People not employed or not looking for employment would be excluded from the participation rate. Participation is about 4% lower than it was 2007/2008.

 

[realibrad]

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

There are 95 million not in the work force.

90.6 million of them do not want a job.

Only 4.8 million want a job and of those 4.8 million, only 1.9 million were actively seeking work.

So 2.9 million of the 4.8 aren't even looking. Of that number, 482 K aren't even available to work.

Only 469 K that are actaully looking are discourgaged about job prospects.

And the biggest chunk... 55 million of that 95 million are 55 years old and over. Baby boomers who are retiring or nearing retirement.

People retired and not looking for employment are not part of the participation rate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People retired and not looking for employment are not part of the participation rate.

I know this...but did you not read the study? Although not part of the participation rate, people leaving the work force by retiring do indeed significantly affect the participation rate.

 

[umbrella39]

People retired and not looking for employment are not part of the participation rate.

I didn't say they were. I just linked and pulled some of the stats out for those who didn't want to click it. I said retiring or nearing retirement. I didn't say retired.

 

[shortylickens]

Well clearly that's Obamas fault.

Yeah but The Donald is gonna blame you-know-who.
Just cuz.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

People retired and not looking for employment are not part of the participation rate.

That is incorrect. Anyone not institutionalized who is 16 or older is counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate.

 

[realibrad]

I know this...but did you not read the study? Although not part of the participation rate, people leaving the work force by retiring do indeed significantly affect the participation rate.

They have to have left the workforce, but for a retired person to be counted they must be considered a discouraged worker.


http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-pres...son-for-the-drop-in-labor-force-participation

This is a newer look at what has been going on.