U.S. Economy Added 304,000 Jobs in January; Unemployment at 4%

Maybe on the surface but increasing barista and fast food worker jobs is not much of an accomplishment.

 

The bls doesn’t show policies enacted. The congressional record does. We know republicans caused the recession. It was so bad, that UE went up to 10%.

 

Concession? Nah, more like victory for me. Saying obama was successful is simply not true. If he was so successful he would not be known as the food stamp president.

 

Nor is that what happened, as my citation showed.

 

Yes, your concession. You could not provide a citation showing the BLS data was incorrect.

 

As I said, your citation is bogus.

 

Yes, it is. The graphs show the exact same date.





Exact same ups-and-downs during the exact same periods of time. Feigning blindness is going to help.

 

We’ve covered this. You are unable to support that claim.

 

Agreed.

 

Good news like this is why Nancy was hot to stop the state of the union speech.

 

I'm sure you do but the jobs being created are middle class living wage jobs.

"At the top of the list, jobs in the mining and logging industry are up 13.5 percent since the election, well above the gains in construction and transportation, which made second and third place, respectively. To be sure, job growth in oil and gas extraction — which are included in the category — typically provide a boost to the headline number.

In the No. 2 spot, the construction industry is one of the hottest in the American economy in terms of employment and has been explicitly cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as an area of better-than-average growth.

While explanations for the growth range from increased capital investments from the private sector to a swell in oil rig building, the number of workers in the construction industry has grown nearly 6 percent since Trump's victory.

Employment in construction and extraction occupations is expected to grow 11 percent from 2016 to 2026, according to the Labor Department.

A persistent shortage of truck drivers in the transportation industry has kept companies scrambling to hire workers to move their wares. Several companies, including chipmaker Nvidia and toymaker Hasbro have recently reported how the scarcity is affecting their business.

Further, multiple signs of inflation in freight-related industries are at or near historical highs, a phenomenon that could spell price pressures for the rest of the economy. Jobs in the industry have climbed 4.6 percent since Trump's election.

The president has also lauded the manufacturing industry as essential to the health of the American economy as well as crucial to national security."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/thi...es-of-jobs-that-are-thriving-under-trump.html

 

Bureau of Economic Analysis
Agency

The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the United States Department of Commerce is a U.S. government agency that provides official macroeconomic and industry statistics, most notably reports about the gross domestic product of the …

That's how




https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/gross...d-estimate-corporate-profits-3rd-quarter-2018

This is official data, not contrived junk from the way left progressive CBPP.ORG

 

Going to give you two guesses why your graph is different from the ones you were criticizing, and it has nothing to do with the "left progressive CBPP.ORG."


Try guess one


Try guess two


Okay, here's your spoiler: the graphs you were complaining about were graphs of employment figures, and they were all based on BLS's numbers. You actually suggested not long ago that some of this info was from the BEA (it wasn't), and that it should come from the BLS instead (it did). You can go directly to the the BLS and confirm the info on the previous graphs. I provided a link already. The graphs you are complaining about are entirely accurate.

The graph you just provided is of quarterly GDP growth rates . . . not unemployment. And . . . what, exactly, are you trying to demonstrate with this graph? You didn't actually make an argument of any kind.

 

You need to read the charts. The one you questioned was GDP and was from Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

See Post #21

Where are you getting National Bureau of Economic Research? NBER exists but was not a source for any of the data provided by CBPP.ORG.

 

Yup. I bet he finds a way to bring it up anyway.

 

See posts #84 and 88 for the context on that one.

As far as the GDP graphs, your graph does not contradict the one you are responding to in any way. Your graph just doesn't go back as far in time. You still have found absolutely no flaw in the graphs that you are calling flawed. Did you not even glance at the x-axis?

 

GM to start laying off 4,000 salaried workers on Monday

New York (CNN Business)Layoffs for about 4,000 salaried staff at General Motors are due to start Monday.

The layoffs are part of a 15% reduction in white collar jobs in North America that the automaker first announced back in November. At the same time, it announced plans to close four US plants as well as a fifth in Canada.

... https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/business/gm-layoffs/index.html​

Those are high-paying jobs with good benefits, too.

 

Well, she's right.

 

Read the bar chart from CBPP.ORG. It clearly indicates it is real GDP from BEA. Now compare 2014, the earliest year currently found on the official BEA website. CCBP indicates 2 quarters of 5% growth. The actual was more like 3.2%. Clearly unreliable, falsified data from CCBP.ORG

None of the charts, #21,#84 or #88 reference National Bureau of Economic Research anywhere.

 

This probably makes you happy, Sad.

 

Once again, it doesn't look like you consulted your own graph. Your own graph starts with Q4 of 2014. It doesn't show Q1-Q3 of 2014. And the CCBP got those numbers from the BEA -- 5% in Q2 of 2014 and just under 5% for Q3, just like their graph shows. BEA published results for those quarters; it isn't true that 2014 is "the earliest year currently found on the official BEA website," it is just the earliest year (and not even full year) on your graph.

There were, in fact, according to the BEA and not in any way contradicted by your graph (which does not show the first three quarters of 2014), two quarters in 2014 that were at or near 5%: Q2 and Q3.

You claim that none of the charts in #21, #84, or #88 reference the National Bureau of Economic Research anywhere. This is flatly false. I've already shown you which graph does. Try reading them again. The graphs mention their sources at the bottom.

 

None of the charts from #21 reference National Bureau of Economic Research anywhere. I may be getting blind but none of the data by CCBP that I can see use references that independent group. You are correct about 2014. I was looking at the real data from 2015. I also do not find any data from BEA prior to q4, 2014. I don't know where CCBP is getting their data.

 

You’re wasting your breath. I’ve had the same discussion with him, and facts don’t penetrate the Bonespur shield.

He also doesn’t understand what a quarter is, or that averaging numbers over an 8 year period falls to consider trends.

 

Listen smart ass your CCBP commie chart 3 in post #21 references BEA the CBO, not National Bureau of Economic Research.

So, butt out!

 

Nah, you are just using obama turd polishing propaganda.