More alternative facts from the Office of the President.
8
What does Trump believe? He is so adverse to any government report that it seems the only report or survey he would believe would be one were he called each person and tallied the results himself. Chalk another one up in the paranoid column for Donald. What is it with him that he thinks he is a god? IRS clerks would you please leak his tax return so we can impeach him because he is in the process of driving us off the cliff.
14
"...it would be best if he could let us know what it is now, so that we can really assess whether things are getting better or worse during his presidency."
There is no need for that. Believe me. Everything will only be getting worse during his presidency. By any measure imaginable.
There is no need for that. Believe me. Everything will only be getting worse during his presidency. By any measure imaginable.
7
We need one more person to be looking for work. An orange person.
10
Nope. The orange man is not fit to hold down any job. That's why he had to go into business for himself. Nobody will hire him, except a few million deplorables..... Wonder how they will fire him?
No worries, with DeVos educating our kids we will corner the earth on Christian knowledge and jobs jobs jobs. Who needs a high tech education in science, math,physics,chemistry or engineering. We will know the Bible by heart and God will provide us with 1950's jobs building low tech 50's stuff that only we will want. Meanwhile china will lead the world in AI, green energy and overall technology. Great job voters, you imagined America great again.
22
It's my understanding that the 4.8% unemployment figure just measures those who collect unemployment. Someone who can't collect unemployment after three years will not be included in this figure.
your understanding is wrong
https://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm
https://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm
2
It's based on a survey of households (U.S. sample is approximately 60,000 households each month). In fact, only 15-25% of those considered unemployed through the household survey are also receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics put together a very nice FAQ regarding the calculation of the unemployment rate if you're interested: https://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm
7
We all know people have left the labor market and are unrepresented in the unemployment figures, but prime working age is a fallacy. Prime working age is more defensible between 24-64. Not only are we living longer and the "official" retirement age is 65, but also the key elements of the economy that fell out in 2008 caused people in their late 40s/early 50s tp need to work at least until 65. The prime working age range is a specious statistic in itself. Also. we have heard anecdotal evidence that these experienced workers are not hired because they cost too much or they are concerned the long-term unemployed after languishing 18 months. Under the Trumpian philosophy of the market, these workers, especially the college-educated, are ignored.
6
Approximately 15% of GDP (2 trillion $) is part of the so called "phantom" or cash economy. It is underreported and , to some extent, untaxed. There is little incentive for it (or those who earn it) to show up in BLS, or similar, surveys and statistics.
5
and another $2 trillion $ goes to support the financial industry. raping the small investors so that they can wine, fine, have boats and more.
gee at some point all these trillions add up to real money
gee at some point all these trillions add up to real money
5
How on earth is there 9.4% unemployment in the construction sector? Crews around here can't find labor. A similar story is playing out through much of the West. Is the Midwest and East that much different?
4
Construction on the west coast is booming.
2
Long Island is booming. Seems to be no shortage of construction going on. I would think local market for construction trades is pretty tight right now.
2
Pu-leeze everybody, no statistics or analysis needed. This is just a simple application of the Trumplican method. If you sense a possibility of losing the game, change the rules...or deny the facts.
16
Use whatever figures you like, but just remember, be consistent month to month. No changes to accommodate a bruised ego when the facts do not meet your desires. "Alternates unacceptable".
I know that "consistency is the hobgoblin of great minds" but unlike Ali, that does not apply here.
I know that "consistency is the hobgoblin of great minds" but unlike Ali, that does not apply here.
7
Remember the story about the Boy Who Cried Wolf or the Emperor's New Clothes? Sooner or later, people are going to catch on...even those who voted for Trump, even those who lost manufacturing jobs and mining jobs...that Trump is, as the Texans say, "All hat and no cattle."
13
If you want a more accurate measure use social security information. If you were making payments to social security and now are not and you are not getting retirement benefits from social security you are unemployed. This would be objective and much more accurate. Now you could not compare it to the old number but improvement sometimes has a cost.
3
Not so. There are state and municipal employees across the country who are not paying into Social Security. The retirement fund managed by the state is the entity to whom "retirement funds" are paid. I was a public employee for eight years and have "zero" on my Social Security record for those years. And eight years (not having been vested in full retirement) only nets me $610/month from my state. Of course, those years also diminished my average Social Security earning years.
3
Many public colleges & universities don't pay into Social Security, so that measure leaves out a substantial part of the higher education labor market.
1
Nixon went on a nasty anti-Semitic tirade in 1971 against BLS fearing a "Jewish cabal" was distorting jobless figures. Who will have the lucky job of explaining seasonal adjustments to Pres. Don John Trump when unemployment goes up? And it will; always does under Republican administration. Who will Trump then go after?
9
- "No one forces you to treat the standard unemployment rate as gospel"
And yet, that what the Times and every other news organization has been doing since...well...just about forever.
And yet, that what the Times and every other news organization has been doing since...well...just about forever.
5
I think, sir, if you read that they are neither treated as gospel not presented unqualified. and always should be averaged over months since any one month can be off for many reasons. then there are the post-release corrections as further data comes in and is verified.
but all that requires reading beyond the headline and the tweet and the sound bite.
but all that requires reading beyond the headline and the tweet and the sound bite.
10
Why did you choose to comment on an article that you did not read?
5
Allowing this pig to pick and choose what statistic he uses is to play his propaganda game for him. Every president cited the same number; comparisons between presidents based on the same statistic are highly accurate.
14
The reality is for an individual or working age who is looking for a job, his rate is either zero (unemployed) or 100% (employed) and he really does not care about the rest of the population. If I am not employed now but get a job under the Trump administration, he is great Unfortunately, most of those who voted for him expecting employment will probably be disappointed, as he seems to be concentrating his efforts on reinstating the financial rules that created the recession of 2008 that caused me to lose my job in the first place.
13
True, the rate is not reality. Obama made the most of that fantasy and always had to revise the numbers. No matter, the numbers were used as political weapons to steer the public opinion. It worked because the media made sure of it. He was re-elected as the numbers dived 6 months before the election. A fraud on us All and revised after he won.
6
What wasn't a fantasy was the bank-fueled economic debacle of 2008, which Mr. Obama inherited and which Mr. Trump seems eager to repeat. Although Congress blocked Mr. Obama's sensible initiatives at every step--solely to undermine his presidency--no one can plausibly assert that the economy did not recover.
It might have recovered for everyone if job training for displaced workers had been funded. Thanks to the GOP, we'll never know, will we?
It might have recovered for everyone if job training for displaced workers had been funded. Thanks to the GOP, we'll never know, will we?
18
Why do you people not read the article? The number (one of several available to anyone who is interested, and have shown up consistently in more in depth explanations here and there since I started paying attention in the 70s) of unemployed was figured the same for Obama as it was for Reagan, and every other president in my life. And as a comparative statistic from one period to another, it is very useful. Trump is the first president whom I fear may decide to stop allowing for independent compilation of statistics by those whose responsibility it is to do so.
6
I brought this up in another comment thread, but since it will be hidden there, I hope I may suggest it afresh:
In difficult economic times, much of the potential workforce his hidden through incarceration (inmates may deflate unemployment figures by being unavailable, or inflate them making license plates), and internships which hide people in quasi-educational situations, or may count ascemployment.
I believe these as required just 2 among many factors concealing the magnitude of unemployment in addition to, as I mentioned in my other cokment, people simply learning to not "want" (hope for) what they can't have, a factor doubtless applying to many, many, many "housewives/stay-at-home moms" doing the best with limited options, eventually adjusting wants to realities.
In difficult economic times, much of the potential workforce his hidden through incarceration (inmates may deflate unemployment figures by being unavailable, or inflate them making license plates), and internships which hide people in quasi-educational situations, or may count ascemployment.
I believe these as required just 2 among many factors concealing the magnitude of unemployment in addition to, as I mentioned in my other cokment, people simply learning to not "want" (hope for) what they can't have, a factor doubtless applying to many, many, many "housewives/stay-at-home moms" doing the best with limited options, eventually adjusting wants to realities.
5
Do these figures include the informal economy? People who work and who may or may not get food stamps etc. but who do not report their income? People like the cutters on the marijuana farms, free lance house painters, people with internet businesses. In sum, everyone working off the books. Not to mention home makers.
10
Well home makers are not employed, as are not those of us who maintain our homes and vehicles ourselves.
This country, unfortunately, is full of "employed" people working for cash and not reporting their earnings. Because of that, they are in for a rude awakening if they think life will be grand on Social Security. There are no benefits if one has not paid into the system.
3
So what the writer is try to tell those of us who support Trump is: Its all your imagination, if you look at my charts you will see. Or maybe youre not smart enough to understand so just take my word for it.
I think he glossed over that last bit about wage growth - which is really the point: Your castle is sinking.
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
I think he glossed over that last bit about wage growth - which is really the point: Your castle is sinking.
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
1
He's saying, dear Trump follower, that you should pick a number and watch it sink over the next four years. It won't take long for you to see the results, but you may never be willing to admit them.
13
Your point here is? If I understood you correctly you are worried about wage growth and income inequality. And you seriously, honestly, still think that Trump will help with that?!? C'mon dude….. Just think about his cabinet of horrors, and other presented evidence in the past two weeks only.
11
In 2010, the share of the working age population employed was about 66 per cent. In November, 2016, election time, it had dropped to about 62 per cent. The working-age population includes all able-bodied workers; it excludes disabled people, prisoners, 17- year-olds and 80 year olds.
3
this might be a tad over the boss'es head but it sure is a great definition of the unemployment figures. maybe one of the boss'es people will read it for him and draw pictures. i don't know how he aquires new info. hope not just tee vee
7
Trump also claims that his private parts are bigger than they actually are as well. He has a tendency to exaggerate, to put it mildly.
13
Yep, and speaking of things Trump likes to exaggerate.....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/512888131/trumps-campa...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/512888131/trumps-campa...
1
The demogogue Trump doesn't care.
He just wants ammo in the likely event he will ruin the economy and the unemployment rate will sky rocket.
He will have his minister of propaganda, Mrs Goebels (Conway), to turn black into white.
He just wants ammo in the likely event he will ruin the economy and the unemployment rate will sky rocket.
He will have his minister of propaganda, Mrs Goebels (Conway), to turn black into white.
16
You can't assess the state of employment or the health of the job market by looking at any single measure. How many people gain or lose jobs is affected by several variables that I am not going to explain here. The same is true for trying to determine how well a car is operating by just looking at how fast it is going. Unfortunately, most people in the press don't want to bother with presenting a meaningful summary and most people wouldn't read it if reporters did.
In the same fashion, the press and the politicians use the rate of increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as the index of our economy's health. But if you look beneath the surface at the key measures that affect GDP it becomes clear that a better name for GDP is "Gross Deceitful Product."
In the same fashion, the press and the politicians use the rate of increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as the index of our economy's health. But if you look beneath the surface at the key measures that affect GDP it becomes clear that a better name for GDP is "Gross Deceitful Product."
Did you actually read the article? It WAS explained that their are a myriad of ways to measure unemployement, or under-employement,..... The point is that it's not the media or press that's confusing things but rather the fact that it's not easy to give people the information they want. The article does a pretty good job at laying out a slew of possibilities for Prez Trump to pick. But he needs to pick one and explain his rational now that he's no longer campaigning but actually serving as president. Then he needs to stick to that way of measuring his success or failure. If the past is any measure he will not do this because he's not really interested in conveying truthful information. He's only interested in conveying the information that will make what he is currently selling look true. In other words facts are irrelevant to his game plan. Hence KellyAnne's blurb about "alternative facts". The mainstream media has been getting a bad rap as of late (since October actually). But the reality is that BreitBart news and to a less extent FoxNews spends almost all its time obfuscating reality so that the consumers of that news have to make a choice as to who to listen to. If they choose Breitbart then they're in trouble. Bannon's whole position has been to confuse and obfuscate to get his agenda passed. Trump fits the bill for the type of "leader" that will allow Breitbart to proceed with his Orwellian agenda.
3
Yes analysis requires knowledge of the data, its limitations, and the details. We have little to no idea on these things. How is it possible when the minimum wage went up and some additional overtime was paid that there was so little effect. Nobody knows.
1
Anyone that is either recruiting or managing employees in the inner city knows there is a population of individuals that simply "don't want jobs" because they don't want to lose their government subsidies. "If I make too much money, I lose my food stamps." Solution...don't get a job.
2
In their defense the way public assistance is provided actually encourages this.
Example, you are on public assistance (so you are not paying taxes just yet).. and you are given say 650 dollars per month for food for your family. (based on SNAP program)
Now you find a job (being out of work for a while means you are not earning top dollar, so lets assume its minimum wage, and I'll take a high min wage place like CA.. currently at about 15 dollars per hour) . And lets assume you work full time..
so 15 * 40 = 2400 per month.. BUT WAIT.. There's things called TAXES we all have to pay, so lets remove 6.20% for FICA (600 - 37.2), 1.45% for Medicare (600 - 8.7), and 7.5% for State (using CA in this example 600 - 45). which brings your monthly down from 2400 per month to 2036.40. Now lets not forget.. since you are working, you have additional expenses (Transportation costs, most often in the form of Gas, increased meal costs, additional cleaning costs (hey you are leaving the house, so wearing dirty clothes is not an option), and who's going to be watching the kids? (costs as well).. So that can all add up to close to another 1000 per month. which brings your net down to 1036.
Now looking at that.. for another 386 per month you have more hassle, more issues, and even then, its not guaranteed (folks at that level of work tend to be hired and fired almost daily).. While I don't agree with this logic, I do see why some may choose the easier path of staying home.
Example, you are on public assistance (so you are not paying taxes just yet).. and you are given say 650 dollars per month for food for your family. (based on SNAP program)
Now you find a job (being out of work for a while means you are not earning top dollar, so lets assume its minimum wage, and I'll take a high min wage place like CA.. currently at about 15 dollars per hour) . And lets assume you work full time..
so 15 * 40 = 2400 per month.. BUT WAIT.. There's things called TAXES we all have to pay, so lets remove 6.20% for FICA (600 - 37.2), 1.45% for Medicare (600 - 8.7), and 7.5% for State (using CA in this example 600 - 45). which brings your monthly down from 2400 per month to 2036.40. Now lets not forget.. since you are working, you have additional expenses (Transportation costs, most often in the form of Gas, increased meal costs, additional cleaning costs (hey you are leaving the house, so wearing dirty clothes is not an option), and who's going to be watching the kids? (costs as well).. So that can all add up to close to another 1000 per month. which brings your net down to 1036.
Now looking at that.. for another 386 per month you have more hassle, more issues, and even then, its not guaranteed (folks at that level of work tend to be hired and fired almost daily).. While I don't agree with this logic, I do see why some may choose the easier path of staying home.
There have been debates about what statistical measure should be used for as long as the jobs report has been issued. The good news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been issuing them consistently for years so that we don't need to rely on truth-challenged individuals like Donald Trump for our information.
4
- "truth-challenged individuals like Donald Trump"
"If you like our health plan, you can keep your health plan!"
"If you like our health plan, you can keep your health plan!"
2
While certainly educational and interesting as an unemployment statistic sidebar, giving Trump any consideration for thought in this area is ridiculous.
He always says what he thinks will give him applause and attention without attention to veracity.
He always says what he thinks will give him applause and attention without attention to veracity.
8
The people who were conned by the Con man In Chief always complained that the civil servants who prepare these statistics juggled the books to make Obama look good. Now they will insist that they won't juggle the books for the Republican president so it appears no matter what the facts are the Tweeter in Chief will set the rate that a shrinking amount of Americans will believe is the actual facts. These four years are going to be a long hard slog.
16
Well. soon enough the people will grow tired of the clown in the WH and learn to ignore his ill conceived remarks and insults, which may have been appropriate
during the campaign, but this is governance and if he does not switch gears and act responsibly soon enough the people will simply ignore him and be reflected in the low poll numbers to follow.
during the campaign, but this is governance and if he does not switch gears and act responsibly soon enough the people will simply ignore him and be reflected in the low poll numbers to follow.
2
I hope you're right.
I'm certain most world leaders are rolling their eyes and chuckling at the Trumpet's inept "governance." What a buffoon! Tsk, tsk!
1
As Trump's language, reading and writing skills are at the 5th grade level, I don't think he'll have much use for 42 pages of employment statistics, let alone any statistics...
20
This is an insult to 5th graders :).
9
It doesn't matter how the unemployment rate is reported as long as it is reported the same way every year. The unemployment rate has been reported this way for decades. Using the same scale allows comparisons from year to year to evaluate how the economy is doing. Your arm is just as long as your arm whether you use inches, feet or meters to measure it.
I don't care how unemployment is reported as long as we report it the same for the last year of the Bush administration as we do for the last year of the Obama administration. Republicans have been trying to switch the yardstick for one with bigger numbers for the past eight years.
I don't care how unemployment is reported as long as we report it the same for the last year of the Bush administration as we do for the last year of the Obama administration. Republicans have been trying to switch the yardstick for one with bigger numbers for the past eight years.
11
if trump looked in the mirror he would claim that it was not him he saw.
5
Next month, when he will OWN it, this "calculation" will all revert to norms, given the rate stays close to the same or lower. And it will suddenly be a huge WIN for Americans. Suddenly unemployment will be made great again. If unemployment is worse next month (and for some very strange reason the Dept of Labor is allowed to present it), it will either be that it's President Obama's fault, or, if they don't go there, then Kellyanne will have to invent some new alternative facts on how it's a great thing anyway.
11
You can bet that as soon as the unemployment rate starts climbing Trump will go back to his ridiculous 42% rate and say that is where he started. Then, down the road a bit, he will move back to the BLS rate as "his rate" and call it his "success." And his legion of sycophants will lap it up.
13
It's pretty hard to get around a number like 227,000 jobs added in the previous month. So make jobs added the headline. It would have provided perspetive for the morons who were raving about how great Trump was for saving 700 jobs at Carrier "before he even took office!" if the headline of the day had been 180,000 jobs added in November.
The success of Obama era policy to support job creation, in the face of unyielding Republican opposition, is the real story here, the one Trumblicans are now lying to hide.
The success of Obama era policy to support job creation, in the face of unyielding Republican opposition, is the real story here, the one Trumblicans are now lying to hide.
14
the employment figure we should all really be worried about is the number of workers supporting the number of social security/medicare recipiants.
2
An excellent and informative piece. As a statistically challenged individual, Thanks!
4
So its higher than 4.8%. Except it's not 48% but 40.1%? Whats 7.9% between freinds?
Next time you shoulld do a power point presentation to convince the unemployed they are actually working.
Next time you shoulld do a power point presentation to convince the unemployed they are actually working.
3
When Trump says the unemployment rate is 42% and not 4.8%, he knows that everyone thinks that means how many people who want jobs aren't working. But you know that isn't true, just the way NYT explained it isn't true. So please read and comprehend before commenting.
11
Um, you have used numbers here that don't seem to be connected.
As the article says, the 40.1% is all the people who are not working, and who are not looking for a job - students, the retired, the independently wealthy. When considering unemployment, it is not useful to include all these people, as they wouldn't take a job, even if they were offered one. In the UK we call this, economically inactive, and (not including pensioners who number 1 in 6) we have approximately 9million economically inactive people in our population.
As the article says, the 40.1% is all the people who are not working, and who are not looking for a job - students, the retired, the independently wealthy. When considering unemployment, it is not useful to include all these people, as they wouldn't take a job, even if they were offered one. In the UK we call this, economically inactive, and (not including pensioners who number 1 in 6) we have approximately 9million economically inactive people in our population.
7
Wait a second, the standard unemployment rate is the one we've used for decades to judge the performance of presidents. For example, during the 2012 election cycle, the Republicans rubbed Obama's nose in the standard rate every month because it was north of 8%. Romney promised to get it below 6%. In the end, Obama took it down as low as 4.6.
Now, in true Orwellian fashion, Trump does not want to be judged by the standard imposed on others. As usual, he wants to cheat. What is worse is this sort of article which gives credence to the Trump manipulation and creates in the minds of people the idea that there is no standard way of looking at unemployment, letting it become just another "alternative fact".
Now, in true Orwellian fashion, Trump does not want to be judged by the standard imposed on others. As usual, he wants to cheat. What is worse is this sort of article which gives credence to the Trump manipulation and creates in the minds of people the idea that there is no standard way of looking at unemployment, letting it become just another "alternative fact".
36
All reporting everywhere seems non objective now. The author's delusion that anyone has time to read 42 pages to discern the real unemployment rate seems as fictional as Trump's 42% unemployed or the 4.8%. My other article today was really your furtive instructions on which stores to boycott in order to hurt Ivanka who may be the one person on earth tempering Donald. Trump has made even his enemies insane. There literally is no source now that is non partisan.
2
We do have a moral responsibility to spend our money ethically.
There should be more information given about the business interests of the rich and powerful, so that they can be hit where it hurts, in the pocket book.
There should be more information given about the business interests of the rich and powerful, so that they can be hit where it hurts, in the pocket book.
3
Obviously, many people do not need or want to participate in the job market that attempts are made to quantify. I have modest needs and require little money. I am very happy living in a rural area and have saved sufficient money from my years in the rat race to be self sufficient. Take your job market and ..... .. There are plenty of jobs out there if you are mentally and physically able to work or just make or grow stuff that people want and sell it yourself. I sure don't want or respect the jobs that fool Trump has had.
9
I'm glad things are going well for you but your idea that people can just magically make or grow stuff is overly simplistic and rather foolish.
1
During the dust bowl years, many farmers had to uproot their families and hit the road. A comparison can be made to those like one person who commented that they had lost their job (plucking chickens, stitching shirts, etc.) and the only jobs were at some medical equipment manufacturer. It seemed to be that this person and maybe others are stuck losing their old style manufacturing jobs and don't feel capable of moving on to new higher tech jobs opening up.
Unfortunately this is the essence of a dynamic business environment. There will always be churn in the job market. If there is nothing you can do where you are, then your choices are move up (education) or move on (relocate to work you can do.)
THese decisions are not easy and we could have better re-education programs, even require new industries to train local workers.
That would take both parties to work together toward a common goal, but somehow that doesn't seem to be happening. At least on the surface its finger pointing in both directions. Sad really.
Unfortunately this is the essence of a dynamic business environment. There will always be churn in the job market. If there is nothing you can do where you are, then your choices are move up (education) or move on (relocate to work you can do.)
THese decisions are not easy and we could have better re-education programs, even require new industries to train local workers.
That would take both parties to work together toward a common goal, but somehow that doesn't seem to be happening. At least on the surface its finger pointing in both directions. Sad really.
2
A very helpful summary of the key statistics, thanks. A few thoughts on how to knock down the conservative myths around these numbers:
1. Regarding the U-6 rate, conservatives point to the 9% rate and assume immediately that is bad, when it actually peaked around 17% during the crisis and is just above pre-crisis levels.
2. Trump's notorious claim about the 95 million outside the labor force being part of a "sea of jobless Americans" can be countered by the BLS, which reports that only about 5 million of them actually want jobs. Retired, ill/disabled, in school, and family responsibilities account for the remaining 90 million. This report from BLS would make a great hyperlink when covering the labor force: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-the-labor-fo...
3. Prime age male labor force participation was the subject of a study by the Council of Economic Advisers, which indicated that educational attainment is a primary predictor of whether a male is in the labor force. The figure has fallen considerably more for those with high-school educations or less.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/2016...
I think the U3 unemployment rate plus the labor force participation rate for those age 25-54 tells the story quite well in terms of employment.
We could use better statistics on the number of "good jobs", which is tracked by Gallup.
1. Regarding the U-6 rate, conservatives point to the 9% rate and assume immediately that is bad, when it actually peaked around 17% during the crisis and is just above pre-crisis levels.
2. Trump's notorious claim about the 95 million outside the labor force being part of a "sea of jobless Americans" can be countered by the BLS, which reports that only about 5 million of them actually want jobs. Retired, ill/disabled, in school, and family responsibilities account for the remaining 90 million. This report from BLS would make a great hyperlink when covering the labor force: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-the-labor-fo...
3. Prime age male labor force participation was the subject of a study by the Council of Economic Advisers, which indicated that educational attainment is a primary predictor of whether a male is in the labor force. The figure has fallen considerably more for those with high-school educations or less.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/2016...
I think the U3 unemployment rate plus the labor force participation rate for those age 25-54 tells the story quite well in terms of employment.
We could use better statistics on the number of "good jobs", which is tracked by Gallup.
11
Trump has lost any credibility at hello. He is now literally joke. Only three more years and 340 days left of this nut job. The real threat to Trump is if hackers crack the IRS and release his tax returns. He has surrounded himself with individuals that do not mind destroying the environment, deny global warming, want even more tax breaks fro the wealthy, and of course wants controls on Wall street to disappear. Trump is and always will be a nut job. I am not even sure if the election results were counted accurately in Florida and Michigan, and think the FIB should investigate.
18
Barack Obama was hugely successful overcoming the mess left him and us by GW BUSH and the last Republican laissez-faire congress. Trump's attack on free trade, removal of Obama controls on business crooks put in place because of Wall St chicanery under GWBush, and general helter skelter interference with industries like auto manufacture, drug manufacture, and others are likely to cause real fear and panic . That fear and panic is likely to cause a world wide depression because it will attack confidence in government and industry. At no time will Trump claim credit for the mess he is about to create. Republicans will tell us Democrats caused it.
20
Wait, you mean to tell me that people actually believed the supplied interest rate was real and accurate? That's really hard to believe -it cannot be. Everyone knows (at least I thought) that the way its calculated never represents the true employment rate. I'm having a hard time believing this article is real and not just some political ad
C'mon, I know people ignorant of the issue don't really know how the number is calculated, they just go by what the news tells them it is - but really, people don't know? I'm a bit surprised. In any case, the unemployment figure has averaged in the double digits and stayed there for the last eight-nine years!
C'mon, I know people ignorant of the issue don't really know how the number is calculated, they just go by what the news tells them it is - but really, people don't know? I'm a bit surprised. In any case, the unemployment figure has averaged in the double digits and stayed there for the last eight-nine years!
Where are those stats?
9
Trump isn't interested in statistics at all. He just like using lies and whatever convenient numbers he finds lying around, whether they're relevant or not, to attack his opponents and rabble-rouse the populace. What you're suggesting implies asking Trump to accept accountability. That's never going to happen. In the words of H. L. Mencken, all he's interested in is stirring the pot, whether with xenophobia or impending impoverishment:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
13
If Trump doesn't accept the figures then that means nothing matters anymore, even when things look good from reports from Washington.
5
I have to keep reminding myself that when Trump says something it might still be true.
4
Trump needs to MAKE people work!! No party in the last 50 years has addressed the ridiculous number of people who WILL NOT work!! There are plenty of jobs tho those jobs may not be what people want. Still, they need to WORK until they find the job they want!!!
What are you suggesting? Labor camps?
11
If only Trump were unemployed.
49
Donald Trump has never had a job before becoming President. He worked in his father's organizations and presumably has derived income from stock dividends and sales rather than from salary. As such, he would not be familiar with income tax forms or those taxes, FICA, or ERISA, to say nothing of SNAP, Social Security, or Medicare.
7
Pretty sure that Trump would not have done well in the normal job market. Any success is in stating with a pile of money from Dad and managing to not lost it.
5
Soon, I hope.
2
I have a completely alternative way to judge the strength of the economy that I got from a guy who published a small monthly investment newsletter. What was the monthly output of concrete, plywood and corrugated cardboard? If people are building things, they need concrete and plywood. If businesses are shipping products, big things go in plywood boxes and smaller things go into corrugated cardboard boxes. No reading of tea leaves for future hiring plans, or surveys of people working or not wanting to work.
On a smaller scale, my neighbor across the street runs a concrete pouring business and a mile from me is another friend who is a master welder along with his son. Every morning for the last year when I headed off to work, my neighbor's lot next to his storage/work building has had a full crew of 5-6 and often on Saturdays. My welder friend has had to higher a non-family member in order to keep up with the work.
If you look those three items up, production has held at a pretty high rate for the last two years. Economy is good.
On a smaller scale, my neighbor across the street runs a concrete pouring business and a mile from me is another friend who is a master welder along with his son. Every morning for the last year when I headed off to work, my neighbor's lot next to his storage/work building has had a full crew of 5-6 and often on Saturdays. My welder friend has had to higher a non-family member in order to keep up with the work.
If you look those three items up, production has held at a pretty high rate for the last two years. Economy is good.
5
You are not including the many people who work in established institutions (i.e., hospitals, schools, etc.), and are self-employed in services and skills. The job market cannot be measured in shipping and building.
5
These people don't buy washing machines and refrigerators--shipped in boxes? They don't buy houses with concrete footings and plywood sub flooring and sub roofing? The more the self-employed and gray economy people make, the more they buy and what they buy comes in boxes or gets built with concrete and plywood.
1
Well-played. Too bad that being reasonable and offering to go with whatever measure is preferable to Trump isn't going to work. He's the leopard who believes he can change his spots whenever it suits him.
5
And now for some extra-credit questions for president Trump and his team: What exactly is a "job" today in an era of brilliant machines, where A.I., machine learning and smart algorithms in the cloud now drive cars, fly planes, run stock markets and diagnose cancer more accurately than a team of the world's top physicians?... And what will jobs in the near future -- and indeed the New Social Contract that goes with them -- look like as on-demand platforms like UpWork, TaskRabbit and Indeed Crowd allow employers to source workers for virtually any task anywhere in the world, by the hour, without ever employing anyone in the traditional W-2 sense of "employment"?
I'm afraid these questions are far too nuanced for Mr. Trump to take a stab at them.
I'm afraid these questions are far too nuanced for Mr. Trump to take a stab at them.
5
I am not in any way a Trump partisan but I find Irwin's saying there's 'a filament of truth' in Trump's statement, disingenuous. Irwin knows full-well that the 4.8% rate is 'fiction.'
2
More GOP trope...
Wouldn't median income be much more important than average income to measure job quality?
3
I wonder what unemployment figures Trump et al. will be touting in, oh, say a year. The want-to-be-employed number, or the "real number" they've been frothing about for the last few years?
4
Trump's people don't really think we have a 42% unemployment rate.
They just say that because Trump is a liar and his followers are willfully ignorant nihilists.
They just say that because Trump is a liar and his followers are willfully ignorant nihilists.
4
Today's jobs numbers will be the baseline for measuring the Trump Administration's economic performance. We are watching...
5
I the ideal Republican scenario, Trump's measure would always be at least 50% unemployed, because all working age women would be at home having babies.
5
Fantastic article! The official unemployment figures touted by the government and published in headlines everywhere by the media has always been a very misleading way to portray the actual situation for the majority of American workers. By NOT counting people who are “underemployed,” people who have taken part-time jobs, and people who have been out of work for so long that they’ve become discouraged and have “given up” looking for a job altogether -- those government numbers have become a cruel joke. As you pointed out, the full report contains a ton of other information that usually goes unreported. And, of course, getting President Tweet to digest that full report and actually use that other information to officially change the way his government will report things going forward is simply never going to happen. He will just keep spouting unsupported numbers that sound alarming for now, and will eventually prove how great he is.
1
The number of male homemakers has increased recently, correct? Looking up some other statistics, female homemakers have also increased relatively recently as well. Do you think these homemakers are "deciding" to stay home because single-earner households are more viable these days, despite stagnating wages for the past 30 years and more? We originally started moving away from designated homemakers as a trend because, along with women being able to enter the work force, many people found raising a family unsustainable without two wage sources. What do you think has changed to cause the rise in designated homemakers in the past 10 years?
2
It's not a choice if there is no affordable (or satisfactory) child care option. Especially if you have more than one child, it often makes more sense for one person to stay home and live as frugally as possible. I stayed home until the youngest was 7 and old enough to be a latch-key child. But today that would probably get me a visit from the child protection services.
5
If Trump showed anything but a cursory understanding of any of the policies he makes pronouncements on, then he might have some credibility.
Its like taking comment from a dog at a physics' lecture. He's just doesn't have any credibility on anything except creating chaos and manipulating viewer ratings.
Good luck to us holding onto our liberty and freedom in this setting - where he wants absolute control to undo American stability that took decades of hard work to build.
Economic, Social, Scientific, Political, International and Educational norms are all set to revert to a less enlightened status. Not useful in a global, technological and information age - to be running a fascist game plan that relies on ignorance and fear to succeed.
Forget Trump's 'good brain', I want objective reason back in the mix!
Its like taking comment from a dog at a physics' lecture. He's just doesn't have any credibility on anything except creating chaos and manipulating viewer ratings.
Good luck to us holding onto our liberty and freedom in this setting - where he wants absolute control to undo American stability that took decades of hard work to build.
Economic, Social, Scientific, Political, International and Educational norms are all set to revert to a less enlightened status. Not useful in a global, technological and information age - to be running a fascist game plan that relies on ignorance and fear to succeed.
Forget Trump's 'good brain', I want objective reason back in the mix!
19
It was proposed by good old Tom Paine in 1797. The federal gov would become the employer of last resort. It would guarantee a decent job or paid training for such a job to everyone able to work.
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest. Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest. Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
9
Somehow my first sentence was omitted, My comment should start:
"Here is a way to get some of these unemployment figures close to zero."
"Here is a way to get some of these unemployment figures close to zero."
1
I plan on retiring by the time I'm 61. My wife and I will have enough assets to carry us through the rest of our lives. I know bully for us. We've worked hard, saved and invested. If Dandy Trump wants to count me as unemployed because I won't have to work beyond that age, he can stuff it. I'm not a serf. Guess what, there are millions of other Americans who are also in the same situation. Counting us (or likely all of those who like me went to college to launch themselves into a higher paying career) shouldn't ever be counted as not working. For those who take college seriously, it is a job. For those that are retired, like I intend to be - that too will be just like a job (only I will love every minute of it)
8
I wish you all the best in your retirement and hope that Trump and co. don't do anything to disrupt your plans.
2
Nice to know that people over-55 (like myself) won't count. Actually I have known that for some time now. As for baby boomers retiring most don't want to and many can't afford to but they see the writing on the wall.
3
Exactly. I guess we can just wait another 12 years for that Medicare to kick in and relax on a beach somewhere.... NOT!! When did people in their 50's become "Seniors" (a term I associate with retirees over 65).
It's funny how the mandatory retirement age (according to the private sector) has been drastically reduced, but they want to raise the SS age (before they just take it away completely).
This fits in with my theory that the 1% are really in the process of committing genocide on the rest of us.
It's funny how the mandatory retirement age (according to the private sector) has been drastically reduced, but they want to raise the SS age (before they just take it away completely).
This fits in with my theory that the 1% are really in the process of committing genocide on the rest of us.
7
If we're going to count people not in the labor market as unemployed, Trump's personal unemployment rate is 66.7%. He's employed. His wife and 10 year old son are not. Why can't they find jobs? Oh, because they're not looking for them.
9
Unemployed people who aren't actively looking for a job should be considered optional members of the work force and should not be counted among the unemployed. No one who really needs a job can afford to stop looking.
6
Unemployment vs Non-employment
4.8% vs 42%
Does he really think that the majority of Americans are so unintelligent? People choosing to be 'non-intelligent' might buy his crazy talk, but not the rest of us.
4.8% vs 42%
Does he really think that the majority of Americans are so unintelligent? People choosing to be 'non-intelligent' might buy his crazy talk, but not the rest of us.
9
How are roughly 1/4 millions jobs added in January and unemployment also goes up?
Can we get some actual figures here? Unless we added over 1/4 million workers into the nation, you can't add that many jobs and have unemployment go up.
Can we get some actual figures here? Unless we added over 1/4 million workers into the nation, you can't add that many jobs and have unemployment go up.
You aren't factoring in population growth. The US population continues to grow and therefore jobs in the hundreds of thousands need to be created just to maintain the same proportion of employment.
9
Could be that more people who weren't previously looking for work, now are. Either because they are not out of school and entering the job market, or previously stopped looking and are now returning because they think the prospects are hirer.
1
It's simple Bo. The figure you are looking at only counts people who are looking for work. So while more people are working this month, even more people who were not looking for work, now are doing so.
BTW this is a good sign because it means that more people think the economy is looking better so they are going to try and get a job.
BTW this is a good sign because it means that more people think the economy is looking better so they are going to try and get a job.
The endgame is becoming pretty clear. The 1% will build enough robots to kill of f the 99%. Once Robots are truly able to do everything, the oligarchs don't need us. We are just in the way. It's also the perfect solution to global warming. Without all these mouths to feed there would be no need whatsoever to produce all the goods and services we supposedly need these robots for.
And Bannon is chomping at the bit to start a nuclear war with China and the Middle East. They are not worried because they have underground bomb proof shelters where they can survive a thousand years.
I wish this was as crazy as it sounds, but I am starting to see no other endgame (and it is a deliberate genocide).
And Bannon is chomping at the bit to start a nuclear war with China and the Middle East. They are not worried because they have underground bomb proof shelters where they can survive a thousand years.
I wish this was as crazy as it sounds, but I am starting to see no other endgame (and it is a deliberate genocide).
11
I am bothered by the term "good jobs". If a person is working then it is a good job. I had a couple come in for an interview the other day. They are unmarried, they have three children and two of them were between the couple. They flat told me that they did not want the job, only an application. They are not married because it reduces their (welfare) benefits. They did not want the unskilled labor jobs because it would reduce their benefits. This is clearly a handout and not a hand up. Since this time I have had two other people with similar stories. What really makes me mad is that some employers would just give them the application. I live in a town with the highest unemployment rates in my state. I moved my business here expecting labor not to be a problem. What I didn't realize is that people that wanted to work were already working. The rest are bums living off the taxes workers and business owners pay.
4
I don't believe you. I'd be willing to bet that you've never met anyone on public assistance.
7
This sound like a made up story. There are lots red flags that tell us your story is a fantasy.
1. How do you know they have three children and only two of them were "between the couple?" How do you know they aren't married?
It is illegal to ask if they have children or if they are married:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=4...
2. Employers don't interview couples for jobs. They interview individuals for jobs, one at a time. There are dozens of reasons why this isn't done. For one thing, each applicant, no matter if they are couple, will have different skill sets and would be eligible for different jobs. If you hire one person of the couple, you have deal with the disappointment of the other. Any sane employer would interview them one at a time.
3. Why would you move your company to another town, when you didn't know the labor situation? That seems like a super dumb business decision. You don't just look at the unemployment rate to judge the labor market. The unemployment rate doesn't tell you anything about who is available to work, what their skill sets are or what the labor costs are. If the town is full of unemployed coal miners with lots of physical injuries, you are not going to get many people who want to work in landscaping.
Your whole story smells like alternate facts, right of a conservative fairy tale.
1. How do you know they have three children and only two of them were "between the couple?" How do you know they aren't married?
It is illegal to ask if they have children or if they are married:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=4...
2. Employers don't interview couples for jobs. They interview individuals for jobs, one at a time. There are dozens of reasons why this isn't done. For one thing, each applicant, no matter if they are couple, will have different skill sets and would be eligible for different jobs. If you hire one person of the couple, you have deal with the disappointment of the other. Any sane employer would interview them one at a time.
3. Why would you move your company to another town, when you didn't know the labor situation? That seems like a super dumb business decision. You don't just look at the unemployment rate to judge the labor market. The unemployment rate doesn't tell you anything about who is available to work, what their skill sets are or what the labor costs are. If the town is full of unemployed coal miners with lots of physical injuries, you are not going to get many people who want to work in landscaping.
Your whole story smells like alternate facts, right of a conservative fairy tale.
9
Your story sounds fake, but were it true it is still irrelevant as it is only anecdotal evidence.
3
Since Leninist Comrades Bannon and Trump are concerned that 40% of the above age of 17 population are not employed, they should look at their newfound friend and teacher: Russia and its predecessor, USSR.
There was a law on the books that required every adult member of the society to contribute by their labor. Those who disagreed to gain official employment and did unauthorized work, like future Nobel Laureate Brodsky who wrote poems without official permission to do so, were sentenced to forced labor.
I have no doubts the numbers of non-employed adults will drop swiftly after Trump delivers another executive order to prosecute or execute those who weasel out of their social responsibility to produce. This will take this country on the right path to communism. Good luck to all of us!
There was a law on the books that required every adult member of the society to contribute by their labor. Those who disagreed to gain official employment and did unauthorized work, like future Nobel Laureate Brodsky who wrote poems without official permission to do so, were sentenced to forced labor.
I have no doubts the numbers of non-employed adults will drop swiftly after Trump delivers another executive order to prosecute or execute those who weasel out of their social responsibility to produce. This will take this country on the right path to communism. Good luck to all of us!
10
Unemployment statistics are flawed. They only cover people who are eligible for unemployment benefits. Not the ones whose unemployment benefits have run out nor for anyone who is not eligible for unemployment benefits. Both of these groups of people are not being recorded within the statistics for the unemployment rate.
5
Ken, that is not how unemployment statistics are calculated. https://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm
7
Ken, please read the story you're commenting on. It explains your objection clearly.
8
To Ken from NJ: you are wrong. The census bureau employment statistics are not derived from unemployment benefits applications, nor are those whose benefits have run out uncounted if they are looking for work. That's a common fallacy, but it has no basis in fact.
4
Nearly 70 years old, and I've regularly analysed the BLS monthly report for several decades, simply because the establishment publishes tbe least onerous number, in order to effect confidence, which is critical to the health of worldwide financial markets.
Insofar as concern for the workers goes, there is none whatsoever.
The overarching concern is to maintain the status quo, increase the breadcrumb allotment, and ply the masses with any and all disinformation, until they rejoice at the least possible improvement in their nearly penurious existence.
Of equal importance is the monthly Confidence Report, which can truly be said to be part of a sophisticated "confidence game.
Consumer confidence is issued monthly by The Conference Board, an independent economic research organization, and is based on 5,000 households. Such measurement is indicative of consumption component level of the gross domestic product. The Federal Reserve looks at the CCI when determining interest rate changes, and it also affects stock market prices.
At best these reports can be, and are manipulated.
Insofar as concern for the workers goes, there is none whatsoever.
The overarching concern is to maintain the status quo, increase the breadcrumb allotment, and ply the masses with any and all disinformation, until they rejoice at the least possible improvement in their nearly penurious existence.
Of equal importance is the monthly Confidence Report, which can truly be said to be part of a sophisticated "confidence game.
Consumer confidence is issued monthly by The Conference Board, an independent economic research organization, and is based on 5,000 households. Such measurement is indicative of consumption component level of the gross domestic product. The Federal Reserve looks at the CCI when determining interest rate changes, and it also affects stock market prices.
At best these reports can be, and are manipulated.
10
It is important to recall that the current "convention" of only counting people who are "actively" looking for work, was started by the Reagan administration when it was presiding over an 11 per cent unemployment rate. It also decided to add all of the members of the military to the jobs equation because they could all be counted as employed. The "Reagan Recovery" was always a lot of smoke and mirrors in that regard.
28
Not quite. The practice of counting the military was removed in 1994. Now, statistics only count the civilian population
2
its always interesting when a commentator brings light into darkness
Really? So they kept the padded stats for Reagan & Bush Sr and then removed for Clinton, well, isn't that special.
1
All four are important measures. People have big expectations of a Trump economy: more jobs (in all sectors, at all levels), better jobs, higher wages. What would have been considered a solid jobs report this month under Obama will now be seen as only a starting place.
4
more jobs, better jobs, higher wages = higher prices
Have you actually tried selling anything to the average American in an honest manner? Even the completely impersonal Amazon has turned out to be as dishonest as the day is long.
Have you actually tried selling anything to the average American in an honest manner? Even the completely impersonal Amazon has turned out to be as dishonest as the day is long.
Trump's refusal to accept factual reality and his compulsive lying continues to expose him and his apologists as the most potent danger to the USA since the Civil War.
By way of impeachment or the 25th Amendment this irrational pathological menace must be removed before irreparable damage is done.
GOP congress persons take seriously your oath to the USA and your responsibility to everybody, act now.
By way of impeachment or the 25th Amendment this irrational pathological menace must be removed before irreparable damage is done.
GOP congress persons take seriously your oath to the USA and your responsibility to everybody, act now.
21
But to what end? Every time my thoughts turn to the inevitability of impeachment, my next thought is 'but there is Pence waiting'; Pence the puppeteer will step up to the plate and turn the hate back on. 25th Amendment will not help; there are millions of people searching for a way but the Repubs have pre-prepared everything for the take-over of the country, from putting their trojans into every institution, gerrymandering, quashing democracy and you can continue this list yourselves. Hold your noses, it's stinking already.
4
Everything people write likely is true. I do think the number quoted is the same number quoted for the last 50 years. So from a comparison sake, it is useful.
In days gone by, we believed full employment as described each month consistently, was 4%.
We have heartburn as a nation, because the industrial jobs that provided middle income, have disappeared. The service jobs in their place do not afford living wages.
In days gone by, we believed full employment as described each month consistently, was 4%.
We have heartburn as a nation, because the industrial jobs that provided middle income, have disappeared. The service jobs in their place do not afford living wages.
8
Agreed. If you want a difference standard, like the U-6, that is fine as long as you compare it consistently. But claiming we have to compare Obama's U-6 "because it's more accurate" to the conventional U-3 figures is disingenuous
3
The author tries to validate rosier conventional unemployment figures of around 1% by saying the trumpian 42% fails to restrict itself to "those who want a job," wrongly including, among others, deliberate stay-at-home parents aND failing to exclude retrees and students. A more middleground voice has a number around 21% determined by subtracting number of employed from total prime-working-age Americans, which also wrongly includes completely voluntary (as opposed to simply despairing) non-workers but because also excluding would-be workers outside 22-55 (the two opposite 'errors' presumably canceling out), has the most plausibility, a far cry from 4.5%.
So why does the author gravitate to 4.5%, so distant from 21%? His phrase "want to work" maybe says it all. To "want to work" means to hope for it, which by definition excludes those who have adjusted wants and hopes to realities, to avoid disappointment and sense of personal failure. They've learned to "want" to stay at home. A convenient psychological adjustment for the author and his rosier statistic. Adjust for this, and 21% is more accurate, and should be the standard figure.
So why does the author gravitate to 4.5%, so distant from 21%? His phrase "want to work" maybe says it all. To "want to work" means to hope for it, which by definition excludes those who have adjusted wants and hopes to realities, to avoid disappointment and sense of personal failure. They've learned to "want" to stay at home. A convenient psychological adjustment for the author and his rosier statistic. Adjust for this, and 21% is more accurate, and should be the standard figure.
5
I strongly disagree with your reading. The author does not endorse the current measure (I challenge you to cite any line from the article that indicates this). Instead he makes the case that:
1. 40+-2% is an indefensible measure of unemployment. It does includes MANY people who should not be included.
2. 20% is a reasonable measure of unemployment. It includes some it shouldn't and misses some it should but is a justifiable measure.
3. There are other measures between 4% and 20% that could be used so long as they are contextualized.
If you read it again I think you will find that you and the author share more ground than you think. If you think I am wrong, please support it by a quote from the text that advocates 4% as the correct measure.
1. 40+-2% is an indefensible measure of unemployment. It does includes MANY people who should not be included.
2. 20% is a reasonable measure of unemployment. It includes some it shouldn't and misses some it should but is a justifiable measure.
3. There are other measures between 4% and 20% that could be used so long as they are contextualized.
If you read it again I think you will find that you and the author share more ground than you think. If you think I am wrong, please support it by a quote from the text that advocates 4% as the correct measure.
1
Please excuse the nasty typo in the very first sentence: obviously "4.5%" was the conventional unemployment figure, not "1%"; also, further down, "retirees," not "retrees."
Thanks!
Thanks!
Certainly not defending the author, but 21% seems high...IMO the "fair" number is the U6, which sits right around 10% at the moment...open to further discussion, but that seems to be the broadest measure of those looking for work and underemployed....
In a lot of ways the only unemployment rate that matters is one's own. If I want to find a job because I'm unemployed and I can't, no matter how hard I try, all the job statistics in the world mean absolutely nothing to me. When a person who wants to work, has the relevant experience for the job(s) applies and doesn't get an interview much less a job her unemployment rate is 100%. When we cannot get jobs because of age discrimination, outsourcing, or a mismatch in job location and our location (companies used to pay to relocate people) the unemployment rate means little to us. It means nothing but hardship to us if our unemployment runs out before we find a job. It means nothing when the jobs we have or are offered don't pay enough to allow us to take care of our bills, ourselves, our families, and set some aside.
What we need in America, and aren't seeing, are jobs that pay enough to live. We need jobs that are not dead ends. We need companies to start treating employees like they matter, not like widgets to be thrown aside once they've been broken by the demands of the job. We treat our pets better than we do our colleagues or employees. What does it say about a country that tells people who can't find a job, not because they aren't looking but because no one wants to hire them due to their age, experience, cost, or whatever, that they are inherently worthless? It says that we don't care if they drop dead no matter how hard they work to find a job.
What we need in America, and aren't seeing, are jobs that pay enough to live. We need jobs that are not dead ends. We need companies to start treating employees like they matter, not like widgets to be thrown aside once they've been broken by the demands of the job. We treat our pets better than we do our colleagues or employees. What does it say about a country that tells people who can't find a job, not because they aren't looking but because no one wants to hire them due to their age, experience, cost, or whatever, that they are inherently worthless? It says that we don't care if they drop dead no matter how hard they work to find a job.
31
Suppose you run a business. You make cars. You cut lawns. Are you going to hire more people, build more factories, or buy another mower, if you can't sell more cars or cut more lawns? It's true that people want a new car or their lawn cut, but they don't have enough money to pay for the car or the lawn service. Too many are out of work. Too many have low paying jobs.
It's not taxes or regulations that are holding the economy back. It is the lack of money on the part of those who would like to spend it. There are only two sources of money.
1. The Rich have a lot of money. They could afford to pay their workers more, build new factories, hire more people, BUT they are not going to do that until there are people who can buy more stuff.
2. The only other option is the federal government. It can print money. It can spend money. There are many worthwhile ways to do so. It can fix our roads and bridges, build a new power grid, give grants to the states to help with education, sponsor research, etc., etc., etc. Even simply giving money to poor people to buy food gets more money into the economy.
As a percentage of GDP our public debt is about 40% less than it was in 1946. From 1946 to 1973 we increased the debt in dollars by 75%. BUT we had prosperity. Real median household income surged 74%.
After WWI we had 10 years of balanced budget. We decreased the debt in dollars by 38%. This was followed by the worst economy in our history.
Those who don't learn from history are ...
It's not taxes or regulations that are holding the economy back. It is the lack of money on the part of those who would like to spend it. There are only two sources of money.
1. The Rich have a lot of money. They could afford to pay their workers more, build new factories, hire more people, BUT they are not going to do that until there are people who can buy more stuff.
2. The only other option is the federal government. It can print money. It can spend money. There are many worthwhile ways to do so. It can fix our roads and bridges, build a new power grid, give grants to the states to help with education, sponsor research, etc., etc., etc. Even simply giving money to poor people to buy food gets more money into the economy.
As a percentage of GDP our public debt is about 40% less than it was in 1946. From 1946 to 1973 we increased the debt in dollars by 75%. BUT we had prosperity. Real median household income surged 74%.
After WWI we had 10 years of balanced budget. We decreased the debt in dollars by 38%. This was followed by the worst economy in our history.
Those who don't learn from history are ...
3
Not only good jobs, but it's essential to build-in retirement possibilities, call them pensions. When Soc. Sec. was set up it was not intended for it to be the only income in retirement, but as the third leg of a supporting stool along with one's own savings and medicare. Without any jobs, there will be no savings. If anything happens to medicare, then my apocalypse misery vision will have us all at gates of the rich, dying and begging for food and water; an employee will be sent out to sweep us off to the dump somewhere. The United States under this mis-management will only be great for a very very few.
5
Yes, hen3ry - you've hit the nail on the head. Employers used to value employees and now many of them view their employees as widgets to move here and there on an electronic scheduling chessboard. Many jobs do not pay enough to live on, while others are dehumanizing to the max. What ever happened to the common good - now seemingly lost in a field of greed - while income inequality hits an all time high?
8
I think the U-3 number - 'unemployment' number quoted in the media is the most unuseful. The others mentioned in this article particularly those dealing with Share of population not employed seem more useful? Where is the so-called full employment number? Not mentioned here!? In any case, what is more important is the trend in any definition used. The quarterly trends, the annual trends and then trend pegged to Presidential terms. Trends show the movement over time and also can be useful in understanding the lag from one Administration to another. In any case, it is complicated and only a fool would believe glib info coming out of Washington under any admin. I'm expecting Trump to soon declare whatever number is used that he "Put 2 billion people to work' or some other nonsense like that.
2
In the best-case economy, a family of 4 wouldn't need 3 members working to feed itself. It would only need one, and that would result in a lower employment participation rate.
So looking at that number is misleading if you just assume higher is better. Higher can also be a bad sign.
So looking at that number is misleading if you just assume higher is better. Higher can also be a bad sign.
2
Had the electoral college designed by the founders to keep people like this from being elected by the masses,done its job we wouldn't be in the mess we are quickly getting into:
1, Allowing coal companies to pollute our streams again,(try drinking coal);
2, allowing those with possible mental problems to purchase guns
(btw I shoot and have been a competition pistol shooter);
3, allowing the church to ignore the basic human rights by allowing them to impose a defacto theocracitic based rule of law;
and
4, a treasonous act to allow sensitive technology to be sold to Russia. Sort of puts him in a league with Snowden.
1, Allowing coal companies to pollute our streams again,(try drinking coal);
2, allowing those with possible mental problems to purchase guns
(btw I shoot and have been a competition pistol shooter);
3, allowing the church to ignore the basic human rights by allowing them to impose a defacto theocracitic based rule of law;
and
4, a treasonous act to allow sensitive technology to be sold to Russia. Sort of puts him in a league with Snowden.
60
Had the electoral college designed by the founders been in place in 2008, I doubt that a first-term senator would have been elected either.
3
Don't worry:
Allowing coal companies to pollute downstream of coal mines will only result in a higher mortality rate of coal miner families.
Allowing those with mental stability issues to purchase guns will likely have a disproportionate impact on the same people who voted for Trump
Allowing churches to become political entities will being the demise of many religions - just look at what super tithing has done to Scientology.
Selling technology to Russia puts him in a league far worse than traitor Snowden. But just as we have corporatized everything else, I can't imagine it will be long before companies or other organizations begin to create private drone armies.
Allowing coal companies to pollute downstream of coal mines will only result in a higher mortality rate of coal miner families.
Allowing those with mental stability issues to purchase guns will likely have a disproportionate impact on the same people who voted for Trump
Allowing churches to become political entities will being the demise of many religions - just look at what super tithing has done to Scientology.
Selling technology to Russia puts him in a league far worse than traitor Snowden. But just as we have corporatized everything else, I can't imagine it will be long before companies or other organizations begin to create private drone armies.
7
Another Trumpian False equivalence, once again.
Being a first term senator who is an honorable not tied to cheating people, is a family man, is not a racist andhas no hint of scandal about him is not a disqualifier.
Being a lying, vulgar, misogynistic, racist, sexual predator, surrounded by sycophants who create ad hoc 'alternate facts' in a alternate fantasy is grounds for disqualification.
Being a first term senator who is an honorable not tied to cheating people, is a family man, is not a racist andhas no hint of scandal about him is not a disqualifier.
Being a lying, vulgar, misogynistic, racist, sexual predator, surrounded by sycophants who create ad hoc 'alternate facts' in a alternate fantasy is grounds for disqualification.
8
Dear Mr. Irwin, Thanks for this article. I never knew that unemployment rate was figured in all those different ways. As you point out none of them is perfect. How they arrive at the figures is still foggy, but crucial to the validity of the report. While we can say that a certain per cent in a certain age group are employed or unemployed, how do we measure those who want jobs but can't get them? I read an article that said it was not only data about those who are collecting unemployment insurance, but several other ways as well. I think how we arrive at the numbers is really important.
7
One can't help but notice that if we give amateurs and idiots the opportunity to comment on complex economic statistics, they find grand ways to oversimplify and justify their desires, if not their ignorance.
Calculating unemployment is complex, not simple. Statistics is, as a subject and profession, poorly understood by those outside it.
All that said, the economic barometer related to our current sub-5% unemployment rate is an accurate measure by which important business decisions are both made and gauged. Those who do not understand the subject matter at a scholarly level would be wise to follow that lead.
Calculating unemployment is complex, not simple. Statistics is, as a subject and profession, poorly understood by those outside it.
All that said, the economic barometer related to our current sub-5% unemployment rate is an accurate measure by which important business decisions are both made and gauged. Those who do not understand the subject matter at a scholarly level would be wise to follow that lead.
23
Spoken like a tried and true "we've always done it this way" guy...Yes, statistics is an important subject to understand, but you don't need to understand the statistical methods BLS uses to inform the population, you just need to understand how to read the report. Anybody with any shred of intellectual honesty understands that the U3 number is deeply flawed. All the numbers are flawed, but the U6 is a better measure of the health of our economy. Why exclude people that would love to be gainfully employed, but have become discouraged - i.e. if they were able to improve their situation they would?
4
Chris, any of them are a barometer that go up and down together - so it doesn't matter which one you are tracking, as long as you are consistent. Whether we look at the U-3 or the U-6, what's important is that we track it's progress - not get hung up on what it's at. U-3 at 5% is still good, even if the U-6 is at 10%.
What doesn't work is mixing them to suit your agenda - it only confused and misleads people that doesn't understand what the numbers represent. That has generally been the problem since the beginning of Obama's term.
What doesn't work is mixing them to suit your agenda - it only confused and misleads people that doesn't understand what the numbers represent. That has generally been the problem since the beginning of Obama's term.
2
With Trump's eagerness to both destroy Dodd-Frank and eliminate Obama's mandate that financial advisors "put their clients financial interests first" when investing the clients money, it would appear that Trump also considers anyone under the age of 18 that isn't gainfully employed, aged individuals incapable of entering the labor force along with the sick and disabled as nothing more than social parasites, malingers and unfit, by his standards, for US Citizenship. This is how he most shrewdly arrived at his magical 42% current unemployment rate statistic.
As the statistician said, "figures never lie, but liars use figures".
As the statistician said, "figures never lie, but liars use figures".
14
Trump:
Economists - TOTAL LOSERS. Stats Lie. No new jobs under Obama. Sad.
Economists - TOTAL LOSERS. Stats Lie. No new jobs under Obama. Sad.
13
To Trump's supporters his numbers probably ring true. Globalization, automation and the Republican Party's relentless attack on unions have eliminated high paying manufacturing jobs for his high school educated constituents.
And some of the highest opiate addiction and overdose deaths are in the rust belt states Trump flipped to win the electoral college reflecting their desperation and willingness to believe in a return to good times.
Trump showed disdain for workers' pay during the election and his Labor secretary nominee is an avowed enemy of higher wages for the fast food and service jobs that remain. Let them eat cake.
And some of the highest opiate addiction and overdose deaths are in the rust belt states Trump flipped to win the electoral college reflecting their desperation and willingness to believe in a return to good times.
Trump showed disdain for workers' pay during the election and his Labor secretary nominee is an avowed enemy of higher wages for the fast food and service jobs that remain. Let them eat cake.
48
i donne think they are getting cake...maybe some moldy biscuits...
1
People who have no desire to work just haven't been offered enough money.
Offer me $5000/hr and I will suddenly spring up with a deep seated desire to work. Otherwise I really have no desire at all.
Offer me $5000/hr and I will suddenly spring up with a deep seated desire to work. Otherwise I really have no desire at all.
8
If it doesn't fit in a tweet, I guess it can't be a fact.
35
The unemployment rate of 4.8% would indicate full employment. Only illiterate deadbeats cannot find work. This obviously is not true. Trump is correct in saying this number is fiction.
4
The unemployment rate it true - it is not a "lie" perpetrated by the "establishment" to trick you. The unemployment rate is the unemployment rate and it is true as it is defined and used by economists and financial institutions as an indicator of economic health. But of course its not the only number - that's the point of this article. There are other numbers with different names that show rates of underemployment, et al. It's like going to the doctor when you feel sick. He may agree that you're sick but still find that your temperature is "normal." That doesn't make his temperature reading a "lie", your illness just isn't creating a fever as a symptom. It may be the X-Ray that supports a diagnosis instead. If we want to redefine our daily conventions to "diagnose" the labor market - that's fine and I don't necessarily disagree. But Trump needs to be able to parse the differences and talk about them in a way people understand and can get behind. Otherwise, he just sounds like a paranoid curmudgeon spouting conspiracy theories.
33
Corte33 - Please read the article before you comment. The ENTIRE purpose of the article is to provide nuance as to what the 4.8% rate means and asks Trump to indicate how he would like to measure it. 4.8% is the % of people who are unemployed, want a job and have looked for a job in the last month. 4.8% is a FACT.
Please try to think a bit more critically.
Please try to think a bit more critically.
36
Did you even read the article. The entire point of this story was describing the 6 different ways in which the labor department calculates those figures. It is entirely appropriate to use one of the other 5 numbers that the department calculates but you can't use one number to compare to another. So, unemployment went way down under Obama, by which ever measure you want to use, but whether you want to use the percent of people who don't have a job, still want one, and have unsuccessfully looked for one in the past month, or the total number of people who aren't working, including retired, disabled, too young, etc, is arguable. The whole point of the government using one number is that way they can compare apples to apples each time a new number comes out.
11
I'd like to see a subset of the unemployment rate that follows those who have been promised a job by President Trump. It would be revealing to see how quickly that rate goes down, if ever. If President Trump would like to choose the specific industries (coal mining, automobile manufacturing, hard good manufacturing and finally wall construction) that might give him comfort that the rate is "real."
53
All Jobs Matter(tm)
There are always statistics to choose from, and which one you choose depends on what you want to do.
The classic unemployment rate has always been suspect, because it consists of people who say they are looking for work. It's self-reported, and are you going to tell a stranger over the phone that you aren't looking for work? Some will, some won't.
However, reporters like using it because it's simple, and reporters are nothing if not simple.
I'd prefer the labor force participation rate, or the one with the participation for prime aged workers. Lots of employed seniors is interesting, but isn't really a good indication of an economy with long-term prospects.
The classic unemployment rate has always been suspect, because it consists of people who say they are looking for work. It's self-reported, and are you going to tell a stranger over the phone that you aren't looking for work? Some will, some won't.
However, reporters like using it because it's simple, and reporters are nothing if not simple.
I'd prefer the labor force participation rate, or the one with the participation for prime aged workers. Lots of employed seniors is interesting, but isn't really a good indication of an economy with long-term prospects.
7
There is nothing suspect about the classic rate. It is a frame of reference that we use to compare to historic numbers. It is not meant to be good or bad, just a reference point that has been widely used historically and in other nations. If you want to create a different standardized rate then by all means do so but getting the raw data from so many places is probably not practical which is why the historic rate is useful (we have a lot of history with it). The problem is not the number, it is what people think it means but that is their own fault for not looking it up... it literally takes about 60 seconds to get that information.
34
"are you going to tell a stranger over the phone that you aren't looking for work? Some will, some won't."
Um...it is not done via telephone surveys. If you collect unemployment benefits you must show that you are looking for work. They arrive at this number by the number of people still collecting unemployment benefits.
I find it very interesting that for 75 plus years we calculated the unemployment rate the same way, but once the black guy got elected we all of a sudden started talking about the "real unemployment number."
And I can guarantee that going forward when a Republican is in office we will talk about the standard unemployment figusres we've been using forever, and when a Democrat is in office we will hear endlessly from the right wing about the "real unemployment number."
Um...it is not done via telephone surveys. If you collect unemployment benefits you must show that you are looking for work. They arrive at this number by the number of people still collecting unemployment benefits.
I find it very interesting that for 75 plus years we calculated the unemployment rate the same way, but once the black guy got elected we all of a sudden started talking about the "real unemployment number."
And I can guarantee that going forward when a Republican is in office we will talk about the standard unemployment figusres we've been using forever, and when a Democrat is in office we will hear endlessly from the right wing about the "real unemployment number."
95
Jeff S, your knowledge about how data is collected for the U3 through U6 unemployment numbers is not correct. See here: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
"the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country". This year the sample size if 60,000 households. They've been doing this since 1940.
"the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country". This year the sample size if 60,000 households. They've been doing this since 1940.
5
The prime-age labor participation rate (25 to 54) to me is the most important as it excludes students and retirees, but does includes parents staying at home with children. According to the St Louis Fed, it is currently 81.4% and has been rising for the last 18 months.
The highest it has ever been was 84.0%, back in the 1990s when the birth rate was falling and there were fewer stay at home parents. Back in 1960, the prime age labor rate was 60% and real household incomes were 45% lower.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N
Trump called the current situation "carnage" during his Jan 2017 Inauguration and promises to create millions of jobs while deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
But given the current skills gap in the US and the lack of enthusiasm among the documented for agricultural, food processing, construction and other low wage manual work, we are getting closer to the labor shortages predicted years ago by the Wall Street Journal.
I do have to applaud recent statements by Trump that he wants to change the H1B visa program to exclude the outsourcers like Tata Consultancy and Infosys and make it more difficult to replace higher wage US workers with lower wage H1B workers.
Lets do that.
The highest it has ever been was 84.0%, back in the 1990s when the birth rate was falling and there were fewer stay at home parents. Back in 1960, the prime age labor rate was 60% and real household incomes were 45% lower.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N
Trump called the current situation "carnage" during his Jan 2017 Inauguration and promises to create millions of jobs while deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
But given the current skills gap in the US and the lack of enthusiasm among the documented for agricultural, food processing, construction and other low wage manual work, we are getting closer to the labor shortages predicted years ago by the Wall Street Journal.
I do have to applaud recent statements by Trump that he wants to change the H1B visa program to exclude the outsourcers like Tata Consultancy and Infosys and make it more difficult to replace higher wage US workers with lower wage H1B workers.
Lets do that.
39
I work in IT. There's a critical shortage of people with the right skills. Either we import workers, or we export jobs. Microsoft already moved a planned facility from Seattle to Vancouver for that very reason.
Longer term, we should train the tech workers we need, but that takes years.
Longer term, we should train the tech workers we need, but that takes years.
3
"Lets do that."
As an American stockholder in numerous American corporations whose goal is to earn profits, please allow me to inquire:
whose ox will get gored?
As an American stockholder in numerous American corporations whose goal is to earn profits, please allow me to inquire:
whose ox will get gored?
1
@ Greg
Maybe in Ohio there is a shortage, but it always comes down to salary and benefits. Offer more of both and people will move to your area. Offer less and they will not.
I also work in IT and we all saw what happened with the H1B visa program that both political parties have supported for more than 30 years. A massive influx of foreign workers drove wages down, so students no longer chose to major in Computer Sciences.
Now the US is dealing with the outcome of that flawed policy.
Maybe in Ohio there is a shortage, but it always comes down to salary and benefits. Offer more of both and people will move to your area. Offer less and they will not.
I also work in IT and we all saw what happened with the H1B visa program that both political parties have supported for more than 30 years. A massive influx of foreign workers drove wages down, so students no longer chose to major in Computer Sciences.
Now the US is dealing with the outcome of that flawed policy.
1
Trump might not be judged on any of these unemployment numbers, but rather the "feel good" factor. He might say, every day in every way, that he is interested in helping those working in traditional industries such as steel or auto. Judging from the last few days, we will hear a great deal about how an isolationist USA is doing so much better without the rest of the world. I am curious as to the reaction from the stockholders of Facebook, Google and Apple in such a world. In a trade war with Europe, these firms would be natural targets for a European Commission that wants to hit back at the USA.
13
Regrettably, any yardstick used will be disputed if it pictures a negative image of the Administration's policies. That has been and will always be DJT's m.o. to discredit anyone that disagrees with him and to further rile his avid supporters. He believes what he believes and that's a fact.
72
Does he really believe or just thinks that lying to sell your product is how you do business.
5
This has been the m.o of many president's, including Obama.
2
Trump and his henchmen will continue to attack and try to de-legitimize not only data and operational functions of government, but also non-governmental (Planned Parenthood, e.g.) and quasi-governmental (the press, e.g.) components of our society. Bannon wants a total revolution and he is pulling The Donald's strings to that effect. Congress is spineless.
To be clear: I am not of the opinion that all GOP initiatives are worthless. Some are long overdue. But this is not the guy, this is not the way.
To be clear: I am not of the opinion that all GOP initiatives are worthless. Some are long overdue. But this is not the guy, this is not the way.
118
It would actually be curious: can you list ONE GOP initiative that DOES have worth in the sense that it is in the best interests of all Americans? With a detailed analysis of why, and what the long-term implications are?
Because I literally cannot think of one.
Because I literally cannot think of one.
2
Haven't got time for a detailed analysis, other than I know it would cost a ton of money. But infrastructure in our country has been unattended to for a long time. Highway bridges, airport expansions and upgrades, positive train controls, levees and dams, security of the electric grid, water distribution systems...etc. Trump has consistently said he wants to attend to maintenance, improvement and expansion. It will put him at odds with his own party because it will require either more taxes or deficit increases. But these things are needed...for economic health and, in some cases, for basic safety.
1
It would be helpful if the NYT used this type of detailed breakdown when reporting future unemployment figures.
36
Thank you! Useful and informative, with just the right amount of snark. The background to these snapshot stats is really helpful.
19
It's interesting to hear about the various ways of calculating the unemployment rate, but you are operating on the assumption that Trump is interested in percentages based on actual facts, when as we've seen, he has no time for that style of assessment.
64
Agreed, he has never in entire life shown that he cares about anything but his own profit. I have never actually read anything that shows he has any moral compass prior to becoming a public figure. I am about 75% certain he is a sociopath.
16
A question is whether all of the metrics cited are correlated. That is, if the "labor market" is improving over time, do all of the metrics also move in a direction that indicates improvement according to their individual definitions? If that's indeed the case, then it really doesn't matter which metric one uses to assess the health of the labor market. What matters is how whichever metric one chooses moves over time. If one is consistent in one's choice of metric, and if one's policies induce that metric to move in a favorable direction over time, then it seems to me one can claim success in improving the labor market regardless of the present value of that metric or of any of the others.
11
William I think that is what Irwin is trying to say.
1
I appreciate this write-up for it's depth and clarity. However, if you want Trump to even consider reading it, you'll have to edit it down so it fits neatly on a Post-it note.
159
I agree -- although a post-it note can vary in size and the text can vary in font size. Better render it all down to a 140 character tweet -- Trump's main communication capability.
81
I think you need a short video that starts by praising the new president before Mr. Trump will pay any attention at all.
Be sure play the Fox News intro just in case.
Be sure play the Fox News intro just in case.
20
. . . . and feature it on Fox and Friends.
3
I sure do agree with your last paragraph because if alternate facts are going to carry the day in conservative-land, then let's have a precise definition of how those facts are determined.
18
Mr. Trump will cite all unemployed (including pets) as his baseline, and U3—those actively seeking employment in the last month—to show his greatness. Apples to oranges. And people will believe him. Any real comparison by media will be considered "fake news."
42
Just like Obama and the media did during his Presidency?
Let's see total full time employed civilians (non seasonally adjusted) Dec '08 - 143MM....Dec '15 - 121.5MM....yet unemployment was only at 4.xx%! AMAZING
I truly believe full time civilian employment should be the only factor when considering a health of the US labor market.
reasons - part time - doesn't provide an adequate US lifestyle
State employed - recycled tax dollars
Federal employed - recycled tax dollars
Let's see total full time employed civilians (non seasonally adjusted) Dec '08 - 143MM....Dec '15 - 121.5MM....yet unemployment was only at 4.xx%! AMAZING
I truly believe full time civilian employment should be the only factor when considering a health of the US labor market.
reasons - part time - doesn't provide an adequate US lifestyle
State employed - recycled tax dollars
Federal employed - recycled tax dollars
5
For Trump to assail how economic data is collected and interpreted so that it can conform to his administration's "alternate universe of alternate facts" (more chaos and propaganda really)...is to try to bake bread or cake by altering the recipe. Competent bakers know how that works out.
Readers should be mindful of Steve Bannon's declared intentions while influencing Trump... in 2013, he said “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too". Attacking economic data and injecting chaos is all part of that plan.
Readers should be mindful of Steve Bannon's declared intentions while influencing Trump... in 2013, he said “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too". Attacking economic data and injecting chaos is all part of that plan.
70
I assume decreasing employment at the government's statistics-gathering agencies is high on the list of federal employees to cut. Then Trump can claim any number he wants.
12
Destroying the state is TREASON. Overthrowing the government we do every 4 years, or at least have that opportunity.
It's two different aspects of the political realm.
If Steve said that as a private citizen, he has that right. If he states that as an appointed part of the administration, its treason.
It's two different aspects of the political realm.
If Steve said that as a private citizen, he has that right. If he states that as an appointed part of the administration, its treason.
1
Does the Trumpet know anything at all about America?