Economy added solid 196,000 jobs in March, unemployment stays at 3.8%

nope. I've posted the congressional voting record a dozen times. Republicans killed EVERY single bill from 2001-2007 attempting to address the problem.

 

No it doesn't

 

So GDP growth isn't how we gauge our economy now? ROFL

 

So, have I. Every one of those bills were sponsored by Republicans. Every one of those bills had zero Democratic backers. Facts matter here.

 

It's not the only gauge of the economy.

 

no they weren't.

the voting record shows otherwise

the facts refuted your position.

 

HOWEVER, here's another indisputable fact;

"WE JUST HAD A NET LOSS OF 200,000 JOBS"

FEB 2019 Total Employed; 156,949,000
MAR 2019 Total Employed;156,748,000

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Main reason; Annually, over 4 million Boomers are turning 65, monthly average, over 333 thousand.

Question; Will the above-mentioned indisputable fact fly over the cuckoo's nest?

Answer; Most likely

By the way, it's no one's fault Trump inherited a historical demographic negative trend, thus, in an effort to avoid another NET LOSS, he will have to pedal much harder than Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

nsamh

 

Nice little cheap shot, but it doesn't refute what I posted. The government does not provide now or in the future. It only takes.

 

Also, in reference to Trump's 3.8% Unemployment Rate, this forum lacks critical thinking.

What is Critical Thinking; It's a thinking and analyzing process.

First, you ask yourself a main question, such as;

"In reference to a record low unemployment rate, what are we actually celebrating?"

A damn good question!

And then, you ask yourself more questions, such as;

Q; What is the unemployment rate?
A; Number of unemployed divided by the Civilian Labor Force X 100 Q; What is Civilian Labor Force?
A; Employed + Unemployed = Civilian Labor Forces
Q; Who are considered unemployed?
A. People who have actively looking for work in the past four weeks
Q; Who are they?
A; Mainly unemployment benefit recipients, and those NOT IN LABOR FORCE who have been actively looking.
Q; Among the 6.2 million considered unemployed, how many are receiving unemployment benefits?
A; Near 1.6 million
Q; How many NOT IN LABOR FORCE have been actively looking for work in the past 4 weeks?
A; 6.2 million - 1.6 million = 4.6 million
Q; What percentage of people NOT IN LABOR FORCE have been actively looking for work in the past 4 weeks?
A; 4.6 million divided by 95.2 million X 100 = 4.8%

And then, you keep asking yourself more questions;

Q; If the number of employed stays the same, and more people are actively looking for work, will the unemployment rate go up or down?
A; The unemployment rate will go up;

a. 100 employed + 5 unemployed = 105 (Civilian Labor Force)
5 divided by 105 X 100 = 4.76%

b. 100 employed + 7 unemployed = 107
7 divided by 107 X 100 = 6.54%

Q; If the number of employed increases, and actively looking for work stays the same?
A; Generally, the unemployment rate will slightly go down;

a. 100 + 5 = 105
5/105 X 100 = 4.76%

b. 102 + 5 = 107
5/107 x 100 = 4.67%

......and I'll stop here, however, if anyone would figure out the EMPLOYED/UNEMPLOYED correlations like I did long time ago, would conclude that during a strong recovery/booming economy, a record low unemployment rate is an IRRELEVANT Labour related economic indicator, but highly relevant for partisan reasons, therefore, the partisan people will keep spewing the same ****

-----------------------------

Quote: March 2019 Unemployment Rate remained at 3.8%.

Why?

a. FEB 2019 Total Employed decreased from 156,949,000 to 156,748,000, thus, minus 201,000

b. FEB 2019 Actively looking for work also decreased from 6,235,000 to 6,211,000, thus, minus 24,000

Let's do the math;

FEB Employed + FEB Unemployed = Civilian Labour Force
156,949,000 + 6,235,000 = 163,184,000
6,235,000/163,184,000 X 100 = 3.8%

MAR Employed + MAR Unemployed = Civilian Labour Force
156,748,000 + 6,211,000 = 162,960,000
6,211,000/162,959,000 X 100 = 3.8%



Now, 196 thousand jobs were created in March, however, annually, over 4 million Boomers are turning 65, monthly average, over 333 thousand, and THEY are the main reason why we just had a NET LOSS of 200,000 employed.

 

What a stupid term "cheap shot" when the truth is there in your face. Government contracts to private business creates jobs. You think not? Good heavens.

 

The following gives a pass to Trump that would never be given to Obama: hypocritical indeed and not critical thinking.

 

The Obama jobs recovery is progressing nicely. Republicans can't really build anything,
they can only hinder and destroy.

 

Contrast Trump's two years with Obama's last three. Obama had a mountain to climb, and Trump is puffing along a straight trail.

 

Nice that in the Strong Trump Economy they can finally retire and enjoy their golden years.

 

We'll contrast Obama's last two years with Trump's first two.

American's Income for Obama's last two years:


American's Income for Trump's first two years:


Well small wonder Americans are feeling better about their finances and future now that Trump's president. That probably explains why he is coasting into reelection

 

Its good to know that we have had no problems with the economy since the government fixed things in WWll. Cheap insults say more about you.

 

"cheap shot" was your term, Doofen, and appropriately characterized. Get over it.

Yes, government contracts can create millions of jobs, as it did in WWII.

 

You want to return to a gross federal debt of 114% during that period?

Trump had another great Jobs Month.

Imagine if the media were tabulating how many jobs had been saved or created!

But this is a Republican president, so we only count the ones actually created.

Economists had predicted smaller jobs gains. Trump is the anti-Obama.

196,000 new jobs were created. (And tons of jobs "saved"!)

 

I see you still can’t read a graph

 

HOWEVER, We have two indisputable facts;

1. 196,000 new jobs were created

2. A NET LOSS OF 200,000 JOBS"

FEB 2019 Total Employed; 156,949,000
MAR 2019 Total Employed;156,748,000

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

And there will be more net losses, main reason;

Annually, over 4 million Boomers are turning 65, monthly average, over 333 thousand.

By the way, it's no one's fault Trump inherited a historical demographic negative trend, thus, in an effort to avoid another NET LOSS, he will have to pedal much harder than Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

 

.....and perhaps he does not understand them!

REAL GROSS DOMESTIC INCOME, percent of change, quarterly or annually since the 50's.

NOTE: If we were to eliminate recessions, this graph would show a straight 45 degree angle line.




https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/serie...tm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred

 

Trump's two years of GDP are no better than Obama's final three years of GDP.

Shifting the argument from the FACT that government contracts with private business creates job is FAIL.

 

The "government" doesn't do anything. Growth comes from deregulation. That allows the market to take off. And Obama's final 3 years of GDP growth were as good as Trump's? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!! GDP growth in 2016 was a terrible 1.6%....for the YEAR. That is awful. Trump has not had a single quarter below 2.2% where he was President the entire quarter. Obama's ENTIRE average for his 8 years was 1.46%

Obama was a disaster for the American economy. He ran up as much debt as the previous 43 Presidents combined, saw the worst economic growth of any President since the Great Depression, and left the economy barely moving when he left office. The man was a disgrace and his policies absolute failures.

 

So leaving office washes away the crimes committed while in office? Does that apply to Trump too?

 

So leaving office washes away the crimes committed while in office? Does that apply to Trump too?