patrick.net

Patrick says

How about unemployment? The CBO figured the unemployment rate would be 4.7% by now, and climbing. Instead, it’s now down to 3.5% – the lowest since December 1969.

Then there’s the fact that quarterly GDP growth has exceeded the CBO’s projection in every quarter after Q1 2017.

As we noted in this space, that means the economy is more than half a trillion dollars bigger than it was supposed to be.

So what’s the Democrats’ response to this? They’re claiming that massive tax hikes on companies, investors and savings will boost economic growth.

We are not kidding.

Economy is on fire and Trump is going to be re elected.

Impeachment is the Democrats ONLY hope of getting President Trump out of office, and only hope in keeping the SCOTUS at a 5-4 disadvantage instead of 6-3 or 7-2.

They are more desperate than a crack ho with open sores.

Incoherent Dems is a tautology.

:
How is it unexpected ? This trend is almost 10 years old now. The one number might be unexpected, but that just means the analysts didn't give enough weight to some GM strike that ended or some other monthly detail.




You must realize that if I'm right and that this continuation of the trend is in spite of Trump rather than becasue of him, that what you're selling is propaganda.

:

Next up on cnn... jobs are racist patriarchy and homophobic.

marcus says

Thanks, Obama!

How original...

What point are you trying to make Marcus? If it’s that the trend just keeps continuing, I’m quite certain you’ve noticed:

1.) Three huge spikes
2.) At the bottom of each boom, the UE rate goes flat for a while.

Despite a record low, there is no flat right now. The rate continues lower. It’s truly amazing.

:
If one is out of work long enough, they no longer go in to the denominator of that unemployment calculation. (clarification: The issue is that people must be actively looking for work to be in the employable workforce. So they are not in the denominator of the calculation of unemployment = 1 - employment ratio ,
where employment ratio = employed / employable workforce).

Therefore a significant part of what's going on is the low unemployment rate is an indication of how long it's been since we had a recession. I think that has more to do with interest rates than any other single factor.

For a better look at the employment situation consider these.





Not that "amazing." Not even back to 2006 levels.





It seems like a much higher percentage of the so called "greatest generation" (boomers parents) were able to retire early than the boomers can. Suprising since they were often single earner household, but then they were also more frugal and saved well becasue they remembered the great depression. Also many, even in the private sector had PENSIONS.

Funny. I bet my comment here does seem incoherent to most of you Trump worshipers. .

"Trump’s Unexpected Jobs Boom Leaves Dems Incoherent"

The impeachment nonsense will blow up in Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi et Al faces.

For those who are investors you may expect 15- 30% increase in US stocks in the next two years from today.

1. increased number of wage earners 2. increased spending=increased profits 3. Apple, ATT, Disney and other stocks rise 4. low interest rates make stocks attractive

For those who may not have studied the history of the US Constitution; the impeachment is a safeguard to protect us from a serious criminal and thief/embezzler as chief executive.

Since the Attorney General cannot prosecute him, there must be a mechanism to get rid of him.

If Trump: 1. robbed a bank, assaulted or abused someone, drove drunk (Teddy Kennedy) killing a passenger, etc. he could be impeached. The "high crime" is equivalent to a felony crime. 2. told Ukraine "give me $1 million and I will give you the aid you want from the US taxpayers." Or, if Trump had figured a way to embezzle from the US Treasury, or if he had accepted money (a bribe) from others to change his policies or activities he could be impeached. This would be the "misdemeanors" the writers of the Constitution would have sought impeachment.

Liberals are willfully ignorant and they use the media to brainwash the intellectually indifferent, lazy or dumb into believing impeachment is done for "behavior we don't like."

Bill Clinton did commit perjury and pled guilty; this was an actual crime, although of course not a serious felony which probably should not have gotten him impeached.
Still, he was not removed from office and it was all an exercise in futility.

marcus says

If one is out of work long enough, they no longer go in to the denominator of that unemployment calculation

Yah we were saying that years ago when Obama was touting his unemployment numbers, and there was 10% off the rolls of people who’d just given up.
The Trump economy has added 6 and a half million jobs, but unemployment has gone down only like .6% where do you think those jobs went? Long term unemployed took them.

:
marcus says

If one is out of work long enough, they no longer go in to the denominator of that unemployment calculation. (clarification: The issue is that people must be actively looking for work to be in the employable workforce. So they are not in the denominator of the calculation of unemployment = 1 - employment ratio ,
where employment ratio = employed / employable workforce).

By the way, I corrected this. Changed it to numerator and back to denominator before thinking about it a little more. I guess it's both if you want to think of unemployment as:

(employable - employed) ÷ (employable)
:

Please Marcus or Fuck, tell me what you’d do different from Trump? Not confront China? Raise taxes to cover deficits? Have more third worlders come in to undercut wages? We are on pins and needles..

Remember folks, despite 3 years of Trump, it's still the Obama Economy.

But in 2012 it was still the Bush economy.

Dem Logic!

Eh, they’ll never answer because unlike the specific criticism conservatives had of Obama, Trump has got it mostly right.

Trump could have done a better job on immigration, but he’s doing more then anyone else would and being fought continuously on everything he tries so I can’t blame him too much.

It was jaw dropping watching Dems deny the strong, wage-job driven (not Big Tech and Real Estate Bubble) economy we currently enjoy.

Now it's just evidence of their Oikophobia.

Socialism is just the excuse, their real problem is the hatred of the home/the familiar culture.

This explains why they can be Socialist Feminist Islam Supporters all simultaneously. How they can go from rah-rahing the Russian Reset of Obama and ignoring the takeover of Crimea and 1/4 the Ukraine by Russia, then scream Russia, Russia, Russia seamlessly.

It explains why they spent 50 years whinging about consolidating, corporate media and the CIA/Deep State, only to turn around and lionize them when a pro-American, non-Internationalist President who doesn't want to dilute to destroy America, was elected.

The real goal is to destroy America and the West generally.

marcus says

:
How is it unexpected ? This trend is almost 10 years old now. The one number might be unexpected, but that just means the analysts didn't give enough weight to some GM strike that ended or some other monthly detail.

You must realize that if I'm right and that this continuation of the trend is in spite of Trump rather than becasue of him, that what you're selling is propaganda.

:

OMG!!! No, you can't, can't make this up!!! "This trend is almost 10 years old now... continuation is in spite rather than because" bit is absolutely fabulous in it's stupidity.

Marcus, can you point out other times in history of US during which job growth would continue for as many years as it has now, at as low of unemployment as we get to enjoy today? Hey, once it's a trend it must trend forever - right??

Don’t worry Dems, you have a hero...


Oh wait....

Dems are never coherent when facts present themselves. All that party has is lies these days and phony impeachment trials.

mostly_reader says

Hey, once it's a trend it must trend forever - right??

No. But the fact that we've gone this long without a recession is the reason the unemployment statistic is as low as it is now. It's not becasue the labor participation is all that great.

Trends either continue or they don't. Trumps tax cut may be a reason we haven't had a recession sooner. But it isn't even clear that it wouldn't have been better to have a recession sooner - gotten it out of the way and on to the next cyle - although it's clear that it's good for him politically to not have a recession occur while he is President. IT's also certainly clear that we are paying a lot for those tax cuts (in the future).

Look, it's not like you are interested in understanding my comments above. I have no way of knowing whether you are even capable. But the fact is that the unemployment situation is not as good as you may think it is. Consider the labor participation rate I posted above for 25 to 54 year olds.

One doesn't have to be all that knowledgeable to understand the limited degree to which the President can affect the economy in the short run. Long term is another story, and certain policies are definitely bad for us in the long run. Often they aren't the kind of things that affect us immediately.
:

mostly_reader says

can you point out other times in history of US during which job growth would continue for as many years as it has now, at as low of unemployment as we get to enjoy today?

What I can point to is that for most of the past 55 years, when the economy grew uninterrupted for this long (or less) and when unemployment rates went this low there would be massive wage and other inflationary pressures kicking in, resulting in an upward spike in interest rates, and often a recession, or sometimes "stagflation" the worst of both worlds.

But it's a different world now. Do you really think the underlying deflationary pressures, and the low interest rates environment we have now is becasue of Trump ? Similarly, do you think the ZIRP situation for several years after the '08 crash had much to do with Obama ?

marcus says

becasue

Can someone teach this man to spell because? I think he's ignoring me or he can't learn from his mistakes.

Or maybe he's trying to be annoying.

marcus says

For a better look at the employment situation consider these.

Now you're pulling what Republicans did during Obama terms and focusing on participation rate. You're better than that. Anecdotal, but I'm not participating in the labor force by choice. Not collecting any benefits from the government either. My family is doing better than ever. Just because you don't participate doesn't mean it's a negative. The same would go for Obama's terms.

> marcus

My question (which you dodged) was a reaction to your "hey, it's a trend, therefore Trump gets no credit" dismissal.

Because, you know, if existence of a trend defines the future direction as well, then there should be other instances and other periods that fit the pattern.

In fact, the opposite is true if there's a hard limits and trend goes in the direction of that hard limit. Low unemployment numbers make future unemployment numbers likely to go up, not down. Once you approach 0 and once everyone with pulse and willing already has a job (approximately where we are today) best you can hope for is some kind of stability. You seem to understand it because you are now trying to steer in a different direction - "but it may have been better to have recession sooner"

You dodged the challenge (which you brought upon yourself), and the new direction in which you steer the conversation conflicts with your prior message about the trend.

If you can't give credit when it's due, just don't say anything. "It already was on the way up" line is as disingenuous as they get.

TrumpingTits says

Cut spending to cover the deficits? Deficits are ALWAYS about spending...just like it is for household budgets.

Trump will deserve to be on Mt. Rushmore if he grabs the third rail and reforms entitlements and spending in his 2nd term.

I can hardly wait for the elections. Trump will win early by a landslide, but CNN et alia will declare that he lost right up to the last minute.

Don't go forget the Obama plateau in how 2nd term.

In the Age of Despair, a lot of the "formerly" employable took shelter in the SSDI trust. During the Bush Years and Obama's first term, the number of people served by SSDI grew at 4%-5% clip per year and threatened the solvency of the trust. In Trumps first two years, those on SS Disability Insurance fell by 1.3% and 1.8%.

EBGuy says

In the Age of Despair, a lot of the "formerly" employable took shelter in the SSDI trust. During the Bush Years and Obama's first term, the number of people served by SSDI grew at 4%-5% clip per year and threatened the solvency of the trust. In Trumps first two years, those on SS Disability Insurance fell by 1.3% and 1.8%.

I want to hump your leg. Your words are so lovely.

mostly_reader says

My question (which you dodged)

I didn't dodge it, but the question is irrelevant.

When I said it's a continuation of the trend, my point is two fold

1) we have a nearly 10 year trend that follows the crash of 08/09. Yes the trend is amazing, in my view most of the reasons are beyond who is President. This is not contradicted by my observing that Obama was President for the first 6 years of the trend.

I'm not omniscient as to all the reasons for the stock market or unemployment trends, but I do know what the biggest difference to preceding periods is (since you think a comparison to other time periods is an argument). And that its the underlying deflation pressures and market resistance to increased interest rates. THis combined with excess capital in the hands of "the 1 percent" (that needs to go somewhere) due to the highest inequality we have seen since the 1920s, make for very good stock and bond markets.

Trump is lucky that his presidency coincides with these conditions. He didn't cause them.

2) The other point I was trying to make was about the fact that the longer such a trend lasts in umployemnt declining , the more the unemployment number is exaggerated by the fact that when people give up on finding a job, they are no longer taken in to account by that statistic. The magnitude of this effect is confirmed by looking at labor participation rate. The fact that labor participation rate takes in many factors including the fact that some people don't need to work, does not make the number any less meaningful for comparing employment levels to other periods.

Tim Aurora says

I would like to cut the defense spending.

That's what Putin wants! Why are you such a Russian asset!!!!!??? (Sarc.)

Next thing you will say that you want America to stop producing our own energy and go back to relying on Putin's ally Iran and the OPEC countries.

Tim Aurora says

I would like to cut the defense spending.

I think most of us feel the same way. DoD spending is out of hand.

Tim Aurora says

I would like to cut the defense spending. I am sure Republican will not consider that and claim that we need it to protect ourselves. Not sure from who as we have enough nukes to destroy any country multiple times.

If the last twenty years have shown us anything, it’s that the defense industry has its hooks tightly into politicians of every stripe and party. Sometimes you have to break the system to get change. The ONLY candidate who has espoused this sentiment is Tulsi Gabbard whom I believe you think is a Russian asset like Ma Clinton told you. You need to get your story consistent. You can’t have it both ways.

The main problem with Defense was caused by "Reformers".

"Nobody should make windfall profits by War Machines, oh no, boo hoo hoo, let's do Cost-Plus instead of Per-Unit pricing."

> marcus
> ...I didn't dodge it, but the question is irrelevant...

I'm not having a conversation about reasons and possible negative effects of such prolonged boom here. That would be a topic for a separate thread of thought.

"This prolonged boom is bad news because it was caused by a,b,c" is red herring for the question at hand.

Here, it boils down to a simple point, which you brought up. You implied that 10y. long employment boom is a trend, therefore should've been expected, and therefore header of the article is invalid. Correct? To which I said that existence of a trend means nothing at best in this case. In fact, at some point all you can hope for is some kind of stability. Challenge to find an equivalent trend in history was issued to illustrate this point. "Obama started it" counter is as bogus as they get.

Your follow-ups are drastically different from that original statement (I may agree with some of your other points). But please don't intertwine multiple topics. No, they are not related.

Tim Aurora says

Putin wants us to overspend and get our deficit to such levels that we will implode

Then why is Nancy Pelosi working for Putin?

BOOM! Best Manufacturing job gains in 3 decades.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/manufacturing-employment-in-the-us-is-at-the-same-level-of-69-years-ago-2019-01-04

Trump, Great Economy.
Democrats, Iranian Stooges.

Dems new angle now is to support Iran.

Patrick says

Trump’s Unexpected Jobs Boom Leaves Dems Incoherent

You mean they were ever coherent. General Salami Baloney's assassination is having them doing pretzel logic galore. Trump is worse than HITLER!, so they now have to praise psychopath Salami Baloney Hitler because it is the only option for TDS promotion.

Trump made Ayatollah FuckFace cry over Salami Baloney tarmac smudge after he thumbed his nose and said USA were impotent. American Godzilla stomped the fools tits sui.

No, I don't want any war with Iran, Iraq was a waste and war crime by Bush/Cheney et alia, but Trump stated that Salami Baloney smudge was calculated to generate peace by reminding the medievals not to underestimate USA.

Trump showed that we don’t have to get our hands dirty to fuck their shit up permanently. A press of a button and his top man is road gravy.
Your move, asshole!