• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ‘Very Close to Full Employment’ WSJ

College grads are getting jobs.



In retail.

7 years ago, maybe. Now, nope.

During the worst of the recession, nearly half of young college graduates started out underemployed in non-college degree requiring jobs, but only about 1/5th of those were in retail/food service. That is not so now. It is down to 1/8th of college graduates underemployed in 2016. Not ideal, but obviously much better.

Working as a Barista After College Is Not as Common as You Might Think   Liberty Street Economics
 
When have they said that? The GOP response to job questions is deregulate and lower taxes. I haven't heard them say a thing about government getting involved in retraining citizens for the new economy. That's been a democrat position the last few elections.

Fine, it's the typical republican/concervative response. And I never said a thing about government training people.
 
7 years ago, maybe. Now, nope.

During the worst of the recession, nearly half of young college graduates started out underemployed in non-college degree requiring jobs, but only about 1/5th of those were in retail/food service. That is not so now. It is down to 1/8th of college graduates underemployed in 2016. Not ideal, but obviously much better.

Working as a Barista After College Is Not as Common as You Might Think** Liberty Street Economics

Pretty common still in CT.


Could be why our population is shrinking...people moving out.
 
I am just wondering where all the Trump supporters are. But when you think about it, picking and choosing what aspects of reality to which they adhere is their specialty.

We are right here. I am waiting for him to get in office and see what he does. Talk is cheap as Obama proved.
 
Real Time Economics - WSJ creation slowed in December but other details pointed to a tightening labor market. The economy added 156,000 jobs last month, while the jobless rate rose slightly to 4.7% as more Americans entered the labor force. Workers’ hourly wages grew 2.9% over the past 12 months, the strongest yearly gain in more than seven years. Here’s how economists and analysts reacted to Friday’s report.

“For the year, the economy averaged job creation of about 180,000 per month—a solid result, but one that represents the slowest pace since 2012. While this is partially reflective of the slowdown in the pace of economic growth, it also reflects a labor market that is increasingly tight. Employers are simply having a harder time filling open positions as the economy nears full employment.“—Jim Baird, Plante Moran Financial Advisors Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ?Very Close to Full Employment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If we are at full employment, wages are rising, and the people who have dropped out of the work force still aren't coming back in, does it still make sense to gut our budget with tax cuts for the wealthy to spur job growth, try to balance the trade deficit with tariffs, and spend a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we will have to borrow when the economy isn't really in need of the boost? I say no. There's a lot of good in Donald Trump's vision. Western universalism is a failed policy. We should start looking out for our own interests first and let go of trying to westernize China, Russia, and Islam. But with Trump's lack of ability to admit when he's wrong and lack of trust in official figures and academic analysis, I don't see how this ends well. It seems like we will have a Fed increasingly trying to counteract ill advised, inflationary moves by Trump.

Trump has already changed his stance on things as he is briefed indicating he is flexible and will adjust to changing situations. However he is still not in office so all is nothing but conjecture until he actually does something. It is amazing all the crystal balls and prejudging. Talk is cheap as most of the previous presidents have proven.
 
Trump has already changed his stance on things as he is briefed indicating he is flexible and will adjust to changing situations. However he is still not in office so all is nothing but conjecture until he actually does something. It is amazing all the crystal balls and prejudging. Talk is cheap as most of the previous presidents have proven.

What else are we supposed to do? This is a political discussion board, remember? We are here to discuss politics. New data, new trends, and how they affect the outlook for what Donald Trump campaigned on are what we are discussing. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't post. Its really simple.
 
At least you think it is evidence.

What would convince you that the jobs reports are accurate? If Trump endorsed them? Cause you know he will once he thinks he can take credit for them on Twitter in a couple months.
 
Real Time Economics - WSJ creation slowed in December but other details pointed to a tightening labor market. The economy added 156,000 jobs last month, while the jobless rate rose slightly to 4.7% as more Americans entered the labor force. Workers’ hourly wages grew 2.9% over the past 12 months, the strongest yearly gain in more than seven years. Here’s how economists and analysts reacted to Friday’s report.

“For the year, the economy averaged job creation of about 180,000 per month—a solid result, but one that represents the slowest pace since 2012. While this is partially reflective of the slowdown in the pace of economic growth, it also reflects a labor market that is increasingly tight. Employers are simply having a harder time filling open positions as the economy nears full employment.“—Jim Baird, Plante Moran Financial Advisors Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ?Very Close to Full Employment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If we are at full employment, wages are rising, and the people who have dropped out of the work force still aren't coming back in, does it still make sense to gut our budget with tax cuts for the wealthy to spur job growth, try to balance the trade deficit with tariffs, and spend a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we will have to borrow when the economy isn't really in need of the boost? I say no. There's a lot of good in Donald Trump's vision. Western universalism is a failed policy. We should start looking out for our own interests first and let go of trying to westernize China, Russia, and Islam. But with Trump's lack of ability to admit when he's wrong and lack of trust in official figures and academic analysis, I don't see how this ends well. It seems like we will have a Fed increasingly trying to counteract ill advised, inflationary moves by Trump.


It's undeniable that all figures are looking up for but a few. Wages, employment, what else is their as far as the American public is most concerned? Obama will leave Trump with an economically stable economy, as did Clinton leave Bush2, to F-up. The economy is humming.
 
It's undeniable that all figures are looking up for but a few. Wages, employment, what else is their as far as the American public is most concerned? Obama will leave Trump with an economically stable economy, as did Clinton leave Bush2, to F-up. The economy is humming.

I suppose GDP growth could be a bit better. Wages are on the uptick, but definitely have room for a lot of improvement. We might even be hurting for labor pretty soon, especially with Trump's immigration policies, so that might push wages up, though that won't help GDP growth.

The one area I think Trump will defintely help is the regulatory burden on businesses. We've dropped from #3 in the world to #8 during Obama's presidency, consistently getting lower every year, according to the World Bank Ease of doing business report. The time it takes to start a business has doubled during his turn. I'd like to see us climb up that list again.
 
I suppose GDP growth could be a bit better. Wages are on the uptick, but definitely have room for a lot of improvement. We might even be hurting for labor pretty soon, especially with Trump's immigration policies, so that might push wages up, though that won't help GDP growth.

The one area I think Trump will defintely help is the regulatory burden on businesses. We've dropped from #3 in the world to #8 during Obama's presidency, consistently getting lower every year, according to the World Bank Ease of doing business report. The time it takes to start a business has doubled during his turn. I'd like to see us climb up that list again.


Yeah. I measure by outcomes. I agree wages have room for improvement. After being repressed for forty years, it’s about time (more factors to do with that).

With Trump’s immigration policy, doesn’t that improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition, as you imply?

I’m not sure how Trump’s immigration policy would not help GDP growth, in and of itself. It could actually improve GDP per capita (PPP). Any help?

What is the problem with regulation here as opposed to the regulation of Mars? Look at ourselves. You’re talking “businesses”. For example, the poor, beleaguered businesses. Corporate after tax profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they’ve been since 1928. What corporation cares what the regulations are as long as they’re making money, money, money? Why should the corps care whether barefoot children are working in their shoe factories (Not true. Mentioned for effect of what was once before regulation. We all know corps would never, if given the opportunity, do that again. Sure, right.)

How long it takes to start a new business may be how long it takes to start a failure. The majority of new businesses fail within the first 18 months.
 
Last edited:
Thing is that anything starting with the premise that we are at under 5% unemployment in any way, shape, or form, is starting with a lie....carry on.
 
Thing is that anything starting with the premise that we are at under 5% unemployment in any way, shape, or form, is starting with a lie....carry on.

The following are the claims that make up the UE rate. Which of the following statements are you claiming is a lie and what is your evidence?
  • There were approximately 151,798,000 people who worked the week of December 11-17 (or were temporarily absent from a job they would return to),
  • There were approximately 7,170,000 people who did not work the week of December 11-17, but could have if they had been offered one, and had looked for work between November 20th and December 17th, or were on temporary layoff.
  • 7,170,000/(151,798,000+7,170,000) = 0.045 =4.5%

Which of those are you claiming is a lie?
 
Last edited:
Yeah. I measure by outcomes. I agree wages have room for improvement. After being repressed for forty years, it’s about time (more factors to do with that).

With Trump’s immigration policy, doesn’t that improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition, as you imply?

I’m not sure how Trump’s immigration policy would not help GDP growth, in and of itself. It could actually improve GDP per capita (PPP). Any help?

Sure, it helps the unemployment rate, but having an unemployment rate below cyclical levels is NOT a good thing. It means your labor market doesn't have enough human capital in it to meet demand. When you can't fill jobs, then you aren't producing at the maximal level that is possible. Not producing at the maximal level means you aren't growing the economy. One of the big factors in why our economic growth is poor the last few years is because we have a shrinking labor force. There's demand for immigrant labor for a reason. This is why economists say ultimately undocumented immigrants add to the economy more than they take out.

As far as the regulations goes, the business start up time thing is just a measure of what the regulatory burden on businesses are. If you look at the report, many countries have this down to a matter of days. I think you are underestimating the effect these regulatory barriers have on discouraging businesses. Not every company is a giant corporation. They might be doing fine, but your average small business is really just a couple of people trying to make a living and putting hurdles up and making the process more and more complex can really affect their desire to try to start a new business or expand. If these regulations serve a purpose, then that is fine, but I think we need to go over them with a fine comb and see if we can't get those numbers down.
 
What would convince you that the jobs reports are accurate? If Trump endorsed them? Cause you know he will once he thinks he can take credit for them on Twitter in a couple months.

I would view jobs reports developed in the private sector as accurate. Government statistics about politically charged issues don't have credibility with me.
 
I would view jobs reports developed in the private sector as accurate. Government statistics about politically charged issues don't have credibility with me.

Ok. In the chart below, one of the lines is the government estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. The other line is the ADP estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. Which one is more accurate, red or blue, and why?
 
Ok. In the chart below, one of the lines is the government estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. The other line is the ADP estimate of private sector non-farm payroll jobs. Which one is more accurate, red or blue, and why?

Since the charts didn't post, I'll leave the interpretation up to you.
 
Since the charts didn't post, I'll leave the interpretation up to you.

Whoops. Let's try again: Which line is more accurate in your opinion?

fredgraph.png
 
Whoops. Let's try again: Which line is more accurate in your opinion?

fredgraph.png

Obviously they are the same. Looks like somebody used the government numbers under their own name.
 
fredgraph2.png


I think this graph is a little easier to understand. FYI your god emperor is the guy with the tiny hands tweeting in the top right.

lookin forward to havin president trump. obama hussien created isis meanwhile trump wins and the stock market skyrockets.
 
Obviously they are the same. Looks like somebody used the government numbers under their own name.

Nope. The red line comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment survey, while the blue line comes from ADP (Automatic Data Processing) which process about 20% of private sector paychecks in the U.S.

There is certainly variation between the two, as they are calculated separately using different samples, but most times the difference is small. For example, in December, ADP showed an increase of 153,000 private sector payroll jobs, while BLS only showed an increase of 144,000.

So...you have claimed you'd believe private sector over government, but what do you do when they match?

For Unemployment, Gallup runs their own survey and while the differences between the Gallup and BLS rates can be large, they're never statistically significant in that BLS has a margin of error of +/- 0.2 percentage points at 90% confidence while Gallup has a an error of +/- 0.7 percentage points. So considering those to ranges always overlap and the BLS sample is about 4 times as large ...30,000 adults/month for Gallup and 60,000 households for BLS (close to 120,000 individuals)...and Gallup only counts age 18+ while BLS uses 16+ there's never any clear difference between the two.
 
Nope. The red line comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment survey, while the blue line comes from ADP (Automatic Data Processing) which process about 20% of private sector paychecks in the U.S.

There is certainly variation between the two, as they are calculated separately using different samples, but most times the difference is small. For example, in December, ADP showed an increase of 153,000 private sector payroll jobs, while BLS only showed an increase of 144,000.

So...you have claimed you'd believe private sector over government, but what do you do when they match?

For Unemployment, Gallup runs their own survey and while the differences between the Gallup and BLS rates can be large, they're never statistically significant in that BLS has a margin of error of +/- 0.2 percentage points at 90% confidence while Gallup has a an error of +/- 0.7 percentage points. So considering those to ranges always overlap and the BLS sample is about 4 times as large ...30,000 adults/month for Gallup and 60,000 households for BLS (close to 120,000 individuals)...and Gallup only counts age 18+ while BLS uses 16+ there's never any clear difference between the two.

OK. I don't have time to look into the methodology of the statistics but they don't appear to deal with part time employment vs. full time and the quality of the jobs. The reason I'm fussing with you is that the statistics don't jibe with public opinion.
 
I would view jobs reports developed in the private sector as accurate. Government statistics about politically charged issues don't have credibility with me.

Cause the private sector has such a great track record with being honest about politically charged issues (cough: cigarettes causing cancer, CFCs, food safety, pharmaceuticals and "alternative medicine", oil companies on climate change, etc).

We have the government do these things for a reason. Private industries could manufacture a labor crisis to get the governments to cut regulations and lower taxes. If President's really had the power to fudge the BLS numbers, why did Obama and Bush let them get so bad in the first place?
 
Cause the private sector has such a great track record with being honest about politically charged issues (cough: cigarettes causing cancer, CFCs, food safety, pharmaceuticals and "alternative medicine", oil companies on climate change, etc).

We have the government do these things for a reason. Private industries could manufacture a labor crisis to get the governments to cut regulations and lower taxes. If President's really had the power to fudge the BLS numbers, why did Obama and Bush let them get so bad in the first place?

Ahh...the non-partisan government...just here to protect us from ourselves.
 
Ahh...the non-partisan government...just here to protect us from ourselves.

You realize the American government is founded on the idea of separate, autonomous, accountable institutions? The BLS is one of those. Find any evidence at all that the numbers are skewed for political purposes. You can't.

No one is immune from bias and conflicts of interest, but this idea that a privately funded measure of unemployment would be less likely to be corrupted is pure bull.
 
Back
Top Bottom