Job Growth Stalls in March '17

Visbek · Apr 7, 2017

Since no one seems to have mentioned it yet...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/economy/job-creation-unemployment-trump.html?_r=0

Weather dampens U.S. job growth; unemployment rate dives to 4.5 percent | Reuters

• 98,000 jobs added in March (nearly 100,000 less than expected)

• Unemployment rate dropped to 4.5% from 4.7%

• Wages grew 0.2%

• LFPR was flat

Bad weather during the month, plus a strong February, probably contributed to the numbers.

Trump policies probably aren't responsible. However, I expect that because it's bad news, Spicer will refer to March numbers as "fake" anyway. If he discusses it at all.

James972 · Apr 8, 2017

Visbek said:
Since no one seems to have mentioned it yet...

why not skip trivia and tell us if you are capitalist or socialist and why??

RickJames3000 · Apr 8, 2017

James972 said:
why not skip trivia and tell us if you are capitalist or socialist and why??

Why not stick to the subject of the thread?

DA60 · Apr 9, 2017

James972 said:
why not skip trivia and tell us if you are capitalist or socialist and why??

Why not tell us how it is your business what he is?

James972 · Apr 10, 2017

DA60 said:
Why not tell us how it is your business what he is?

I didn't say it was my business merely that I thought it was a non-trivial topic, unlike the one he was on without knowing how trivial it was.

yankintx · Apr 10, 2017

Low numbers, must be Obamas fault.

James972 · Apr 11, 2017

yankintx said:
Low numbers, must be Obamas fault.

or liberalism is general since it is anti-business as in higher taxes and more regulation as if that is somehow good for job growth!! Do you see why intellectuals conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

yankintx · Apr 11, 2017

James972 said:
or liberalism is general since it is anti-business as in higher taxes and more regulation as if that is somehow good for job growth!! Do you see why intellectuals conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

In pure ignorance ? Now who is showing a lack of intellect?

Helix · Apr 11, 2017

one month isn't a trend. the March numbers indicate very little other than that the economy has been significantly recovering for a long time now, and not every month can be 200k+.

i will speculate that if the US does the saber rattling hawk thing while cutting taxes and embracing broad brush deregulation, economic volatility might increase significantly, though.

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2017

Helix said:
one month isn't a trend. the March numbers indicate very little other than that the economy has been significantly recovering for a long time now, and not every month can be 200k+.

i will speculate that if the US does the saber rattling hawk thing while cutting taxes and embracing broad brush deregulation, economic volatility might increase significantly, though.

Come on.. there has never been "200k+" a month. The one the got closest to this was Clinton but even he failed to do 200k+ a month.

Helix · Apr 12, 2017

PeteEU said:
Come on.. there has never been "200k+" a month. The one the got closest to this was Clinton but even he failed to do 200k+ a month.

i'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

like i said, the economy has been recovering for a long time now. that has been the trend even if there weren't 200k+ jobs created in a particular month. the big risk that i see now is that Trump will destabilize our relationship with other nations. the market hates uncertainty, so that is likely to **** up the economy. however, March is one month, and one month isn't a trend.

does that clarify my point?

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2017

Helix said:
i'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

View attachment 67216276

like i said, the economy has been recovering for a long time now. that has been the trend even if there weren't 200k+ jobs created in a particular month. the big risk that i see now is that Trump will destabilize our relationship with other nations. the market hates uncertainty, so that is likely to **** up the economy. however, March is one month, and one month isn't a trend.

does that clarify my point?

Hmm I agree my comment does not make much sense, because for some reason my mind did not type out fully what the heck I was trying to say. I blame the full moon and my inability to sleep well enough during this period.

My point was that the US right say a lot that 200+k (some even 250+k) is something that was a norm once (especially when they moon over the Reagan years), and Obama (or whoever) is weak because they cant achieve 200+k every month or at all (which Obama actually did quite a number of months).

Now the reality is that most months the last 40 years, was under 250+k and a "good month" was around the 200k mark. The only President that came close, but no cigar to the 200/50+k claim a month was... drumroll.. Clinton, but even he missed out on several months with that kind of job growth.

Oh and your graph.. why only the Obama years?... there are numbers going back many decades, and they clearly show that job creation of 200k+ or much more is the relatively rarity than reality.

Helix · Apr 12, 2017

PeteEU said:
Hmm I agree my comment does not make much sense, because for some reason my mind did not type out fully what the heck I was trying to say. I blame the full moon and my inability to sleep well enough during this period.

My point was that the US right say a lot that 200+k (some even 250+k) is something that was a norm once (especially when they moon over the Reagan years), and Obama (or whoever) is weak because they cant achieve 200+k every month or at all (which Obama actually did quite a number of months).

Now the reality is that most months the last 40 years, was under 250+k and a "good month" was around the 200k mark. The only President that came close, but no cigar to the 200/50+k claim a month was... drumroll.. Clinton, but even he missed out on several months with that kind of job growth.

Oh and your graph.. why only the Obama years?... there are numbers going back many decades, and they clearly show that job creation of 200k+ or much more is the relatively rarity than reality.

because that's the history of the numbers since the crash, and most of the available charts only go up to 2015 or early 2016 at the latest.

PeteEU · Apr 13, 2017

Helix said:
because that's the history of the numbers since the crash, and most of the available charts only go up to 2015 or early 2016 at the latest.

Naw, you can find them going back to the 50s.

Helix · Apr 13, 2017

PeteEU said:
Naw, you can find them going back to the 50s.

i'm aware of that. i'm talking about the current economic climate and demonstrating that one month isn't a trend. it's one data point.

Job Growth Stalls in March '17

Stuck In The Circle