U.S. loses 33,000 jobs. 1st time since Sept 2010

Exquisitor said:

Looks like we're beginning to see the start of the decline headed by Trump's leadership.

Click to expand...

I'd like to be fair -- and what I say to those on the right that point gleefully to a one-month uptick, "one data point does not a trend make." So, we will need to wait another month or so to see the trend. The yearly trend is similar to Obama's 2016 but a bit stunted. Of course, Trump will tell you that it's the best growth ever.

What was interesting in the data was that employment in the restaurant industry fell by a whopping 105,000. Could this be the effect of ICE deporting undocumented immigrants? We will have to see.

MTAtech said:

I'd like to be fair -- and what I say to those on the right that point gleefully to a one-month uptick, "one data point does not a trend make." So, we will need to wait another month or so to see the trend. The yearly trend is similar to Obama's 2016 but a bit stunted. Of course, Trump will tell you that it's the best growth ever.

What was interesting in the data was that employment in the restaurant industry fell by a whopping 105,000. Could this be the effect of ICE deporting undocumented immigrants? We will have to see.

Click to expand...

ICE closed my area's only Mexican restaurant because of illegal labor.

Exquisitor said:

ICE closed my area's only Mexican restaurant because of illegal labor.

Click to expand...

That sux. So, maybe there is something to this.

How would deporting undocumented workers affect the U.S. economy?

Removing the country’s estimated 8 million unauthorized workers likely won’t be positive for the U.S. economy, according to new research from economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega at Queens College CUNY. Undocumented workers contribute about 3 percent of private-sector gross domestic product, or about $5 trillion over a decade, according to their paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Neither the facts I gave nor my opinion made any reference to anything being Obama's fault.

Click to expand...

True. But it certainly was leading and deceptively so. If your intent was to provide an honest comparison, it would make no sense to compare a timeline 8 years apart, especially considering the recession which was underway when Obama was first sworn into office.

A much better comparison would have been Obama's last x months compared to Trumps x months (or, at the very least, Feb 2016-Sep 2016 vs. Feb 2017-Sep 17).

Of course, when you would make that comparison, you'd see that job gains under Trump don't actually compare to what we had with Obama and you couldn't make your statement of "All in all, I'd say things are looking up." and hope to have any real legitimacy.

Obama's last 8 months: Total jobs: 1,672,000, average: 209,000
Obama's Feb-Sep 2016: Total Jobs: 1,671,000, average: 208,875
Trump's Feb-Sep 2017: Total Jobs: 111,800, average: 139,750

Even if we take out this year's September jobs report (due to such terrible weather), your "looking up" statement cannot really be made with regards to job creation:

Obama's last 7 months: Total jobs: 1,375,000, average: 196,429
Obama's Feb-Aug 2016: Total jobs: 1,422,000, average: 203,143
Trump's Feb-Aug 2017: Total jobs: 1,151,000, average: 164,429

Source: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth


So, after looking at data which would be the best comparison, it seems clear to me you deliberately chose a time you knew was a recession to compare, so you could make your claim of "I'd say things are looking up". I won't publicly venture a guess as to why you would intentionally cherry pick data which is not a legitimate comparison, but I suspect most people can probably figure out the reason.

Slyfox696 said:

True. But it certainly was leading and deceptively so. If your intent was to provide an honest comparison, it would make no sense to compare a timeline 8 years apart, especially considering the recession which was underway when Obama was first sworn into office.

Click to expand...

shrug...

I simply compared each President's first months in Office as an answer the the OP's worries. You needn't make such a big deal out of it.

Texas and Florida got slammed. Houston all by itself could have been the main factor

cuban smokes said:

leave it to the GOP presidents to destroy the economy & the world; they have a great track record of doing that

Go Don Cheeto ................................

Click to expand...

Sigh. You mean like democrat administrations blaming poor economic numbers on ice storms?

Mycroft said:

shrug...

I simply compared each President's first months in Office as an answer the the OP's worries. You needn't make such a big deal out of it.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Sure. Of course you did.

Mycroft said:

Since his election, Trump has added 1.33 million jobs. During that same period in Obama's 1st term, he lost more than 4.5 million jobs.

All in all, I'd say things are looking up.

Click to expand...

Except for one teensy little problem Mycroft. Obama was handed an economy that was hemorrhaging jobs by the hundreds of thousands month after month. Trump was handed a growing economy. Big ...no HUUUUUUUUGE difference. But thanks for playing anyways.

MTAtech said:

The hurricanes were blamed but that doesn't explain why the estimate of 80,000 wasn't met. ADP estimated +132,000 yesterday.

The last time jobs were negative was in September 2010, after the Great Recession.

Click to expand...

Yeeeaaah, I don't think those people in the way of the hurricanes were laid off. It's possible that collateral companies laid some off, but I think that ling expenses have a lot to do with people leaving jobs. In California, many are leaving because they just can't afford to live here anymore.

jet57 said:

Yeeeaaah, I don't think those people in the way of the hurricanes were laid off. It's possible that collateral companies laid some off, but I think that ling expenses have a lot to do with people leaving jobs. In California, many are leaving because they just can't afford to live here anymore.

Click to expand...

Only people who collected a pay check for the pay period that included 12 September were counted as employed for the official jobs numbers. BLS isn't saying they were laid off, just not on the payroll at that time. The total employment, from a different survey used for the unemployment rate still considers them employed that week, and that number went up.

jet57 said:

Yeeeaaah, I don't think those people in the way of the hurricanes were laid off. It's possible that collateral companies laid some off, but I think that ling expenses have a lot to do with people leaving jobs. In California, many are leaving because they just can't afford to live here anymore.

Click to expand...

I believe California's population continues to rise.

Also I learned that those not working temporarily are considered employed.

MTAtech said:

I believe California's population continues to rise.

Also I learned that those not working temporarily are considered employed.

Click to expand...

It might be helpful to look into the facts before posting. At any rate, here is an article that may help you and others.

Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Harvey jobs report effects - Business Insider

ludin said:

your quoting facts again. almost every economist out there is saying to ignore this, but TDS'ers see headlines and go stupid while
ignoring the article that says this report is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Of course the president isn't directly responsible for a bad jobs month. But, let's be real here. If these numbers showed growth, the jackass in the white house would be retweeting them and taking full credit, so he fully deserves the political hit that comes with this.

GhostlyJoe said:

Of course the president is directly responsible for a bad jobs month. But, let's be real here. If these numbers showed growth, the jackass in the white house would be retweeting them and taking full credit, so he fully deserves the political hit that comes with this.

Click to expand...

Please cite what you think Trump did to make him directly responsible for job losses in September. While you are at it please tell us what you think Obama did in 2016 to create job growth.

Do you and others (including Trump) understand how silly it sunds when they say the president is responsible for month to month changes in the data.

washunut said:

Please cite what you think Trump did to make him directly responsible for job losses in September. While you are at it please tell us what you think Obama did in 2016 to create job growth.

Do you and others (including Trump) understand how silly it sunds when they say the president is responsible for month to month changes in the data.

Click to expand...

Crap. Doh! it was a typo. I meant, the president isn't directly responsible. I don't think the president has direct, month-to-month influence on the economy. But he sure is quick to take credit for any positive number. That is, when he isn't tweeting about unfair late night talk-show hosts are.

I went back and edited the first post to reflect my actual intention.

MTAtech said:

I believe California's population continues to rise.

Also I learned that those not working temporarily are considered employed.

washunut said:

It might be helpful to look into the facts before posting. At any rate, here is an article that may help you and others.

Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Harvey jobs report effects - Business Insider

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am well aware of what the business reporters wrote, namely, that they blame the job losses on the hurricanes. I, however, looked a bit deeper and found that the loss was largely in the restaurant and food service sector, which lost 105,000 jobs. Both Texas and Florida have been shedding job (slightly) before the hurricanes. A look at random states showed that employment dipped in states that were not affected by the storms.

washunut said:

Please cite what you think Trump did to make him directly responsible for job losses in September. While you are at it please tell us what you think Obama did in 2016 to create job growth.

Do you and others (including Trump) understand how silly it sunds when they say the president is responsible for month to month changes in the data.

Click to expand...

For one, I think his deportation venture may be responsible for why the food service industry lost 105,000 workers in Sept.

U.S. loses 33,000 jobs. 1st time since Sept 2010

Click to expand...

as i have stated in multiple threads on this, it most likely was the hurricanes. one month is an outlier, not a trend. if it's a number of months, then it becomes a trend.

Helix said:

as i have stated in multiple threads on this, it most likely was the hurricanes. one month is an outlier, not a trend. if it's a number of months, then it becomes a trend.

Click to expand...

105,000 restaurant and food service jobs were lost. Were those jobs only in hurricane ravaged states?

MTAtech said:

105,000 restaurant and food service jobs were lost. Were those jobs only in hurricane ravaged states?

Click to expand...

i don't know. were they?

are you arguing that one data point is a trend?

MTAtech said:

105,000 restaurant and food service jobs were lost. Were those jobs only in hurricane ravaged states?

Click to expand...

Can't you read??? Check post #38. You will see that the number does not reflect people who LOST their job, just they did not receive a PAYCHECK when the survey was taken.

It seems these jobs were lost might be due to the fact that people can no longer afford to eat out.

washunut said:

Can't you read??? Check post #38. You will see that the number does not reflect people who LOST their job, just they did not receive a PAYCHECK when the survey was taken.

Click to expand...

I can read but perhaps you can't understand what I was writing. Those that did not receive a paycheck are not included in the 33,000 number. They were considered employed. This is from the BLS:

Who is counted as employed?
People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Individuals also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not, because they were:

On vacation

Ill

Experiencing child care problems

On maternity or paternity leave

Taking care of some other family or personal obligation

Involved in a labor dispute

Prevented from working by bad weather

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

The hurricanes were blamed but that doesn't explain why the estimate of 80,000 wasn't met. ADP estimated +132,000 yesterday.

The last time jobs were negative was in September 2010, after the Great Recession.

Click to expand...

It will probably be adjusted up. Wages were higher, participation was higher and the unemployment rates were down. A fair amount of estimating and modeling go in to the figures. We will see if it bounces back next month.