riflebear said:
Booray said:
Doc Holliday said:
The increase in job openings over Mr. Trump's first 21 months averaged an impressive 75000 a month. Over Mr. Obama's last 21 months in office- the number of job openings increased an average of 900 a month.
During Mr. Obama's last 21 months- the number of employed Americans increased an average of 157000 a month. Under Mr. Trump- the increase had accelerated to 214000 a month- a 36% improvement.
In Mr. Obama's final 21 months- weekly earnings rose an average of $1.31 a month. Under Mr. Trump- weekly earnings have increased an average of $1.84 cents a month: a 40% improvement that's come mostly since tax reform took effect in January.
Over Mr Trump's first 21 months- weekly earnings have grown an average of $2.31 a month- a 76% increase over Mr. Obama's last 21 months.
In the 28 months since Trump took office- the private sector had created almost 5.2 million new jobs. By contrast- in Obama's last 28 months in office- jobs in the private sector climbed only 3.2 million
Manufacturing jobs climbed 470000 in the 28 months since Trump took office. They went up by a meager 18000 in Obama's last 28 moths in office
Goods-producing jobs shot up by 1.2 million in Trump's first 28 months- compared with a paltry 241-000 gain for Obama's last 28 months.. Construction jobs climbed 629-000 under Trump- after a 352-000 gain under Obama in those same time spans. Over those same time frames: the number of unemployed dropped by 1.7 million under Trump- compared with a measly 327000 decline for Obama.
Annual GDP Growth under Barack Hussein Obama:
2009 2.5%
2010 + 2.6%
2011 +1.6%
2012 +2.2%
2013 +1.8%
2014 +2.5%
2015 +2.9%
2016 +1.6%
Avg: 1.59%
Obama averaged 1.59% GDP growth over an 8 year term. I don't call that growth- I call that stagnation. Without $5 Trillion of Quantitative easing- and 8 years of zero interest rates- courtesy of the Fed- we would have probably been in and out of recession his entire term.
LINK
Try being intellectually honest once in your life. That Obama average includes a negative growth rate of 2.5% in 2009. The linked article clearly marks that fact by putting a minus sign in front of the 2.5% for the first year.
"Somehow" the minus got left off your cut and paste. My guess is that absence occurred because the cut and paster realized that the actual negative number would highlight that the average growth in GDP under Obama was materially effected by the fact that he took over in the middle of a deep recession. Take 2009 out and the average GDP growth rate under Obama was 2.2%.
Trump took over in middle of a long mild recovery, goosed that recovery through tax cuts that have again exploded the deficit and is now seeing the recovery return to the level he inherited. Obama took over in the midst of a disaster and executed a classic Keynesian response to that disaster.
I agree the 1st year should be averaged out. But you conveniently ignore all the other statistics they provided over the past 1 1/2 yrs under Obama where most everything was trending downward or staying stagnant.
I am curious - what specifically did Obama do to boost the economy back in 2010/2011? You could have put bugs bunny in office and the economy would have skyrocketed because it was literally in the negative and in the gutter. It had no where to go but up. There are countless liberals and fair economists that have written many articles that this economy is the best it's been in decades directly from many things Trump & his administration has done. Not just tax cuts. Deregulation - repatriating funds, etc
I could take apart the whole article. It is an obvious cherry picking of statistics. We use 21 months in some instances, 28 months in others. Sometimes we compare the end of Obama's term to the start of Trump's term, other times we compare the start of Obama's term to the start of Trump's term. The sample sizes are disproportionate. Obama's dealt with divided government for 6 years, Trump as dealt with divided government for a year.
Wage growth is obviously going to be suppressed when there is a larger supply of unemployed. So it is illogical to compare the wage growth under two presidents who took over under such remarkably different economic circumstances.
The claim of tremendous manufacturing growth is built on one year (FY '18). Neither FY 17 nor FY 19 saw anything remotely comparable. If it is not sustainable, Trump has a huge advantage including one good year in 3 rather than 1 good year in 4 or 8.
Finally, the article ignores key factors outside employment. Reduced taxes and regulation has been Trump's recipe. Undoubtedly those have been key factors in the employment picture. They have also been key factors in exploding the deficit, reducing the amount of Americans who have medical insurance and making it more difficult to assess and combat climate change.
As I said in my original post, Obama executed a classic Keynesian response to the recession through government spending and urging easy money. He did so over howls for austerity that many other countries listened to. Had Obama done what the Republicans wanted: (reduce taxes and spending), we would have an even bigger debt and the recession would have been much deeper and prolonged, possibly a depression.
I am not completely anti-Trump in this analysis. It is difficult to sustain a recovery as long as this one has been. I have no doubt we were over regulated and elements of the corporate tax structure were ludicrous. Limited immigration has to have an effect on labor supply. All I am saying is that a balanced, intellectually consistent analysis reveals strengths and weaknesses in each man's program. On the whole, I think most of what Trump is doing is counter productive long-term and his short term gains, while very real, are overstated.
