Trump Net New Jobs Sept SUCK

3.5% is the best since the 1960's
I like your spin on it though..

No spin. People are not percents, people are whole numbers: 1, 2, 3. The above is the NUMBER of net new jobs created.

The number of Net New Jobs, the number of people, does not show ANY material difference from Obama. The way Trump supports talk, you would think that we have the best economy ever, sorry the stats don't support that.

Percents are ratios. If the the numerator is not going up, what is happening to the denominator?

When you reach the current level of unemployment you literally have almost no one to add to the job market. Number of jobs being posted outnumber the available unemployed for over a year now. We are at effectively full employment right now, and that's not a political statement, but one that's been used to describe anything below 4.5% for several decades. Employers can't find people as it is, otherwise the numbers would be even higher. Our industry is stuck to robbing employees from other companies because finding applicants is getting harder and harder. That means offering them more money for the same job. The market is doing its job. The negative here isn't how many jobs are filled, but why aren't there enough qualified people to fill the jobs that are open.

I understand what you are saying but that does not square with the Republican's contention that during Obama, we were having a job less recovery. Trump's net new jobs are the same as Obama's.

Where I am seeing help wanted signs are in lower paying services----restaurants, retail.

My question is about the denominator. My hunch what is driving the unemployment rate down MAY be due to the fact that the Baby Boomers are hitting retirement and are therefore excluded from the BLS's calc of the denominator.

The Bush econ bust was mainly concentrated in 3 sectors of the econ AND it was mainly concentrated in the older age portion of those sectors. BLS tracks employment by sector but NOT by age. Example: 2008 someone who is 53 gets laid off, they go into the contract employment market for the next 10-13 years.

They are skilled but semi employed, drift into/out of unemployment status----this jacks up the unemployment percents. As they age out, the are no longer counted in the unemployment totals, thus the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE goes down.

The former Fed Chair, Janet Yellan was the only person I recall who actually talked up the point that the job loses from the Bush 2008 economic fiasco feel disproportionately on the older segment of the labor force.

With respect to those aging out of the employment market and artificially lowering the percent...those are counted as well. When someone drops out of the system, they are no longer counted in the Labor Participation Rate. This rate continuously dropped under Obama skewing the Employment %. While the rate was falling, his employment rate was falling, without the job numbers to back it up, giving Republicans the "jobless" recovery so often referred to. Under Trump, the Labor Participation Rate is going up, which means more people are being counted, the ones who aged out of unemployment coverage are entering back into the job market. So, not only are they finding jobs, but new jobs are exceeding the number of people available to fill them. When unemployment is going down, and the participation rate is going up you have a booming economy. There is a problem, as I mentioned above. The slow-down people are referring to is definitely coming, but it is because businesses are unable to grow due to lack of people to hire. We are about to plateau until this balances out. The economy can only grow to the extent that there are people to fill jobs here. If they aren't here, then what companies can, will search in other job markets for employees i.e., foreign countries. 3.5% is as low as it's been in almost a century. Given the labor participation rate being at altime highs means that everyone that wants to work is essentially working with the exception of 3.5% of people who are out for a variety of legitimate reasons, some simply because they just don't want to or don't have to. There are a lot of people able to work that don't because they are more comfortable on welfare. A family of four on full welfare benefits exceed 50,000 dollars a year, not an uncomfortable way to live in some areas of the country.

I was focused on the unemployment rate. You brought in the participation rate. Different metric.

When dealing with participation rate (PR), it is highly advisable to combine it with the employment rate (ER). Both metrics are from the BLS.

Ted Cruz made a lot of press with the participation rate but when asked further about it, he did not know what he was talking about. He really did the public a disservice by pushing the PR because it made Obama look bad. It was essential that he include the ER---but he left it off because it did not fit his political agenda.

Do you know why the PR lags the ER?

Different sub-topic. In your above graphic, the upper age range cuts off at 54. It is the age range 54-64 that sustained the disproportionate job losses stemming from the Bush 2008 economic fiasco. It is missing a critical age segment.

The graphic uses BLS data and refers to "authors notes". Where is the graphic from? Thanks

Pascalean: Where is your graphic from?

sub-topic "A family of four on full welfare benefits exceed 50,000 dollars a year"....reference source? What is the $50,000 composed of? Thanks

It has multiple government sources and the numbers vary according to individual needs and the states applied for---but to answer the more relevant question, this is made up of medicaid, housing allowances, food stamps, cash allowances, and utility bill payments. My Sister-in-law enjoyed a free house, free food, free energy, and a small cash stipend, not to mention the fact that her government "refund" was always about 6 or 7 grand. The day she tried to go back to work, they took it all.

Did the $50,000 number come from a government source or a middle of the road media source? Do you have a link to it? Thanks

Suggestion, when typing up a long text, hit return to break it into paragrphs, makes it easier to read/follow--thanks

again, the out of work people aka Unemployment is the biggest factor and its 3.5 %, lowest since LBJ admin. Period.

My local had a huge turnaround, we are one of the biggest electrician unions in the nation in one of the biggest cities. Period..

If the Democrats get off their asses and pass the new Nafta treaty the 3.5% will be even lower.
Period..

Your quote: "the out of work people aka Unemployment is the biggest factor and its 3.5 %"......WAIT: Are you saying the driving force of the unemployment rate is due to people collecting unemployment?

no " Unemployment " means no job
I think you are referring to " Unemployment compensation"

Its very simple, If you go to my Local , you will see its empty, everyone is at work.
we have never been this busy in our 120 yrs of existence .
This past 2 years have been the best 2 yr period ever..