So How Many Times Were There More Jobs Than People During The Obama Years?

[edthecynic]

The formula for determining the UE has not changed under Trump just as it did not change under Obama.

wrong, it was changed under Obama, as I said, I don't know if they fixed it, probably not since it has become a political football.

LIAR! The last time the unemployment calculation was changed was 1994.

 

[Timmy]

i can still remember how many people were applying for unemployment during the obama 8 year recession! Millions and Millions !!!

I still remember how Trump called the unemployment numbers “lies” when he was running . Now suddenly they are the truth ?

Explain that one !

 

[ph3iron]

i wonder how many jobs Obama would of created if he never borrowed any money

You have his tax returns?

 

[ph3iron]

Poll: Majority of Americans say their financial situation hasn’t improved since Trump election

The labor market is booming, why aren't your wages?

On Oct. 16, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced yet another piece of good news: the number of job openings has risen to more than 7.1 million, continuing a particularly rapid pace of expansion starting at the beginning of 2018.

However a critical measure of economic progress, wage growth, is telling a different story. Before adjusting for inflation, wage growth has been consistently low but positive during this business cycle.

Yet, as inflation has crept up in the last two years, real wage growth — pay increases after adjusting for inflation — has drifted toward zero. Although the annual rate of real wage growth was 1.4 percent in 2015-16, it has been just 0.4 percent in 2017-18.

This weak wage growth has occurred while labor markets strengthened in a variety of other ways. Nine years ago, the United States exited its last recession — the most severe in post-war history — as GDP resumed growth.

Then, in April 2010, the U.S. began an unprecedented run of job creationthat continues through the present day. The unemployment rate has since fallen to 3.7 percent in September 2018 from a peak of 10.0 percent.

More recently, other economic indicators have begun to show strength as well:

• The labor force participation rate of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) — which had been falling — has risen for the last three years;
• this summer, the rate of people working part-time who have been unable to find full-time work fell to its pre-recession level; and
• record numbers of Americans have a positive assessment of the nation’s economy.

This raises the question: If the labor market is showing signs of strength and Americans are feeling confident in our economy, why is wage growth so slow that there is nearly zero growth in wages after adjusting for inflation? In response, we have identified four plausible explanations which, in some instances, may potentially overlap.

Labor markets may be weaker than they appear. The prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is still more than 2 percentage points below its 1999 peak. Some of those out of the labor force may be available for employment, thereby helping hold down wage growth.

The share of prime-age workers that are employed has been a better predictor of wage growth than the unemployment rate recently.

On the other hand, whether this relationship is durable is less clear, and a large portion of nonparticipants are unable to work due to health conditions or caregiving responsibilities, and may not be available for employment.

Increasing employer concentration, and in some cases collusion between employers, has likely put downward pressure on wages by limiting worker bargaining power. Firms may be unwilling to raise wages to attract new workers, as this would require them to pay their current employees more.

However, it may also be that firms simply have not yet adapted to the tighter labor market of recent years and are only slowly raising wages.

Changes in labor market institutions have similarly reduced worker bargaining power, making it more difficult for them to benefit from a strong labor market. Limited collective bargaining and widespread use of no-poaching and non-compete agreements have diminished workers’ leverage in wage negotiations.

But just how much of recent wage growth slowdown (as opposed to longer-term trends) this explains is unclear.

The growth in productivity for workers and businesses has been low on average since the start of the recession. Lower productivity growth tends to hold back wage growth. Business and labor market dynamism have weakened, leading to an economy with mutually reinforcing low productivity growth and low wage growth.

Without fast-growing business startups and an abundance of upwardly mobile job-switchers, technological progress diffuses across the economy at a slower rate. This also means that fewer new firms are paying high wages to hire away workers from their current positions.

In some ways, the strong jobs and hours growth may help explain optimism despite low wage growth. Real median household income has continued to rise as more people are working more hours. This puts money in their pockets and likely boosts confidence even if workers are not earning more per hour.

As recent data indicate, a low unemployment rate does not mean the labor market is in perfect condition, and each of the explanations discussed above merit policy attention. Policymakers should supportmarket competition so that productivity growth translates into wage growth.

In addition, U.S. labor market institutions from the minimum wage to non-compete contracts should be structured to support workers. There are also many other steps one could take to boost productivity (ranging from education and training to research and development policy) that should help lift wages.

Finally, it will also be important to keep economic growth going to maintain labor market demand so that both employment — and eventually wages — continue to increase.

So educate me.
How does this explain trump created fewer jobs than Obama in their last 2 years

 

[ph3iron]

Poll: Majority of Americans say their financial situation hasn’t improved since Trump election

The labor market is booming, why aren't your wages?

On Oct. 16, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced yet another piece of good news: the number of job openings has risen to more than 7.1 million, continuing a particularly rapid pace of expansion starting at the beginning of 2018.

However a critical measure of economic progress, wage growth, is telling a different story. Before adjusting for inflation, wage growth has been consistently low but positive during this business cycle.

Yet, as inflation has crept up in the last two years, real wage growth — pay increases after adjusting for inflation — has drifted toward zero. Although the annual rate of real wage growth was 1.4 percent in 2015-16, it has been just 0.4 percent in 2017-18.

This weak wage growth has occurred while labor markets strengthened in a variety of other ways. Nine years ago, the United States exited its last recession — the most severe in post-war history — as GDP resumed growth.

Then, in April 2010, the U.S. began an unprecedented run of job creationthat continues through the present day. The unemployment rate has since fallen to 3.7 percent in September 2018 from a peak of 10.0 percent.

More recently, other economic indicators have begun to show strength as well:

• The labor force participation rate of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) — which had been falling — has risen for the last three years;
• this summer, the rate of people working part-time who have been unable to find full-time work fell to its pre-recession level; and
• record numbers of Americans have a positive assessment of the nation’s economy.

This raises the question: If the labor market is showing signs of strength and Americans are feeling confident in our economy, why is wage growth so slow that there is nearly zero growth in wages after adjusting for inflation? In response, we have identified four plausible explanations which, in some instances, may potentially overlap.

Labor markets may be weaker than they appear. The prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is still more than 2 percentage points below its 1999 peak. Some of those out of the labor force may be available for employment, thereby helping hold down wage growth.

The share of prime-age workers that are employed has been a better predictor of wage growth than the unemployment rate recently.

On the other hand, whether this relationship is durable is less clear, and a large portion of nonparticipants are unable to work due to health conditions or caregiving responsibilities, and may not be available for employment.

Increasing employer concentration, and in some cases collusion between employers, has likely put downward pressure on wages by limiting worker bargaining power. Firms may be unwilling to raise wages to attract new workers, as this would require them to pay their current employees more.

However, it may also be that firms simply have not yet adapted to the tighter labor market of recent years and are only slowly raising wages.

Changes in labor market institutions have similarly reduced worker bargaining power, making it more difficult for them to benefit from a strong labor market. Limited collective bargaining and widespread use of no-poaching and non-compete agreements have diminished workers’ leverage in wage negotiations.

But just how much of recent wage growth slowdown (as opposed to longer-term trends) this explains is unclear.

The growth in productivity for workers and businesses has been low on average since the start of the recession. Lower productivity growth tends to hold back wage growth. Business and labor market dynamism have weakened, leading to an economy with mutually reinforcing low productivity growth and low wage growth.

Without fast-growing business startups and an abundance of upwardly mobile job-switchers, technological progress diffuses across the economy at a slower rate. This also means that fewer new firms are paying high wages to hire away workers from their current positions.

In some ways, the strong jobs and hours growth may help explain optimism despite low wage growth. Real median household income has continued to rise as more people are working more hours. This puts money in their pockets and likely boosts confidence even if workers are not earning more per hour.

As recent data indicate, a low unemployment rate does not mean the labor market is in perfect condition, and each of the explanations discussed above merit policy attention. Policymakers should supportmarket competition so that productivity growth translates into wage growth.

In addition, U.S. labor market institutions from the minimum wage to non-compete contracts should be structured to support workers. There are also many other steps one could take to boost productivity (ranging from education and training to research and development policy) that should help lift wages.

Finally, it will also be important to keep economic growth going to maintain labor market demand so that both employment — and eventually wages — continue to increase.

So educate me.
How does this explain trump created fewer jobs than Obama in their last 2 years

Ps, where did you cut and paste from?
Why am I thinking of the French philosopher who finished a letter
"Apologies, I didn't have time to make it shorter"?

 

[pinqy]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

 

[Faun]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

LOLOL

Lying con …. you were corrected on this years ago. Doesn't slow you down from repeating this bullshit of yours, nor will it in the future.

Sarah Palin being considered for Secretary of Veterans Affairs

 

[ph3iron]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

So what was the big untruth?
I'm still trying to understand why trumps jobs were lower then obamas

 

[ph3iron]

i wonder how many jobs Obama would of created if he never borrowed any money

You have his tax returns?

Oh, that's the reason?
Obama borrowed more than the trillion $ deficit trump?

 

[pinqy]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

So what was the big untruth?

The claim that Obama (or any other President) changed the definition of calculation in a deceptive manner.

I'm still trying to understand why trumps jobs were lower then obamas

Mostly because there were fewer and fewer people who wanted/needed work.

 

[ph3iron]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

So what was the big untruth?

The claim that Obama (or any other President) changed the definition of calculation in a deceptive manner.

I'm still trying to understand why trumps jobs were lower then obamas

Mostly because there were fewer and fewer people who wanted/needed work.

Well, at least that's an explanation. Thanks.
We never hear why the con created fewer jobs.
Just that the rate (which continues on Obamas spiral) is low

 

[ph3iron]

i can still remember how many people were applying for unemployment during the obama 8 year recession! Millions and Millions !!!

What's that got to do with the con creating fewer jobs than Obama?

 

[ph3iron]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

Don't remember we were losing 750000 jobs / month and ATM s were threatening to close?

 

[Redfish]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

because people lie, especially politicians and civil servants.

 

[ph3iron]

i remember the day when Obama crashed the DOW to about 6600. great job !!!

 

[ph3iron]

I guessed he crashed it to lose 750000 jobs a month.
Nothing to do with codpiece George ?

 

[bendog]

don't like all of Obamacare - maybe most of it - but the dems managed to pass a tax on corporate owners and provided HC to 12 million with no inflationary effect and the gop has two years and we have a return of the Phillips Curve, that some of us thought extinct, and the Fed will raise rates repeatedly in 19.

 

[pinqy]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

If it’s correct?
How could it possibly not be correct?

because people lie, especially politicians and civil servants.

Of course people lie...but in this case a lie would mean a conspiracy of thousands of people across multiple agencies maintains the same lie for 70 years without one whistleblower and, more importantly, absolutely nothing to be gained by this lie and no reason to lie.

And yet, somehow, you think that that’s a reasonable proposition.

And if I were to ask how you thought this would be possible, you wouldn’t even try to account for the issues. My guess is that you would present an example of some established government lie that has no relationship to whether or not BLS includes people not trying to work as umemployed or ever has

 

[Marion Morrison]

Zero. Obama is a traitor and should hang or be exiled.

 

[pinqy]

Zero. Obama is a traitor and should hang or be exiled.

United States Constitution, Article III Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Are you claiming that Obama took up arms against the U.S, that he joined or personally assisted North Korea, the Taliban, ISIS, or some other terrorist group? (A personal opinion that a Constitutional and otherwise legal policy decision gave aid or comfort does not count)

And exile has never been a legal tool in the U.S. one can renounce one’s citizenship, but the government cannot take it away.