The jobs report showed 904,000 full-time jobs added last month, a record this century and top 3 or 5
figure of the last century, as more Americans move from part-time to full-time work. "A broad measure of unemployment and underemployment that includes Americans stuck in part-time jobs or too discouraged to look for work fell to 7.6% from 7.8% the prior month." Non-supervisor rages rose faster than at any time since 2009. Construction, utilities and retail jobs saw about 3% wage growth. The gap between black unemployment and white unemployment hit a record low. We reached the lowest black unemployment ever. The median duration of unemployment fell to 9.2 weeks in May from 9.8 weeks in April. The Atlanta Fed is projecting Q2 GDP growth of 4.7%.
I remember some you saying that you would credit the Trump Admin if it deserved it. But all I saw on the Board today was the typical whining, whinging, and bitching that so many of you have perfected into an art form.
Replies to: The jobs report showed 904,000 full-time jobs added last month, a record this century and top 3 or 5
Which jobs report is that? The BLS number is 220k or something.
You have a pretty exact number. Where did it come from?
CNBC: "4) Full-time jobs rose an eye-popping 904,000 for the month, while part-time positions
declined by 625,000."
Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-5-most-important-numbers-from-fridays-jobs-report.html
Fair enough. Odd that they do not cite a source for that.
Can you find anything the Establishment Survey or the Household Survey that indicates that 908k full-time jobs were created, and 600+ part time jobs were eliminated?
Who said it was a record for this century? (I didn't watch the Cramer video)
This is the household survey below. Nothing here could possibly add up to the loss of 600k part-time jobs, or the gain of 900 fulltime jobs.
Link: Household survey
I'm no expert (you just said "d'uh"), but I think the concept is that people are moving from
part-time to full-time work. It's not that 904,000 f/t jobs were created that didn't exist before, but the elimination of p/t work is driving f/t employment. Hence the large number.
I saw it on other outlets too. I'm sure CNBC isn't reporting it out of thin air.
I understand. The actual number of part-time jobs lost is in that report.
It's not 600K, It's about half of that.
It's just odd that we've always used the same numbers from this report (and they are good), but now out of the blue we get quoted a number that is not in these reports (at least I still can't find it), and is not something we talked about any of the last 18 months.
Most of all, who said it was a record? Did Cramer say that? I don't I saw that in the article.
You should welcome this new detail, Lehigh. It's not just about quantity, it's also about quality
(no message)
I absolutely welcome the new detail.
That's why I am trying to get to the source so I can learn more about it. As I posted below, according to this detail, we lost full-time jobs and gained part-time jobs just two months prior. That indicates to me that it is just a volatile number, and the reason we never hear about it.
I doubt zerohedge reported the March raw numbers
Here is the Establishment Survey
Nothing here either to support that claim.
Link: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm
Wrong survey. Household survey:
Yeah, I posted the Household Survey above.
Thanks for posting an image of that chart though. Very interesting. I'd love to go through that chart, but I can't seem to find the original. (The BLS site is notoriously tough to navigate). I enjoy analyzing those numbers, and that one seems interesting.
So why the difference between your graph, and the one released that I linked above? Maybe it's the "seasonally adjusted" business.
The numbers in the graph you posted are very volatile, and probably don't provide much information on their own. For example, looking at your graph, we were losing full-time jobs and gaining part-time jobs just two months earlier. That indicates to me that the fluctuations are such that they don't bother. with the data in the graph you posted.
For example, we could have looked at the graph you posted in March of this year and bemoaned the migration of workers from full-time to part time. But no one did that.
“We remain in a virtuous circle”
Indeed.
Here is an amazing quote from the NYTimes: "“The real question in analyzing the May jobs numbers
released Friday is whether there are enough synonyms for ‘good’ in an online thesaurus to describe them adequately.”
Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/nyt-ran-words-describe-good-jobs-numbers/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wh
Here is another great quote:
"[T]he thing to take away from the May numbers is that the United States economy just keeps humming along at a steady pace, putting more people to work and at gradually higher wages."
Since 2009
Winning > Whining.
(no message)
Small Business owners credit Trump. That's what matters. That's where most jobs come from.
Posted at 12:48 pm on Jun 1, 2018
(no message)
This is all good news.
Since you think that the White House controls the economy, I look forward to your blaming Trump when the business cycle turns the other way.
I am sure you think your guy transcends that cycle. At some point you'll find out you are wrong.
But for now, most signs are good.
We don't think the White House controls the economy. It's White House that decontrols the economy
This "intervention" actually is the intervention on the intervention in the past, i.e. intervention in reverse. Trump's EO on reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs is a good example to understand the reverse. literally you can say it is government's intervention on economy too. But the net result of this EO action is less government control and letting business cycle operates more naturally. When we cheer White House for its economic achievement, we actually cheer for its decontrol on economy.
Define irony:
irony on what? Without government regulation, Coal would beat any other sources of energy since it's
the cheapest and most stable source of energy. Again what Trump is doing is decontrol on coal.
Holy crap. He's subsidizing. Taxpayer dollars to fund coal.
(no message)
Holy hell. He understands the market demand coal. You don't.
I think we both understand it. The market won't support it without subsidies.
Trump and I (and Lance etc.) all agree on that.
We just might differ on whether we should subsidize the industry.
All kinds of energy are subsidied. Renewable, oil/gas, nuclear, coal...This is a different subject.
Energy subsidies, like agricultural subsidies, are very common in most countries, China, EU, Russia... There is no true free marketer in energy industry. So, we can only relatively look for a fair game. Take year 2013 for example from wiki, federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:
1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
The largest subsidy went to renewable. For fossil fuel subsidy, usually 80% went to oil/gas, only 20% went to coal. Anyway, subsidy is not the issue in our topic since all energy get subsidies.
So the market cannot support coal, even with existing subsidies.
I get your point about subsidies on all energy. But how can you claim that I don't understand markets?
Basic market theory tells you that taxpayer subsidies result when the free market cannot sustain an industry. They are increasing the subsidies to coal. Are they increasing subsidies to other energy industries?
Talking out your ass.
(no message)
BS. The market has spoken on coal and it's dying.
This is regulation whose only goal is to prop up a dying industry. It's exactly the opposite of what you originally posted.
How would you make steel then?
(no message)
Import it from China.
(no message)
Export coal to China then so they can make steel.
(no message)
coal is dying? What world are you living in? You're so out of touch of real world.
(no message)
Two words: natural gas. Took coal out in the USA.
(no message)
1. Coal usage worldwide has increased not decreased. 2 China like u.s.coal more than its own coal
This is a big export business for u.s. to the second largest economy in the world.
In the US dummy. NG is much more profitable. Do you know anyone in the business?
This State and WVA are two of the largest coal producers in the nation and it’s been dying since before 2000.
China apparently won’t pay enough for it.
Worldwide coal is the king, growing faster than oil/NG/nuclear/renewables combined measured in BTU
consumed. Do you know in China, a new coal-fired electrical power plant was built on average 10 days in last 15-20 years? India is following now. The market of China + India is 8 times bigger than that of u.s.. If you don't want doing this business, fine. Don't stop others from doing coal business with them.
Really, then why is no one mining it here in that quantity. Psst.......it isn’t profitable.
(no message)
But not in terms of jobs.
Arby’s employs more people than the entire coal industry.
Good "rope a dope"
(no message)
I suppose only someone who thinks business cycles despite Pres policies could support Obama.
(no message)
I seem to recall you predicting economic Armageddon when Trump was elected
You seem to have believed that the WH controlled the economy back then.
What changed?
I thought the stock market would crash
I also thought it would be temporary. A few months.
I was dead wrong.
I have also been consistent in saying that presidents have a relatively minor affect on the overall economy. I don't blame Bush for the crash, nor do I credit Obama with the (slow) recovery, or credit Trump with what is happening now.
Economic numbers are not partisan.
Pres policies can absolutley impact the economy when they affect 1/6 of the entire econ (HCR) or...
...when they impact the entire economy beneficially (tax cuts). You are dead wrong here as well that the economy is independent of presidential policies.
Obama introduced such tramatic change as well as regulations with the constant threat of more that the entire economy was stunted from a recovery that it was trying to achieve. Trump simply took the anchor out of the hands of the man treading water.
Only if you equate the stock market with the economy.
And Chris has admitted he was (very) wrong on the stock market.