Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
  • Football
    • 2024 Notre Dame Football Schedule
    • 2024 Notre Dame Roster
    • 2024 Notre Dame Coaching Staff
    • Injury News & Updates
    • Notre Dame Football Depth Charts
    • Notre Dame Point Spreads & Betting Odds
    • Notre Dame Transfers
    • NFL Fighting Irish
    • Game Archive
    • Player Archive
    • Past Seasons & Results
  • Recruiting
    • Commits
    • News & Rumors
    • Class of 2018 Commit List
    • Class of 2019 Commit List
    • Class of 2020 Commit List
    • Class of 2021 Commit List
    • Archives
  • History
    • Notre Dame Bowl History
    • Notre Dame NFL Draft History
    • Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
    • Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
    • Notre Dame Football National Championships
    • Notre Dame Football Rivalries
    • Notre Dame Stadium
    • Touchdown Jesus
  • Basketball
  • Forums
    • Chat Room
    • Football Forum
    • Open Forum
    • Basketball Board
    • Ticket Exchange
  • Videos
    • Notre Dame Basketball Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Recruiting Highlights
    • Notre Dame Player Highlights
    • Hype Videos
  • Latest News
  • Gear
  • About
    • Advertise With Us
    • Contact Us
    • Our RSS Feeds
    • Community Rules
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Home > Forums > The Open Forum
Login | Register
Upvote this post.
0
Downvote this post.

The jobs report showed 904,000 full-time jobs added last month, a record this century and top 3 or 5

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 12:23 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Replies to: The jobs report showed 904,000 full-time jobs added last month, a record this century and top 3 or 5


Thread Level: 2

Which jobs report is that? The BLS number is 220k or something.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:35 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

You have a pretty exact number. Where did it come from?

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 3

CNBC: "4) Full-time jobs rose an eye-popping 904,000 for the month, while part-time positions

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 1:38 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

declined by 625,000."

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-5-most-important-numbers-from-fridays-jobs-report.html

Thread Level: 4

Fair enough. Odd that they do not cite a source for that.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:56 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 5

I'm no expert (you just said "d'uh"), but I think the concept is that people are moving from

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:01 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


Thread Level: 6

I understand. The actual number of part-time jobs lost is in that report.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:06 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


Are you kind?
Thread Level: 7

You should welcome this new detail, Lehigh. It's not just about quantity, it's also about quality

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:24 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

I absolutely welcome the new detail.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:33 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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


Are you kind?
Thread Level: 5

Here is the Establishment Survey

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:00 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

Nothing here either to support that claim.

Link: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 6

Wrong survey. Household survey:

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:04 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-01/us-added-record-904000-full-time-jobs-last-month

Thread Level: 7

Yeah, I posted the Household Survey above.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:20 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 4

“We remain in a virtuous circle”

Author: CC72 (16793 Posts - Joined: Sep 5, 2010)

Posted at 1:54 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

Indeed.

Thread Level: 5

Here is an amazing quote from the NYTimes: "“The real question in analyzing the May jobs numbers

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 1:58 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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

Thread Level: 6

Here is another great quote:

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:02 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

"[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


Are you kind?
Thread Level: 2

Winning > Whining.

Author: ImWearingJeanShorts (4832 Posts - Joined: Jul 15, 2008)

Posted at 1:16 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
Thread Level: 2

Small Business owners credit Trump. That's what matters. That's where most jobs come from.

Author: (unknown user)(User Info Not Available)

Posted at 12:48 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

This is all good news.

Author: Chris94 (36784 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:31 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


Thread Level: 3

We don't think the White House controls the economy. It's White House that decontrols the economy

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:55 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 4

Define irony:

Author: LanceHarbor (14266 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:04 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-orders-perry-to-stem-coal-nuclear-power-plant-closures-jhw8smiv?__twitter_impression=true

Thread Level: 5

irony on what? Without government regulation, Coal would beat any other sources of energy since it's

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:13 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

the cheapest and most stable source of energy. Again what Trump is doing is decontrol on coal.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 6

Holy crap. He's subsidizing. Taxpayer dollars to fund coal.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:49 am on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 7

Holy hell. He understands the market demand coal. You don't.

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:56 am on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-29/china-is-said-to-consider-more-u-s-coal-imports-to-cut-deficit-jhrf6jaz

Thread Level: 8

I think we both understand it. The market won't support it without subsidies.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:49 pm on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

Trump and I (and Lance etc.) all agree on that.

We just might differ on whether we should subsidize the industry.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 9

All kinds of energy are subsidied. Renewable, oil/gas, nuclear, coal...This is a different subject.

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:57 am on Jun 3, 2018
View Single

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.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 10

So the market cannot support coal, even with existing subsidies.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:10 am on Jun 3, 2018
View Single

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?


Are you kind?
Thread Level: 6

Talking out your ass.

Author: Frank L (64748 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 5:19 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 6

BS. The market has spoken on coal and it's dying.

Author: LanceHarbor (14266 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:16 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

This is regulation whose only goal is to prop up a dying industry. It's exactly the opposite of what you originally posted.

Thread Level: 7

How would you make steel then?

Author: Cole (16200 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:52 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

Import it from China.

Author: LehighND (7534 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:43 am on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Are you kind?
Thread Level: 9

Export coal to China then so they can make steel.

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:13 pm on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

coal is dying? What world are you living in? You're so out of touch of real world.

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:20 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

Two words: natural gas. Took coal out in the USA.

Author: Frank L (64748 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 2:44 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 9

1. Coal usage worldwide has increased not decreased. 2 China like u.s.coal more than its own coal

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:05 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

This is a big export business for u.s. to the second largest economy in the world.

Thread Level: 10

In the US dummy. NG is much more profitable. Do you know anyone in the business?

Author: Frank L (64748 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 5:18 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


Thread Level: 11

Worldwide coal is the king, growing faster than oil/NG/nuclear/renewables combined measured in BTU

Author: Eli (9555 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:37 am on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

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.

Thread Level: 12

Really, then why is no one mining it here in that quantity. Psst.......it isn’t profitable.

Author: Frank L (64748 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:34 pm on Jun 2, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 10

But not in terms of jobs.

Author: LanceHarbor (14266 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:14 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

Arby’s employs more people than the entire coal industry.

Thread Level: 3

Good "rope a dope"

Author: ColeyO (12511 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:02 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

I suppose only someone who thinks business cycles despite Pres policies could support Obama.

Author: BaronVonZemo (60103 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 1:39 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

I seem to recall you predicting economic Armageddon when Trump was elected

Author: BaronVonZemo (60103 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 12:53 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

You seem to have believed that the WH controlled the economy back then.

What changed?


Thread Level: 4

I thought the stock market would crash

Author: Chris94 (36784 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:51 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

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.


Thread Level: 5

Pres policies can absolutley impact the economy when they affect 1/6 of the entire econ (HCR) or...

Author: BaronVonZemo (60103 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 3:21 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

...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.


Thread Level: 4

Only if you equate the stock market with the economy.

Author: LanceHarbor (14266 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:00 pm on Jun 1, 2018
View Single

And Chris has admitted he was (very) wrong on the stock market.

Close
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS