Brady Bunch wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/us-nonfarm-payrolls-may-2016.html

Not a very good jobs report for the month of May.  Sure unemployment fell from 5 to 4.7%, but that was because people quit looking for work.

This is why people like Trump and Sanders are doing so well

 

And what, specifically, are Trump and Sanders going to do about jobs?

Brady Bunch wrote:

I think both Trump and Sanders policies would be bad for jobs and the economy.

My point was, the reason they are doing so well is the economy (jobs and wages) is not doing well.  And both of them have based their campaigns on telling the public who is to blame for it.  If the economy had recovered like it normally does from recessions/depressions, Trump and Sanders would not have been successful candidates.

The economy HAS recovered. Jobs (specifically good paying, permanent jobs) have not. People waiting for their OLD jobs are going to have a very long wait in most cases. The manufacturing that IS returning is a leaner headcount and more dependent on robotics and advanced machinery that require in many cases a different skill set. Now there COULD be some good paying older time jobs created IF we decided to really attack our failing infrastructure. 

The US economy has added approx. 6 Million private sector jobs since the recession of 2008 and we are now back almost to where we were. The issue, however, is that the bulk of the jobs are lesser in terms of advancement and pay than what were lost. 

It would be interesting to hear SPECIFICS by the candidates how they hope to solve the above issue. Even the presumptive GOP nominee has many of his branded products made overseas, a point that he side steps in his whole "making America Great again" bluster. 

 

Brady Bunch wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

I think both Trump and Sanders policies would be bad for jobs and the economy.

My point was, the reason they are doing so well is the economy (jobs and wages) is not doing well.  And both of them have based their campaigns on telling the public who is to blame for it.  If the economy had recovered like it normally does from recessions/depressions, Trump and Sanders would not have been successful candidates.

The economy HAS recovered. 

 

Please re-read what I wrote.  I didn't say the economy didn't recover, I said it didn't recover like it normally does after a recession/depression.  There is a difference between what I said and what you inferred I said.

By most standards, the recovery was weaker and slower than it normally is from a depression/recession.

I am curious what standards you think are or should be used to measure economic recovery. 

 

Last edited by tennyson (6/03/2016 8:06 pm)

Kind of the point I was trying to make. A lot economists have called this a jobless recovery or jobless growth which
is an economic phenomenon in which a macro economy experiences growth while maintaining or decreasing its
level of employment. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in 1935.

Some measure recessions in terms of GDP. Here is an interesting historical record of inflation adjusted GDP by year.

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

Here is a good historical reference to recessions in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States


BTW, to answer your question, I would call a good economic recovery is one where we had good GDP growth, employment growth, and excellent average wage growth.

Last edited by tennyson (6/03/2016 8:41 pm)

Brady Bunch wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/us-nonfarm-payrolls-may-2016.html

Not a very good jobs report for the month of May.  Sure unemployment fell from 5 to 4.7%, but that was because people quit looking for work.

This is why people like Trump and Sanders are doing so well

 

I was out running errands this morning listening to a cable news channel on Sat radio (it doesn't matter which one).
The talking head states something about a weak jobs report and immediately introduces a guest to talk about,,,,,, "what this may mean for Hillary Clinton."

What this means for Hillary Clinton?
Not, what this may mean to my two daughters and a generation just completing their educations and looking to enter the job market.
Not what this might mean to older workers struggling after being displaced from jobs during the great recession.
Not how or if government can help turn this around.
Nope. Just How will this affect the next election.

We don't even try to understand our problems.
Why do we expect to solve them?
 

Last edited by Goose (6/04/2016 2:28 pm)