You don't get what I'm saying at all, do you? I understand that job losses and gains are more about the individual companies doing what is best for themselves, and that any policies that encourage or discourage job growth take time to implement, and even longer to show any effect whatsoever.
The orange clown has claimed credit for every job he hears about even though he hasn't been in office long enough for anything he has done to make a bit of difference. Taking the president's lead in this matter, I have to give him responsibility for every single job loss. If the sweet little old lady at the flower shop retires, I am bound by his precedent to blame him.
Trump negotiated with several companies to keep jobs in the US or to bring jobs here. Why should he not be credited for those? Ending over regulations so companies can keep jobs or expand, why should he not get credit for those.
A flower shop does not have reason to get Trump to negotiate for someone that is able and wanting to retire or to make the shop keep her on instead of hiring someone that needs a job when she leaves.
If a company gives workers a good enough incentive for them to retire early or accept a job loss, how is that a bad thing for jobs, the company, the economy or to be blamed on Trump?
Maybe they get company stocks or a training program for a different type of work. The workers agreed to the offer from Caterpillar. What is you beef if they are happy? Worker were not just let go, they voted and agreed to the severance. Most of the jobs are being moved to another plant within the same state.