Trump's admin has a problem - unemployment is too damn low.

[kaz]

You don't look at any one measure, you look at a variety of them to get a fuller picture

Indeed.

Number of families deemed to be in poverty: amongst the all time high.
Number of people on one form of government assistance or another: all time high.
Number of people out of the labor force: highest since the Carter regime.

But unemployment is low.

Yup, fake news.

Population is at an all time high

Lol yea, adjustment for population is needed by using ratios not nominal numbers.

Labor force is currently the biggest it ever was also.

Right, which is why you use RATE

 

[AntonToo]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

AnCap'n_Murica, post: 16393656

MediMatters = Soros/DNC/Clintons

Fake news.

Media Matters does not calculate the unemployment rate.

So is it your belief that Obama inherited 10 percent unemployment rate from Bush and drove it to 42% during seven straight years of positive job growth?

Is that your point?

 

[kaz]

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

 

[AntonToo]

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

 

[kaz]

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

You have to look at all of them to get a full picture. GDP, UE, LFPR, teenage employment, welfare stats, consumer spending, consumer confidence, under employment, discouraged workers, corporate profits, balance of trade, stock market growth, housing prices, interest rates, etc.

All of them and more are a piece of the picture.

In your case, you focused on "jobs." UE is low, sure. But labor participation, underemployment, discouraged workers, teen unemployment and other indicators are very bad.

Will Trump solve it? Dunno. Obama only continued to make it worse because of his anti-employment policies

 

[AntonToo]

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

You have to look at all of them to get a full picture. GDP, UE, LFPR, teenage employment, welfare stats, consumer spending, consumer confidence, under employment, discouraged workers, corporate profits, balance of trade, stock market growth, housing prices, interest rates, etc.

All of them and more are a piece of the picture.

In your case, you focused on "jobs." UE is low, sure. But labor participation, underemployment, discouraged workers, teen unemployment and other indicators are very bad.

Will Trump solve it? Dunno. Obama only continued to make it worse because of his anti-employment policies

Teenage unemployment is very bad? Really?

They are spending more time in school (as they should, something I would think you'd agree with) and therefore lower participation rate.

Discouraged workers are part of U6 measure:

Today there are 426,000 such people, pretty much what it was at the height of real estate bubble.

 

[kaz]

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

You have to look at all of them to get a full picture. GDP, UE, LFPR, teenage employment, welfare stats, consumer spending, consumer confidence, under employment, discouraged workers, corporate profits, balance of trade, stock market growth, housing prices, interest rates, etc.

All of them and more are a piece of the picture.

In your case, you focused on "jobs." UE is low, sure. But labor participation, underemployment, discouraged workers, teen unemployment and other indicators are very bad.

Will Trump solve it? Dunno. Obama only continued to make it worse because of his anti-employment policies

Teenage unemployment is very bad? Really?

They are spending more time in school (as they should, something I would think you'd agree with) and therefore lower participation rate.

Discouraged workers are part of U6 measure:

Today there are 426,000 such people, pretty much what it was at the height of real estate bubble.

So you think that 50% inner city unemployment is because those kids are in school instead of working? Yeah ... Actually you fuck them with the minimum wage, and you're trying to make that worse. Who needs a job more than an inner city kid? And your stone cold heard denies them that over your socialist ideological purity

I said those are factors. What you are not counting and is captured by none of those stats but is captured by the LFPR are the ones who have given up completely and left the labor force entirely.

As I keep saying, you have to look at ALL of those. What about that do you not grasp? If I bring up any stat, you argue it as if it's the silver bullet stat you keep looking for and I keep saying doesn't exist

 

[SmokeALib]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

Oh well. You leftist traitors lost. Deal with it. Get yourself a job.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

It's not about the numbers so much as its about the quality & substance of the jobs that drive those numbers.

If America sees a substantial uptick in their wallets as a result of the Gop, y'all are fucked

 

[AntonToo]

No that is not my argument, at all.

The argument is that LFPR growth before 2000 didn't mean good economy and it's flat lining or decline after 2000 doesn't necessarily mean bad economy.

BUT, if this demographically speaking loser metric is how you want to measure Trump's success I certainly will not stand in your way.

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

You have to look at all of them to get a full picture. GDP, UE, LFPR, teenage employment, welfare stats, consumer spending, consumer confidence, under employment, discouraged workers, corporate profits, balance of trade, stock market growth, housing prices, interest rates, etc.

All of them and more are a piece of the picture.

In your case, you focused on "jobs." UE is low, sure. But labor participation, underemployment, discouraged workers, teen unemployment and other indicators are very bad.

Will Trump solve it? Dunno. Obama only continued to make it worse because of his anti-employment policies

Teenage unemployment is very bad? Really?

They are spending more time in school (as they should, something I would think you'd agree with) and therefore lower participation rate.

Discouraged workers are part of U6 measure:

Today there are 426,000 such people, pretty much what it was at the height of real estate bubble.

So you think that 50% inner city unemployment is because those kids are in school instead of working?

....Those that are in school, by definition, are not unemployed. Unemployed are those that are looking for a job.

Is there data you base your " 50%" assertion on or do you again simply pull these numbers out of your behind?

Teenagers should be in school, getting their secondary and higher/professional education, not working.

 

[AntonToo]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

It's not about the numbers so much as its about the quality & substance of the jobs that drive those numbers.

If America sees a substantial uptick in their wallets as a result of the Gop, y'all are fucked

America has seen a 5% increase in their wallets in 2015, which brought it back up to pre-recession level in real terms. I didn't see you credit Obama. But yes, if during Trump's stay in office another uptick like that happens we will finally see a real growth in income after 2 decades of no growth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

It's not about the numbers so much as its about the quality & substance of the jobs that drive those numbers.

If America sees a substantial uptick in their wallets as a result of the Gop, y'all are fucked

America has seen a 5% increase in their wallets in 2015, which brought it back up to pre-recession level in real terms. I didn't see you credit Obama.

Obama had the same power Trump has which is to say, not a lot outside of executive orders. This is why in my response to you I cited the GOP & not Trump.

 

[AntonToo]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

It's not about the numbers so much as its about the quality & substance of the jobs that drive those numbers.

If America sees a substantial uptick in their wallets as a result of the Gop, y'all are fucked

America has seen a 5% increase in their wallets in 2015, which brought it back up to pre-recession level in real terms. I didn't see you credit Obama.

Obama had the same power Trump has which is to say, not a lot outside of executive orders. This is why in my response to you I cited the GOP & not Trump.

That's not how it works. Congress pretty much can't pass anything President doesn't want to pass. Obama passed stimulus and extended most tax cuts expiring in 2012, he also had influence over monetary policy.

 

[kaz]

Ah, you're still looking for a silver bullet stat. I told you there isn't one, you have to look at everything together to get a better picture. LFPR is clearly correlated with a growing economy, but no, it by itself doesn't establish that. You're right in that non-point

What I'm looking for is a rational answer on how to measure economic success or failure, as acceptable to you.

You say a set of metrics? Ok no problem, can you list them please?

You have to look at all of them to get a full picture. GDP, UE, LFPR, teenage employment, welfare stats, consumer spending, consumer confidence, under employment, discouraged workers, corporate profits, balance of trade, stock market growth, housing prices, interest rates, etc.

All of them and more are a piece of the picture.

In your case, you focused on "jobs." UE is low, sure. But labor participation, underemployment, discouraged workers, teen unemployment and other indicators are very bad.

Will Trump solve it? Dunno. Obama only continued to make it worse because of his anti-employment policies

Teenage unemployment is very bad? Really?

They are spending more time in school (as they should, something I would think you'd agree with) and therefore lower participation rate.

Discouraged workers are part of U6 measure:

Today there are 426,000 such people, pretty much what it was at the height of real estate bubble.

So you think that 50% inner city unemployment is because those kids are in school instead of working?

....Those that are in school, by definition, are not unemployed. Unemployed are those that are looking for a job.

Is there data you base your " 50%" assertion on or do you again simply pull these numbers out of your behind?

Teenagers should be in school, getting their secondary and higher/professional education, not working.

Nearly half of young black men in Chicago out of work, out of school: report

 

[Kosh]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

Oh look at the far left drones using far left hack sites for their "facts"..

Here is a little dose of reality!

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[CowboyTed]

MediMatters = Soros/Clintons

Fake news.

Idiot, are you actually denying that administration refuses to commit to any objective measures of unemployment?

You cannot just categorically say "I don't like this source" and think you won the argument. It is Trump grade stupidity and intellectual laziness ...and it looks like it is contagious.

Might explain why he has a shit job and blames Obama for it...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

It's not about the numbers so much as its about the quality & substance of the jobs that drive those numbers.

If America sees a substantial uptick in their wallets as a result of the Gop, y'all are fucked

America has seen a 5% increase in their wallets in 2015, which brought it back up to pre-recession level in real terms. I didn't see you credit Obama.

Obama had the same power Trump has which is to say, not a lot outside of executive orders. This is why in my response to you I cited the GOP & not Trump.

That's not how it works. Congress pretty much can't pass anything President doesn't want to pass. Obama passed stimulus and extended most tax cuts expiring in 2012, he also had influence over monetary policy.

Then you should be thanking the GOP congress that was in charge when the uptick took place. Consumer confidence rose when the gop stopped Obama dead in his tracks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Irrelevant. It's commonly recognized that there is significant underemployment out there, so Trump's challenge is to maximize workforce potential.

If that happens, we could see significant growth in the GDP, even if the UE doesn't decrease much or at all.

Will he do it? Who knows. But that's the challenge and the opportunity.
.

This.

The UE number in itself does not present an accurate picture of the problems the average American faces. I think that the average purchasing power of Americans is a far better measurement even though that does not paint a complete picture as well.

The purchasing power of the average American has not been going anywhere for a long time and that makes people feel like they are spinning their wheels. If Trump can get the economy going to improve that situation he will be set for 2020.

 

[Tom Horn]

MediMatters = Soros/Clintons

Fake news.

Idiot, are you actually denying that administration refuses to commit to any objective measures of unemployment?

You cannot just categorically say "I don't like this source" and think you won the argument. It is Trump grade stupidity and intellectual laziness ...and it looks like it is contagious.

94,000,000 Americans out of the workforce.....we have a population of around 330,000,000.....do the math.