Another fine jobs report
The U.S. jobs machine kept humming along in April, adding a robust 263,000 new hires while the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest in a generation, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Nonfarm payroll growth easily beat Wall Street expectations of 190,000 and a 3.8% jobless rate…
Unemployment was last this low in December 1969 when it hit 3.5%. At a time when many economists see a tight labor market, big job growth continues as the economic expansion is just a few months away from being the longest in history…
April’s big increase comes amid a mostly positive backdrop of economic data.
GDP increased 3.2% during the first quarter, far exceeding expectations, while productivity during the quarter jumped 3.6% for its best gain in five years. Pending home sales rose 3.8% in March, providing some hope in the real estate market so long as rates are held in check.
It must pain the MSM to have to report on this.
I also noticed some commentary by Warren Buffet, who said that no economics textbook would have predicted the present situation involving a combination of very low unemployment, inflation and interest rates not rising, plus the U.S. government spending more money than it takes in. He added this prediction:
I don’t think our present conditions can exist in terms of fiscal and monetary policy and various other elements across the political landscape,” he said. “I think it will change, I don’t know when, or to what degree. But I don’t think this can be done without leading to other things.”
Wow, talk about going out on a limb! Hold the presses: It will change! He doesn’t know when, or how, or to what degree. And it will lead to other things!
buffet is wrong..
buffet is in the pocket of the left
he dealt with obama, pipeline closed, bnsf rail was bought 100%, BH shares went from 100,000 PER SHARE, to 200,000 and tom steyer had more money for fighting
i have an article on krugman who wrote last night how horrible today would be
how bad, and permanent.. and more
https://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?/topic/73480-paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout-532019/&tab=comments#comment-790290
however… its easily predicted
but and this is a big but, they hid the numbers in various ways
even the not left did who are about administrative state, not about us
if unemployment was unemployment then the numbers and such woud have said that you hire those that are cheapest coming back into the force than you try to poach others!!!
its completely predictable.
but not if you dont believe in it
which is why, everything that the left predicts comes out wrong and they start their articles or insert.
the unexpected results…
Wow, talk about going out on a limb! Hold the presses: It will change! He doesn’t know when, or how, or to what degree. And it will lead to other things!
now try to convince those that believe the above is meaningful that it t’aint
Elect Democrats next year and they will put a stop to this nonsense. “Yo can’t drill your way out of this.” I understand that Obama in the new biography of his, claims credit for the Trump economy,.
No edit function.
“Warren Buffet, who said that no economics textbook would have predicted the present situation involving a combination of very low unemployment, inflation and interest rates not rising, plus the U.S. government spending more money than it takes in.”
In the Physics Department, in fact every science and engineering department, the instant reaction would be the textbooks are wrong. Since they are written by Krugelman and his buddies it’s not a surprise. You know, the Internet is a passing fad, Hugo Chavez is showing us the economy of the future, with the election of Trump the stock market will never recover, …
During the Obama years and since, Warren has demonstrated that virtue signaling is his defense against accusations of being a capitalist robber. What a pathetic little man he has proven to be.
Buffet has forgotten his roots. He accumulated a vast fortune by doing the hard work of analyzing balance sheets, waiting patiently, and holding when others were folding. At his age he is no doubt somewhat amazed that he has been so right over time. And there must be a bit of guilt. He may say: “I’m rich and the only thing that makes me happy is continuing to amass capital. It’s my one skill, my calling. Surely there must be some way I can make amends. I can schmooze with the liberals who seem to have such great empathy for the poor.” He is turning his fortune over to the Gates Foundation when he dies. Prima facie evidence that he knows he doesn’t do philanthropy well.
Right now we are in a sweet spot. Low taxes, fewer regulations, reasonable interest rates, a pro business federal government, and low inflation. Since the progs believe in high taxes, strict regulations, and an anti-business policy, they are not happy. They say: “Surely we can’t be wrong. This can’t be happening.” 🙂
The old days of low unemployment and high inflation are no longer with us because of such a constant surplus of the necessities of life. The old days when too much money in the system caused inflation have been blunted by the fact that money is now mostly computer ledger entries and debt (through credit cards) is fairly easily obtained. Thus, we have no great slow downs in spending and no shortages of consumer goods. When people earn more money, it goes to pay down debt, into investments, or spending on higher end goods. As long as the wealth building industries are running at a brisk pace, and the dollar is the currency of choice in the world, the government debt will not become too onerous. However, when the progressives get control, they will erect barriers to wealth creation or when the FED decides to run up interest rates, then look out.
You could dump bushels of dollars on the angry young gender-fluid lunatics of today, install them in crystal palaces on mountain tops, surround them with fragrant gardens and assure them that their futures are secure. And they would still be raging.
Because, unloveable and morally worthless as they are and are determined to remain, they are pissed at life and existence itself; and the only way they can think of to avenge themselves on life, is by killing any chance you have of ignoring them.
“It will change! … And it will lead to other things!”
======================
Chauncey Gardner, is that you?
DNW:
You are actually describing jihadis. They exist even in the absence of Allah and his prophet Muhamed, PBUH.
I stand amazed at how much social anger there is when things are looking better for the future, with certain provisos, than they have since the days two generations back back when people felt at liberty to be optimistic and live private lives and pursue private interests, and to sleep at night.
‘Yeah things have improved, but they will be worse soon, and gender, and evil white man, and climate change and and and …’
Something is deeply and profoundly psychologically wrong with about half of the population who cannot seem to appreciate just … living.
Mike, what is it about this graph that you do not understand?
I not sure why everyone is so up in arms about Buffets comments.
The issue is inflation. It’s supposed to go up as we approach full employment. It hasn’t yet. But the short-run doesn’t necessarily follow the textbook. Only the long run does. This is controversial?
Everything else is predictable. Trump inherited a booming economy, indeed the (soon to be) longest expansion in US history, its followed the same trend that been going on for a decade or so, and now its close to full employment.
Massive deficit spending juices up the economy. We all know this. Glad to see the Right finally realizing it. But lets not throw the proverbial baby out. There’s is indeed a time for austerity. You can’t keep deficit spending and using expansionary monetary policy forever without eventually paying a price.
I’m reminded of the time you guys were cheering Amazons corporate welfare in order to stick it to AOC. Common RWingers! Be better capitalists.
Massive deficit spending juices up the economy. We all know this.
No, we don’t. A bibliography of empirical studies on the question will show a variety of multipliers derived, with the median somewhere around 0.6. Fiscal policy has only weak effects on production levels over the course of a business cycle.
By the way, Manju, the ratios of federal borrowing to GDP have been summarized in threads on this blog. The current deficits are of a piece with all of the BO-era deficits after the fall of 2011. So tell us why the elixir didn’t work for him?
“Trump inherited a booming economy, indeed the (soon to be) longest expansion in US history, its followed the same trend that been going on for a decade or so, …” — Manju
GDP growth under Obama averaged about 2% or less. Wage growth under Obama was effectively zero. Productivity growth under Obama was effectively zero. The Obama economists called this the “new normal.” America’s late stage capitalism had finally run out of gas permanently they told us.
Now today, we see 3+% GDP growth, strong wage growth and strong productivity growth. The lefty econs now tell us not to believe our lying eyes. If you believe that things are actually much better, well then that is just some economic sugar high. The impact from that corp. tax cut will crash from its sugar high any day now.
Trump inherited a booming economy, i
No, he inherited an economy that was not experiencing a contraction. The growth rate in personal income per capita over the period running from 2009 to 2017 was 1.42% per annum. That’s the lowest recovery tempo of any business cycle in the last 90-odd years and exceptionally low given the context: recovery from the most disagreeable recession since 1947. Generally, recovery tempo is correlated with the depth of the antecedent decline. This time it wasn’t.
See Casey Mulligan’s commentary over the year on how the menu of policies the Democratic Party favored in 2009 and 2010 retarded the healing of the labor market.
Now today, we see 3+% GDP growth
Personally, I’d be rather reserved about doling out praise or blame to the federal executive du jour for this sort of thing. The Federal Reserve is more the source of it, and no matter what your tempo is right now, long term improvement in productivity does not find its source in macroeconomic goosing.
When Paul Krugman and Scott Sumner were caterwauling that Trump would be a disaster, they were lying for effect. That we know.
And Manju needs to stop lying. Except that David Brock isn’t paying him to play it straight.
I stand amazed at how much social anger there is when things are looking better for the future, with certain provisos,
Bingo. It seems so gratuitous. Did you catch the latest crybully clown show (at Trinity College, Connecticut)? Fully 1/10th of the student body (200 bozos) sign a petition protesting a decision of the college president to allow the local chapter of the Churchill Institute to reserve meeting space on campus. The chapter has 10 members. Who style themselves as being in pursuit of ‘Justice 4 the Marginalized’. These are the youths they cannot bear to have around…
https://thecinst.org/the-trinity-review/
Someone needs to put the dean of admissions at Trinity under sodium pentathol and ask him why they recruit and admit so many loosely-wired youngsters.
The crybullies style themselves ” as being in pursuit of ‘Justice 4 the Marginalized’, not the Churchill club, who just want to read history and political theory and discuss it.
Art Deco,
No question that Fed goosing is what kept the Obama econ. alive. The Fed currently is substantially looser than its historical norm, but …
The Fed has raised interest rates 5 times since Trump was inaugurated (6 since the election) and moreover until recently, they’ve executed quantitative tightening reducing their balance sheet by $50B/month. So the combined double tightening has been a very fast rate. I suspect that our central bank has one of the most restrictive policies in the G8.
Before Trump, the U.S. had by far the highest, and thus the most repressive, corp. tax rates amongst the major nations. The large corp. tax rate cut was very substantive and stimulative. Some do claim its effect will be transitory, but I think at least some of the effect will last.
I didn’t even bring up the cutting of excessive regulation. That is so easy (and wrong) to overlook unless you are in the compliance business.
manju lied directly in his comment, claiming that Mike K “did not understand” when Mike said no such thing.
“I not sure why everyone is so up in arms about Buffets comments.”
Because it is 100% content-free.
What do you guys do when you’re on break in the boiler room, manju? Circle jerk?
What we see now regarding the favorable state of the economy was predicted by Larry Kudlow in the run up to the last election. His Mantra was: reduce taxes and regulations, impose a more favorable business climate and to “free the animal spirits” of the economy. This is exactly what Trump did and now we see the results. Entirely predictable. Thank you Larry Kudlow for the good work that you do.
TommyJay, Annual GDP growth was under Trump was 2.2% (2017) and 2.9% (2018). You can compare that to Obama here.
2017 is actually Obama’s number (for better or for worse, as this could be spun to your advantage) since Trump’s policies hadn’t taken effect and GDP growth is a laggard: it tells you what happened in the past (as opposed to the market, which tells you what might happen going forward).
You probably believe the “3+% GDP” because this is Trump’s propaganda. I don’t blame you. This is one of Trumps more sophisticated lies. Lets see if you can figure out the con.
If you can’t, no worries. I am here. I will educate you Righties as only I can do.
Don’t worry. Dems will impeach Trump and every Republican; voters will vote only Dems and after 20 years or so of Dem rule America will be like glorious Venezuela. Buy lots of dogs now cause you’ll need them for snacks then.
“Trump inherited a booming economy”
That’s a ‘damned’ lie.
“I will educate you Righties as only I can do.”
Thank you for that example of an arrogance only exceeded by its ignorance.
2017 is actually Obama’s number
Obama’s number would be the rate of real production per capita recorded in the 2d quarter of 2017 as compared to the 2d quarter of 2016. The rate increased by 1.45%. Obama’s economy was no more dynamic in it’s last year than it was at any other time.
David Brock needs to improve the quality of the talking points he’s sending you. You’re not talking to his audience.
If you can’t, no worries. I am here. I will educate you Righties as only I can do.
Oh, we’ll be ever grateful, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.
“As only I can do”—I think Manju is showing rare evidence of a sense of humor there.
Somewhere, Paul Krugman is in deep despair.
Mourning inconsolably in sackcloth and ashes.
Beating wildly his heaving breast; gnashing his yellowing teeth.
Weeping uncontrollably.
Shrieking in disbelief.
Crying out (between sobs): Why! Why! How? When?
As he prays to his most intimate gods that the US economy tank. And tanks soon.
(Or at the very least begs to be sent a hopeful sign.)
Another, rather entertaining, perspective on Obama’s “booming” economy:
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1124424820807041029
To be fair, though, just think how terrific Obama’s economic policy COULD have been if he hadn’t insisted on hamstringing it (all for the best of reasons, of course—no doubt merely part of the need to “transform” the country….).
Manju on May 4, 2019 at 7:50 am at 7:50 am said:
…
You probably believe the “3+% GDP” because this is Trump’s propaganda. I don’t blame you. This is one of Trumps more sophisticated lies. Lets see if you can figure out the con.
* * *
Okay, I’ll bite – what is the con?
This is the assertion from the CNBC article Neo linked to and quoted — not exactly MAGA Country:
“GDP increased 3.2% during the first quarter” of 2019.
Last time I looked 3.2% could be considered 3+%.
Your Statista graph (nice place; who runs it?) showed 3.5% in 2005, and 2.9% in 2006, which matches with the information from your “propaganda link” to Whitehouse.gov.
[2018-2006=2012, although the first quarter/last quarter thing might technically make a difference, the White House claim is close enough for government work.]
The Statista graph indeed shows 2.9% in 2018 (same as 2015, and the highest number in Obama’s tenure), but last year is not what CNBC was talking about, even though the White House apparently was.
So: Which source is the more accurate: Statista or BEA?
Are they counting apples and oranges and pears and mangoes in all the different sources?
Your other graph, from Marketwatch, is Employment rates only, which have dropped since 2010 (after a huge increase in Bush’s final year & Obama’s first year), but that’s not the only number being credited to Trump; it’s just part of the basket of plorables.
Am I missing something here?
Art Deco on May 3, 2019 at 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm said:
…
Bingo. It seems so gratuitous. Did you catch the latest crybully clown show (at Trinity College, Connecticut)?
* * *
Your link is to the club’s website; here is one to the protest itself.
Bingo, indeed.
https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-trinity-protest-churchill-club-20190501-bopkbifqw5cm5ozla656ve5mnq-story.html
The Left considers that it is “degrading” to tell the truth about its activities.
College populations ARE dividing themselves into “enclaves” with rampant abandon these days; explicitly creating separate houses would seem to quality.
Complaining about the adjective “tribal” is just quibbling. What descriptor would they prefer?
Oh, and I’m sure Ms. Gorka’s father’s profession had nothing to do with the complaint at all.
BTW, the school points out that there is a difference in recognizing a club, and funding one; no way they are going to let a nasty group of conservatives get hold of any of the fees extorted from the entire student body including those conservatives.
It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
Buffet is running Berkshire and Hathaway, which is listed as a top stock pick by various economic gurus.
Many of his comments aren’t so much insider trading as him talking to his inner circle and giving out hints on how to manipulate the market. He doesn’t need to, but the big boys can crash or raise the stock market and options market and whatever Forex futures are there pretty easily. It is a kind of game to them.
Well, to be honest, it is a kind of game to us as well. They use it to print money and to say “look what I did vs what you made”. I can also use it to print money, just not as much.
Buffet is basically hinting that he will make or expect to see the stock market enter a bear run. A bear run means it will go down over a certain period of time instead of going up.
Well, regardless, traders can make money no matter whether the market goes up or down, so long as they aren’t holding a lot of equity in stocks that crash after or pre market.
Notice that the counter to a bear run is a bull run. Check Amazon’s stock price since 2008. Easy way to print money using good old divorcee boy Bezos.
But why a bull run? Because bulls are Taurus, they signify plenty and wealth. Golden Bull from Egypt!
Well, Obama had many quarters above 3% too.
See here.
You can see a 5.1 in Q2 2014, a 3.2 in Q4 2013, a 4.9 Q3 2014…so I’m not sure how this helps your case.
Right. But Trump says 3%+.
Right. They are just reporting the quarterly number. I dealt with that above.
No, they are talking annual.
They are the same. See here. (Hit 10 year on the upper right to make these graphs more readable)
The White House press release is using this metric, which in some ways is the best metric to use.
It’s an “annual” return, in the sense that it compares one quarter to the same quarter a year before. I you hit 10 year, you do actually see a good picture of the economy, probably more accurate than the others, even thought they are more common.
The problem for Trump is that you can clearly see him inheriting a growing economy, and one that follows the very same treand line that was in place before he took office.
And, more importantly, it calls into question his “first time in 13 years” claim. As you can plainly see, the economy grew 3.4% in Q2 2015, and 3.8% before that.
But Trump isn’t lying straight out. If you read the press report, you’ll see that this is a more sophisticated deception. There is a way to make his claim correct.
Lets see if anyone spot it. (AesopFan has already noticed it).
Manju’s message that Obama avoided a recession is correct, starting from the TARP bailout to the big banks and other bailouts and boondoggles the Dems had, their big spending plus the Fed big Quant Easing spending avoided a recession. But lots less of mfg jobs, and Obama claiming Trump had no “magic wand” to bring mfg jobs back to the US.
Obama’s was not a booming economy, but also not bad. See the wage growth of median worker, and the employment rate changes (more important than the unemployment number.) Obama was totally wrong about Trump making a boom.
Trump IS having a booming economy, results of more investment and more jobs.
Because of policies: a) mostly lower corporate tax rates, so companies invest and hire in America (30% influence), yet also b) reduced regulations (20%), plus c) tariff/ free trade adjustments (10%), d) reduced illegal immigration (which holds down wages in legal low-wage jobs-10%), and e) low inflation (10%) without high interest rates (10%).
Plus another 10% influence from high gov’t spending, the fiscal irresponsibility that democracies have such problems keeping control of. This was a bigger problem under Obama, with lower econ growth, but remains a problem under Trump.
As said above – the USD $ remains the world’s currency, so there is no near-term danger of hyper inflation, nor significant dumping of USD in favor of the Euro, Yuan (Renminbi), Yen, or anything else.
Buffett is being an intellectual coward for not warning what he thinks, in “our present conditions” will change first. My own guess on that is to see a drop in internal investment, when factories stop being built in America again. That will be the leading indicator that “our present conditions” have changed, and there will be recession / long slow stagnation corrections coming.
It might be inflation, or interest rates (Fed) or job growth/ unemployment, 3 Buffett noted conditions, or trade balance, or big new expensive gov’t program, or regulations, or higher taxes (on the rich! who were successful).
I’m sad that Moore won’t go to the Fed, here’s a note on the Rep swamp reasons that I mostly agree with.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/05/02/american-workers-lose-as-republican-swamp-keeps-steve-moore-off-the-fed/
Oh, my Manju’s back
And you’re gonna be in trouble —
Hey Na, Hey Na, my Manju’s back!
The economy’s gonna
Collapse on the double —
Hey Na, Hey Na, my Manju’s back!
Watch out now
You’re gonna get a beatin’
‘Cause Manju’s been
A-postin’ and a-tweetin’!
He’s awful big and he’s mighty strong —
Hey Na, Hey Na, my Manju’s back!
On econ or politics
He’s always wrong!
Hey Na, Hey Na, my Manju’s back!
Somebody who’s a better songwriter than I will have to take this up.
Manju – The FRED graphs are slick; thanks for the links.
However, that introduces a third source whose numbers and presentation differ slightly from the other two, as I remember them from last night. Why did you change to a new source instead of explaining your points with the ones we were discussing earlier?
I’m trying to make sense of them all, but it may take a while.
The problem for Trump is that you can clearly see him inheriting a growing economy, and one that follows the very same treand line that was in place before he took office.
I gather the people at Correct-the-Record told you to just repeat the lies. Again, during Obama’s 8 years in office, the mean annual improvement for GDP per capita was 1.42%. During his last 4 quarters in office, it was 1.45%. Whatever lies behind the economic performance of the last two years, it most certainly is not an extension of previous trend lines.
Manju’s message that Obama avoided a recession is correct, starting from the TARP bailout to the big banks and other bailouts and boondoggles the Dems had, their big spending plus the Fed big Quant Easing spending avoided a recession. But lots less of mfg jobs, and Obama claiming Trump had no “magic wand” to bring mfg jobs back to the US.
Again, all the therapeutic measures to address the crisis were in place by the time Obama took office. The Democrats added two things: the Porkulus and the Auto industry deal. As noted elsewhere, production levels stabilized in May of 2009 before any direct effects from stimulus spending could have been felt. The Porkulus was a set of Democratic pol wishlists stapled together, not a targeted effort to improve aggregate demand. The auto industry deal incorporated the rape of Chrysler’s secured creditors in order to pay off Democratic Party client groups. Everything Obama and the Democrats did was of a piece with their standard practice – a stew of incompetence and corruption.
After that, Obama set about trying to build a policy monument to himself (which didn’t address any of the structural defects in the finance of medical care) while Barney Frank and Friend of Angelo Chris Dodd convened meetings of lobbyists in their office to draw up a new architecture of financial regulation. The new structure, of course, gave more discretion to federal agencies (to be staffed by Democrats) to hand out ‘waivers’ to Democrat clientele while failure to separate casino banking (another Democrat client group) from deposits-and-loans banking.
FRED is source I use. I link to other sources that use FRED because they present the numbers in a particular manner.
So I wanted to show annual GDP growth, comparing Obama to Trump. Statista had a graph that instantly opens to a ten year bar chart that everyone can understand.
The numbers come from FRED (via BLS) but if you open the original source you’ll see a line chart going back to 1935 or somewhere. You’re probably the only one taking the time to adjust the charts to see the relevant data.
Looking at the site, there’s probably a way to create a link that does what I want it to do but, you know, I’m not a guy with enough time to retweet 40 inane tweets every morning.
I’m just a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
And, more importantly, it calls into question his “first time in 13 years” claim.
Over a period of 32 quarters (2009 q3 to 2017 q2), there were 4 quarters where the growth in real GDP per capita from one quarter to the next exceeded 0.74% (i.e. an annualized rate of 3%). There were also 7 quarters in which the economy contracted.
The median registered over the last 7 quarters has been an annualized rate of growth (in real GDP per capita) of 2.11%. During the Obama years, there were 12 quarters wherein this metric was better. Again, ordinarily, growth rates reach their peak within about 5 quarters of the beginning of a recovery cycle. It should also be noted that monetary stimulus was the order of the day during the period running from 2007 to 2012. We’ve actually seen some contractionary monetary policy in the last couple of years.
None of this is something to emphasize. You want politicians to pursue satisfactory policy, and the good results are commonly not going to be obtrusively evident, much less evident right now. Not sure why the tempo of growth has picked up. Still that it has discredits Paul Krugman. (I seem to recall Scott Sumner was caterwauling as well at the end of 2016, albeit for different reasons).
And Manju needs to stop lying.
The numbers come from FRED (via BLS)
Again, the metrics on production are produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. BLS produces metrics on wages, prices, and employment. And there is no need to use an intermediary, these agencies publish their data online.
I actually linked you to the data. And I used the data favored by Donald Trump:
Here is the metric he used to achieve the propaganda he wanted.Hit 10 year above to make it easy to read.
It’s % of GDP growth from the same quarter one year ago (so, Q1 2015 to Q1 2016 for example).
It’s a legit stat. Presumably, Trump saw that it covered a full year and that it was above his promised 3%. So he used it. And predictably that 3% number is being repeated here.
As you can plainly see, there were no negative GDP quarters once Obama’s polices came into effect, its not the fist time in 13 years that annual gdp growth exceeded 3%, and the most recent pivot point occurred in Q2 2016.
Since then its been smooth sailing upwards. GDP’s a laggard, so Trump’s policies take effect on approximately Q1 2018.
If you feel that’s unfair consider that his policies took effect on the stock market even before took office…on election day. The market is a Leading Economic Indicator and, as we all know, Trump spent the first year in office bragging about this metric. Now, not so much. So he’s changed metrics.
I’m going to war with the metrics you give me, as Don Rumsfeld might say.
As you can plainly see, there were no negative GDP quarters once Obama’s polices came into effect, its not the fist time in 13 years that annual gdp growth exceeded 3%, and the most recent pivot point occurred in Q2 2016.
Again, there were 7 quarters in which real GDP per capita declined.
Looks like I’m going to have to review exactly what those “Obama’s policies” were that had such a wonderfully distributive effect on the economic life of Americans.
(Unless we don’t actually mean to imply that the positive GDP figures attributed to the causal agency of The One, necessarily translated into, say, “heartland” recovery, and that such judgments should not be taken to imply such; because, as someone has already pointed out, we have been authoritatively informed that that work and those employment figures were never coming back.)
.
And too, when adverting to the logically distributive nature (or not) of these, uh, averages, I keep having this recurring memory of back when some dismal manufacturing figures suddenly improved to the point where they edged just barely into “the black” … Oh happy days! … involving jumbo passenger jet contract deliveries or something along those lines. Oh, well, not so happy days upon closer inspection.
July 2018 Pew referring to wage stagnation recovery”: FT_18.07.26_hourlyWage_adjusted.png
May 2019, Vox’s spin.
So in June of 2018 the figure was $22.65 and in May of 2019 it is $27.77, and I assume inflation has been less than, say in round numbers, 15- 20% in the last year or so.
I’m tempted to say something sarcastic about Obama being one hell of an economic magician, but being facetious in the presence of trolls just hands them a quote they can trim to suit, and then flog. So I won’t say it.
Whether the economy collapses or not, alternative healers, light workers, psychics, vedic astrologers, traders, stock traders, and speculators in stock options will still be making money. Off of the panic and misfortune of others perhaps…
It is a legit trade strategy to make millions if not tens of millions by hedging investment bets during a Demoncrat administration, and then buying big low whe na Republican comes on the scene and the initial elections crash the markets. You buy up everything while it is low and when America is in Demoncrat panic mode. Then you cash out when the economy picks up in 2-4 years. As people did under Trum or Bush II.
For example, the stocks crashed due to Trum’s trade war with China. That alone is enough to scare people. For day traders, their total yearly profits could have gone to 1000% if they could ride the highs and lows with enough capital.