U.S. Jobs, Pay Show Solid Gains in Trump's First Full Month (bloomberg.com) 398
Two anonymous reader share a Bloomberg report: U.S. employers added jobs at an above-average pace for a second month on outsized gains in construction and manufacturing while wage growth picked up, as the labor market continued its steady improvement in the new year. The 235,000 increase followed a 238,000 rise in January that was more than previously estimated, the best back-to-back rise since July, a Labor Department report showed Friday in Washington. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, and wages grew 2.8 percent from February 2016. While unseasonably warm weather may have boosted the payrolls count, the data represent President Donald Trump's first full month in office and coincide with a surge in economic optimism following his election victory.
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well most businessmen are republicans. So with the republicans back in power they will be more likely to invest more in their businesses when they feel optimistic. The economy isn't about policies but with people ability to take risks.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
You assert "Well most businessmen are republicans." First, I'm curious where that statistic comes from...and I would discount the Republican party as a valid source.
More importantly, I believe you can more validly say, "Well most business men are greedy, and the larger the business, the greedier they are, and in pursuit of their greed, they grease the palms of the Republicans in office."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you need to get so complicated as saying 'most'.
If approximately 50% of businesses and 50% of the population ere on some sort of power trip right now then that adequately explains it. It should probably be higher in fact.
Praise Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He's defining "businessmen" as "people who run actual businesses, not non profits."
Ok I can't speak for all American 'businessmen' (and women), but two of this richest most highest profile 'businessmen' I know of, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett tend to lean towards the Democrats. So on the surface this claim seems like bunk.
And before you get angry, I'm sure there's plenty of support on both sides of the fence, but simply claiming that most 'businessmen' are Republican sounds a little moronic.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
An interesting question. I've never had anyone questing the 'common knowledge' before and it occurred to me that while I've heard this I never bother to google it.
Although If i had cared before I probably would have and I would suggest you do when you have such questions.
https://www.americanexpress.co... [americanexpress.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.thebalance.com/pol... [thebalance.com]
I didn't cherry pick these these were just on the top of the relevant results in google. Before you react it is good to research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently we need to find a sustainable way to have solid Democratic economic policies while keeping the business community under the misimpression that we actually have Republican economic policies.
Naah... (Score:3, Interesting)
More like from the 1950s... [wikipedia.org]
Except that whole "Operation Wetback" [wikipedia.org] thing.
It didn't work then, apart from causing all the civil rights issues that it did, and it would work even less now. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure republicans feel great now.
Just like a meth-head feels great right after inhaling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
complete and utter bullshit. The US has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world. They are sitting on it overseas because they want to pay NO taxes at all. And they don't like it because they wiggled out from under the taxes in such a way that the money is stick in their tax havens, unable to be used.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
They are sitting on it overseas because they want to pay NO taxes at all. .
Maybe I'm confused. Aren't corporations sitting on income overseas because the tax laws in those overseas countries are more favorable than the ones in the states?
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
It is well known that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[1] However, it is less well known how the United States stacks up against countries throughout the entire world. Expanding the sample of countries and tax jurisdictions to 188, the U.S.’s corporate tax rate of almost 39 percent is the third highest in the world, lower only than the United Arab Emirates’ rate of 55 percent and Puerto Rico’s rate of 39 percent. The U.S. tax rate is 16.4 percentage points higher than the worldwide average of 22.5 percent and a little more than 9 percentage points higher than the worldwide GDP-weighted average of 29.5 percent. Over the past ten years, the average worldwide tax rate has been declining, pushing the United States farther from the norm. https://taxfoundation.org/corp... [taxfoundation.org]
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
The large US corporations are in panic mode because of the new US President. He has already shown his willingness to label certain companies as anti-US or un-American. Lockheed watched their stock price drop over 20 points when Trump stated that the US was paying to much for the F-35 program and his willingness to possibly look somewhere else for a replacement program. Now the US has already invested to much in the program and the chances of starting up another program is near zero but the public statement still had a an overly large effect. Lockheed lowered the price of each plane by 15% within days along with Lockheed promising to lower the price even further. One tweet is all it took. Ford was getting ready to close a US production line and move the jobs to Mexico and Trump painted the company as un-American and Ford cancelled the production line move for the foreseeable future. One tweet was all it took. There has not been a recent President who has been willing to publically call out the business practices of any US corporation. The only time the government criticizes a corporation is after they get caught doing something illegal that cannot be swept under the carpet. Corporations abhor negative publicity of any kind and a US President can sink their stock prices with one off the cuff statement. In today's world the statement doesn't even need to be the truth. The prices may rise again when the publicity wanes but having a 20 percent reduction in your stock price, even for one day, is something corporations want to avoid at all costs. Corporations invest billions of dollars a year in buying politicians just to make sure things like this do not happen. In this last election cycle the politicians they bought lost the election leaving them with someone who is not beholden to their wishes.
In the grand scheme of things the US President has limited power and almost every Presidential decision can be checked by the other two branches of government. But the US President has the largest megaphone in the world to shape public opinion. Trump is not a politician and his style of management doesn't mesh with his current job. Quite frankly I don't think he really wanted to be President. He is most likely as surprised as everyone else that he won. His challengers from both parties ignored him at first and then went and made the type of blunders that made Trump actually look good. All the rabid Trump haters still do not understand that their extreme actions and protests actually helped Trump win. It's all moot anyway because Trump has already accomplished what no other was able or willing to do. He demolished both the Democrat and Republican parties. He has totally exposed the big media conglomerates shoveling out and slanting the news to support their patrons political ambitions. This wasn't really a secret but by the end of the election they really came out of the closet in a blind panic trying to get Clinton elected and all thy accomplished was making Trump more popular. They are still doing the same thing today and if they don't start reporting news without an accompanying editorial line we might get stuck with Trump for 8 years. The US government runs on inertia that can't be thrown off course by a stupid President. Incoming administrations cannot undo all of their predecessors actions and chart a new course in 4 years. The incoming administrations always say they are going to change direction but rarely accomplish any of their stated campaign promises. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo in 8 years and all things considered that should have not been that hard of a task. I don't expect new wall construction in the Southwest or see a permanent ban on immigrants from certain countries. I can see the existing immigration laws being enforced in a stricter fashion. I can see more restrictions placed on H1-B visa recipients and see US corporations do a better job at prioritizing the hiring of US citizens over foreigners. Even on a superficial level this would be better.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Well stated, AC.
I would add that it's a folly to dismiss Trump as stupid. He's "used car salesman" smart. There are a lot of interesting and effective negotiation tactics that are available when you can throw ethics and long-term credibility out of consideration. Trump has not only read but written Sun-Tzu Art-of-War style treatises on business dealings... how to portray yourself as rich when you are poor, stupid when you are shrewd, slow when you're moving fast. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit sort of stuff.
Some story I've heard quoted offhand (wish I could find the source) was about when he bought a yacht from someone. He had a minion go and thank the other guy's minions for selling it to him for a much larger price than he actually paid. The idea was to spread rumors that made it look like Trump was much richer than he actually was, and much more foolhardy with his money than he actually was, so other people would make mistakes negotiating with him later. This tactic plays well with a lot of the other numbers and statistics he makes up on the spot... he exaggerates everything he can, in order to make himself look better later. He made up that huge $4 billion figure for the Boeing Air Force One projects, so he can brag about saving a billion dollars later when it comes out closer to a more realistic figure. I think I've seen an article indicating he's already done this.
Everything else he's been doing indicates that he's clearing the tables to maximize leverage for new negotiations -- firing all US ambassadors on day 1, threatening sky-high import/export tariffs, putting gag orders and hiring freezes on all US government agencies. It's clear that to do anything, you'll have to suck up to Trump first, and bring money and favors to secure it. But this is a standard business negotiation tactic, pull every string you can towards you first and make everyone else fight and bargain to get back the slack.
So we can look forwards to some short term "wins". Hopefully we can keep him negotiating and dealing with our enemies, and our friends will be very understanding in the mean time.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't pay earnings to your stockholders without declaring income. No nation in the world charges tax on gross. Only a few _clueless_ states and cities. Your point is moot (and wrong).
The really important number is (1-Corporatetaxrate) * (1-capitalgainstaxrate), which is very consistent at about 45% over the developed world.
Having the corporate tax rate as high as it is, does distort the market. Companies don't pay dividends and instead concentrate on growth. Which will bite us.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition: https://www.gao.gov/products/G... [gao.gov]
In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability. Larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. Among large corporations (generally those with at least $10 million in assets) less than half—42.3 percent—paid no federal income tax in 2012. Of those large corporations whose financial statements reported a profit, 19.5 percent paid no federal income tax that year.
There is no credit to give to Trumjp... he hasn't done a damn thing that would change ANYTHING related to this. He's a nothing more than a lying sack of shit politician who mere months ago was slamming jobs reports for being phony, yet now they're wonderful and all because of him. BULLSHIT. Anyone who believes that should do the world a favor and kill themselves because they're that fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the economy usually does better under Democrats, and given that the economy is still recovering from the MASSIVE crash that happened under the last bout of Republicanism. I think the idea that it's all just the businessmen are suddenly happy that they're being lead by a Republican; I'd say that that's a bit of a stretch to say the least.
I mean that's the thing about recovery, things trend upwards, and this story said things trended upwards. Personally I see zero chance that this is anything that
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that the global economy is doing quite well, right? Furthermore, the economy is actually in danger of getting overheated, which is why Yellen is raising interest rates. This has been a concern of hers for the past two years, it's nothing new. There are so many nuances regarding the state of the economy I won't pretend to understand it all but I sincerely doubt that two months of an erratic president could cause a great boom to the economy, especially when the economy has been doing well the last
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This has more to do with Republican-ism that Trump-ism. The people who own businesses are primarily Republican. Many of them had very bad attitudes when Obama-care was launched and they refused to hire full-time because they thought Obama was picking their pocket. Now that Obama is gone the mood of business has changed drastically. They feel like their is relief, whether real or imagined. In any case, business owners are in a better mood with Trump as president and are hiring again. I don't think this
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should give him the Nobel peace prize too, we haven't gotten into any new wars during that month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its Bloomberg. Nobody expects honest and accurate reporting from the National Enquirer of right wing propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....
Actually he HAS been doing things since November 8th that may have affected this in a positive way. Sometimes just talking about doing something from the bully pulpit the president (and president elect) has can have positive (or negative) affects on the mind set of the people. Just the prospect of new/better policies can have a positive affect even before they can be enacted.
Case in point: Jimmy Carter and his "malaise speech" which was largely blamed for making the 70's seem worse than it was and depressi
Haters gonna hate. (Score:3, Insightful)
People have a hard time accepting that one person can be both really good and really bad at the same time.
To those who don't like Trump, he is all-bad, and they won't accept any attribution of benefits to anything Trump does.
And vice-versa, of course.
I abhor Trump's attitude towards, say, Snowden. I think Trump is an exploiter who doesn't care about justice, but just about power. On the other hand, my investment portfolio has been doing very well since he won. So, I recognize the good with the bad.
Re:Haters gonna hate. (Score:4, Informative)
So, you think that "employment" is an instantaneous measure of political prowess? Here'n all, I was under the mistaken premise of large-economy economics that it takes lots of work to create a sustainable grows in jobs, like more than the first two months. Gee, I wonder why it took Obama so-o-o long to reverse the downward spiral in jobs he inherited from Bush...probably not very good at his job, I suppose.
Re:Haters gonna hate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Business was punishing Obama for Obama-care by not hiring. [google.com] Whether there was an upside or downside to the bottom line, there was an attitude of Obama isn't going to tell us what to do. Business and companies have been short-staffed as we have seen in the productivity statistics [theatlantic.com], but now the percieved pressure is off and businesses are hiring again.
Re:Haters gonna hate. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way you wrote that link to your google search is one way to look at the situation, but its incredibly 3rd grade and full of obvious emotional baggage unrelated to reality and seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind and who doesn't mind obscuring the facts.
The fact is this: The natural repercussions of implementing that law led to lower hiring. This is not punishment of Obama by businesses. It is merely a natural outcome of what happens when you change regulations to this new state. Now, implementing these regulations could be considered punishment for the people they adversely affect, namely the labor pool, but the blame of that lands squarely on the shoulders of those who created the underlying structure. Namely, those who wrote the law and implemented it.
Blaming "business" for some kind of concerted antagonistic action is just plain fucking stupid. Businesses follow the money and play by the rules that are handed down to them by government. If you don't like how a new law has changed how the majority of businesses operate, look at how the law was written.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're a money over people kind of guy.
Re:Haters gonna hate. (Score:5, Insightful)
My issue is that nobody can draw even the slightest correlation between any policy move by Trump and these job gains. The idea that businesses are just hiring extra people because they have "faith in the future" is BS, you hire because you have need... need that is generated by demand for your product or service which grows over years, not overnight
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Hell yeah! We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency, as reported in the summary, and even higher still in February 2016 [bls.gov], which preceded the election. But wait, also the same thing in 2015, which preceded Trump's nomination. Bit of a dip in 2014, but even higher numbers in 2013.
This totally supports your argument, so long as you avoid thinking about anything connected to reality.
1-Month Net Change: All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47
2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255
2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239
2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
2017 238(P) 235(P)
Re: (Score:2)
Things are cyclical, we always have ups and down. Also the president is not a dictator, there are so many different parts of government involved, and even if taken as a whole government policies are not the biggest factor in the economy. But for some reason people like to point to the current president as the source of all economic movements.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
That's a liberal lie. Unemployment under Obama was like 40%. It's 4% now under Trump because he saved the world and made America great again. The unemployment numbers were faked up until January 8th.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
These numbers were precipitated by Obama over his last 8 years but to be honest he never inspired this level of confidence.
This isn't confidence, it's exuberance. When fools start tossing money at Wall Street, it's time to run in the opposite direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but your predictive track record is shit, right? Like you said there was NO WAY Trump could win.
Prior to the election, I repeatedly stated what the polls said: Hillary had a 95% chance of winning AND Trump had a 5% chance of winning. For Trump to win, he would have to do better than Romney (2012) and McCain (2008). He won an electoral victory despite losing the popular vote by ~11M votes.
Maybe you are full of shit here, maybe you aren't. But you are definitely no fucking oracle.
I can read the economic data. Doesn't anyone find it strange that the economy was slated for low inflation and low growth under Hillary ALL OF THE SUDDEN is slated for high inflation and high growth under Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
The old meme of putting everything on the previous administration really needs to die.
Dear AC, that is the entire POINT of politics. I doubt it's going to die anytime soon. I blame Plato. And he blamed Socrates.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Meh.
Previous 3 Febs had roughly the same numbers.
Economy & previous policies keep on trucking.
Wait, What...? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The forecast destruction of the American economy from one technological advance or another has been accurately forecast future economic strength exactly ZERO times, since the founding of the United States of America. Most economic reversals have come from financiers and banks (e.g., 1929, 2008, et. al.) lining their own pockets through variations on the Ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that Repubicans won't do anything for them either.
Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the dumb fucks who think people who have been screwed are voting against their best interests if they don't vote Democrat. Democrats aren't going to do shit for these people. This is why they've stopped fucking voting for Democrats.
Way to put up some strawman arguments, shoot them down, and call everyone who disagrees with you dumb fucks. This may be the least insightful comment yet for this article.
No proposed solution to our economic problems will solve everything, and claiming Democratic voters think otherwise is asinine. Re-education of workers helps displaced workers, but it won't work for everyone. Relocating to areas with more jobs helps displaced workers, but it won't work for every family dynamic. Improved safety net systems helps those who fall through the cracks, but it can't be the solution for everyone. More equitable primary, secondary, and post-secondary education will also help, but it won't be enough for everyone. We need all of this and more to solve our problems.
On the other hand, the are almost literally no programs suggested by the Republican platform which will help the working class. Gutting public schooling won't help, reducing financial assistance for health care won't help, economic protectionism won't help, reduced clean air and water regulations won't help, the list goes on and on.
The Democratic party is far from perfect, and has been almost as disastrous for the working class as the Republican party has been. Emphasis on almost though, since after you strip away false rhetoric the Republican platform is nothing but the party of the wealthy elite.
Re:Because the alternatives were awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
the Republican platform is nothing but the party of the wealthy elite
As a lifelong Republican, I'd like to point out that Trump's electoral victory - achieved against the streneous efforts of the GOP hardliners and the majority of GOP congressmen - may well incidate that the average conservative voter seems to agree with you. That Bernie got as far as he did against the polished, powerful Clinton machine (so powerful that she forced the Democratic party leadership to cut a deal with her so she'd stop challenging Obama's run for nomination,)and the DNP apparatus, indicates that the left wing is tired of their elitists too.
Look for common ground - right now, I think you're likely to find it.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad Obama was such a lying bastard and didn't put in single payer during his first 100 days like he promised to.
Everything that becomes of health care subsequent to the Affordable Care Act is directly related to how terribly this law was written, publicized, and implemented. Sorry, but when democrats overwhelmingly support the largest taxation bill in history disguised as a health care reform bill, and it doesn't fix the problems with health care, massively transfers wealth to insurance companies and b
Re: (Score:3)
People have picked a side.
The people who like Trump will give him credit for this and blame Obama's lingering policies for any bad months.
The people who hate Trump will give Obama credit for this and blame Trump's new policies for any bad months.
The people who hate both will give neither credit and wonder how long printing funny money and pretending the job market is fantastic will hold up.
I had a friend back in college who during Bill Clinton's first term claimed that the economic boom we were experiencing was because there is 2 year delay before the economy fully reacts to policy. This number increased from 2, to 4 to 6 years as his time in office increased.
I myself aligned heavily with the republicans back then- but even I realized that was bull.
Nowadays, I realize the President doesn't have quite such a huge effect on economy, be it good or bad. The President is mostly a passenger on th
Re: (Score:3)
No, in the stock market, it really is a zero-sum game. Money that comes out is money someone else put in.
The stock market isn't the economy.
Not Even the Pretense of a Technical Angle? (Score:5, Insightful)
"first full month" means NOTHING (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"first full month" means NOTHING (Score:5, Insightful)
not true, Stock market and business will act on expectations of future which is what is happening here with Trump in office. Of course over time we'll get into what you are interested in, what results Trump's actions will have and yes for many things the time delay will be years and for some things over a decade
First Month of Trump's Presidency? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump has been negotiating with these companies to bring forward any plans they had for expansion.
He has been doing that since November.
Just an anecdote. But I have been looking for a job for 8 months. Lots of cold calls lots of resumes sent out. 0 traction. 3 interviews and 100 resumes sent out. Suddenly in the past week all hell broke loose. I now have 4 interviews lined up for the next week or so. 5-10 emails a day with job descriptions. The mood is most certainly different.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has been negotiating with these companies to bring forward any plans they had for expansion.
You mean the plans that were already in place long before the 2016 election? It doesn't cost CEO's anything to stroke the ego of an egomaniac in the White House.
Just an anecdote. But I have been looking for a job for 8 months. Lots of cold calls lots of resumes sent out. 0 traction. 3 interviews and 100 resumes sent out. Suddenly in the past week all hell broke loose. I now have 4 interviews lined up for the next week or so. 5-10 emails a day with job descriptions. The mood is most certainly different.
That's funny. When I was out of work for two years after the Great Recession ended, I only had 20+ interviews and no job offers. When I was out of work for eight months after the government shutdown in 2013, I had 60+ interviews and three job offers. I could reasonably conclude, just as an anecdote, that a government shutdown provides a good economi
Re: (Score:2)
He talked them into moving them up.
Trump did not such thing. He took credit for plans already underway. CEO jumped on the bandwagon to praise him since it cost them nothing to do so.
Not sure what your point is or was it just so you could call the president an egomaniac?
My bad. I meant narcissistic.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/CON-20025568 [mayoclinic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One company at a time, right. That's incredibly time consuming and negligable. A hundred jobs on day one, a hundred jobs on day two, and so on, does not add up to these numbers. You do not increase job numbers signficantly by doing negotiations through force of personality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.
It's actually quite simple - you have a leader who says he wants to put his country first and that makes investors and business people feel good enough to expand existing businesses and start new ones. That's why the stock market rallied after Trump's election - it's not based on an actual policy but a feeling.
Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.
Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.
...which totally explains why February jobs #'s were even higher in February of 2016, 2015, and 2013.
I have a much simpler explanation: Its February.
B.S. (Score:3)
Obama's "You didn't Built it" was true and that stung like a motherfarker. There's a bumper sticker I saw the other day that made me laugh: "If you don't like socialism get off my public roads!". This i
Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? (Score:5, Informative)
So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs? After all, if you can implement policy on day one and see that translate into an economic boost within a month, that is some good policy that governments would want to imitate all over the world.
It's actually quite simple - you have a leader who says he wants to put his country first and that makes investors and business people feel good enough to expand existing businesses and start new ones. That's why the stock market rallied after Trump's election - it's not based on an actual policy but a feeling.
Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.
You are full of shit. This was the 76th consecutive month of job growth. The stock market went up 50% over Obama's terms. Things are still just chugging along.
Re: (Score:2)
Promised to make life easier for small businesses (Score:5, Interesting)
So what exactly did the US Government do in that first month to create all those jobs?
It's not what they did, it's what they promised to do - which is primarily to lower the absurdly high U.S. corporate tax rate.
Mind you, large corporations are already paying much less than the top rate. But here's the secret - all of us small and medium sized businesses without a building full of accountants WERE paying that top rate, or close to it. So the promise to lower that rate helps improve hiring from the large majority of job creation, small to medium sized businesses.... the rate lowering won't make life much different for the very largest corps since they were not paying a very high rate anyway.
Re:First Month of Trump's Presidency? (Score:5, Interesting)
new politics (Score:3)
Good thing we won't see the new inflation rate for a several more months, and pollution's latency has always been a classic.
Maybe this is good idea for a political platform: don't worry about conservative/liberal principles; just look for fast indicators that you can increase at the expense of slow ones. Right and left will become obsolete labels, and debates will be between short-termers and long-termers.
Re: (Score:3)
Improved crop yields, milder winters... hurricanes, storms, floods, an influx of starving refugees from Mexico when their farmland turns into desert.
Remember, more heat means more evaporation - and what goes up, must come down.
Distinct lack of critical thinking. (Score:2)
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. What's the lag between deciding to hire someone or increase their pay and it actually happening? Someone who doesn't realise who much one needs to demonstrate a causal warrant.
It's just the uncertainty factor being removed (Score:2)
It seems to me like most businesses are pretty unhappy when things are uncertain. Now that the election's settled, and it doesn't look like he's going away for a while, businesses are just relaxing the controls a little bit. Most business owners are Republicans, so I assume they feel they're going to get more of what they want for at least the next 2 years.
I work a lot with small business owners who rail on and on about "regulations" and the big evil government impeding their ability to do business. I just
Re: (Score:2)
Small business owners have it pretty good as well. Just about anything qualifies as a business expense. It didn't take them long to charge everything they buy for personal use as a business expense, thus lowering their income taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me like most businesses are pretty unhappy when things are uncertain.
Of course they are. When the NDP were elected in Ontario in the 1990's the TSE tanked overnight and we lost two ranks to our credit rating. When the Liberals were re-elected in Ontario ~3 years ago, it also cost another rank to our credit rating. Why? Because the liberals have fostered an anti-business environment and created an excessively expensive electricity market, while raising taxes through the roof, and spending like a drunken sailor. Businesses have fled Ontario over the last decade, even "cle
Re: (Score:3)
"any cost there may be for complying with regulations are deductible from your profits as business expenses"
Uhhhhhh, yeah, and its profits which determine the success or failure of a business. Thus, higher costs and lower profits are generally a bad thing, especially when the expenditure has zero ROI. Plus, you not only lose profits, but also revenue because you're wasting time dealing with regulations when you could be running your business.
You work *with* small business owners? Have you ever tried runn
Wait a minute (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
yum: Trump steak flash-roasted on preheat cycle (Score:2)
Right. Because all financial processes attribute to the current administration so precisely (and immediately) that we need to write "full month" rather than just "month".
Among the numerate, the earliest possible report card on the new administration is the end of the first year, and we might by then be celebrating the accomplishments of President Pence, who might by then be one fat month into his presidency. Given these larger uncertainties, I'm not going to take any macro-economic wiggles as usefully refl
Wouldn't hire until Obama left? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill Looman, the owner of U.S. Cranes, LLC, told a local NBC affiliate, 11Alive, that he put up signs on his company trucks stating:
"New company policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone"
This link [dailymail.co.uk] has a few photos of the signs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. (Score:2)
And the chocolate rations were increased to twenty grammes per week.
Re:Anemic growth is not normal (Score:4, Informative)
combined with unconstrined spending
You are aware, right, that it's not the president that does the spending, it's Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Little known fact.. the Reps won that too.
Re: (Score:2)
More well known fact: they already had it in the first place. Which I think was the GP's point.
Re: (Score:2)
They had it when Obama was pres too, which was the point.
Two little known facts there.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe the figures right now are that republicans now control 3/4ths of state houses and 2/3rd of governor mansions... but I may have these two backwards.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With all due respect, you're comment betrays ignorance of both the Trump and Obama administrations respective stance on regulations. The Obama administration required cost-benefit analysis to be performed on new regulations, and required the benefit of the regulation to justify its costs. Trump, on the other hand, has issued executive orders requiring that the incremental cost of new regulation be zero, regardless of benefit.
Effectively, the Trump administration is enabling a scenario where privileged busin
Re:Anemic growth is not normal (Score:5, Interesting)
Investors must have been absolutely *terrified* for the past 8 years, running the stock market up to record levels.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fun times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs are up. Stock market is up. Consumer confidence is up. Precious metals are down.
For the eighth year in a row. Thanks, Obama!
If you really think the economy is about to hit the fan, then you can make a fortune by betting against the experts.
"Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." — Warren Buffett
Re: (Score:2)
sorry but the problem with Obama era jobs is that shitty temp jobs replaced permanent. Meanwhile, perm job market is exploding here in the midwest, my friends that couldn't find job under Obama are now getting hounded
Re: (Score:2)
If jobs were really up already and the economy was booming then why was there such a big following for Trump by people who were out of work for such a long period of time? I'm not a Trump fan but his basic campaign was "everyone else sucks, I'm the only one who can get your old jobs back". The economy is great for me as an engineer, but it sucks badly for the unskilled laborers, it sucks for union jobs, it is rather lackluster for service jobs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put your money where your mouth is and start shorting the market if you think it's so over-bought.
I'm building up a cash reserve to buy shares of dividend-paying stocks on the way down. I never buy into an up market.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes... Creimer... the paid political troll.
I'm being not paid. I just love trolling the trolls on Slashdot. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive government infrastructure spending would be good (temporarily) for the construction business and wars would be good for the defense sector. So either would instill exuberance... there are lots of business who don't care how much debt the government is in if they can make a quick buck and then leave the country.
Since both congress and Trump are firmly in the "give consumers decisions they cannot possibly afford the time to make competently so we can bilk them and call it 'free market competition'" b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot in a nutshell. (Score:4, Insightful)