Jump to content

"Last September, President Obama added over 200,000 jobs. This September, under Trump, loss of 33,000 jobs."

Recommended Posts

This was at the top of my Twitter feed today.  I did not comment on it, but it struck me because the person who posted it cares for 45 about as much as I do and they went to the same business school I attended. 


The problem I have with the chart (assuming you accept the figures as presented, for no primary sources was cited) is that the statement failed to recognize the staggering job losses shown on the very same chart for the first two years of Obama's presidency!  This also ignores the net job gains for the 45 adminstration are actually far great than they were for Obama at the same point in his presidency.  In other words, this chart, looking at the numbers alone, makes 45 look much better than Obama...


Of course Obama supporters will say those loses were the result of legislation from the Bush administration.  Well if you make that argument you'd have to give 45 the same pass.  People use numbers to make arguments when the should not do so.  Right @Del ;)



From Twitter:

"Last September, President Obama added over 200,000 jobs. This September, under Trump, loss of 33,000 jobs."





Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person who made the statement which I quoted directly also shared the spreadsheet to support the statement.


All you have to do is look at the spreadsheet @Mel Hopkins to see my point.  No additional explanation is needed, either you get or you don't.  But if you want me to, I'll try to explain, or "mansplain" as @Cynique calls it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Troy said:

But if you want me to, I'll try to explain, or "mansplain" as @Cynique calls it :)


Please do, but don't forget to answer my question - what precipitated the job loss in 2016... We know what happened in 2007 leading up to the two years of job loss 2008-2010 ; it was the great recession ... but what happened in 2016?...


This is the first time the U.S. economy has lost jobs since September 2010 – seven years ago. It interrupts the longest streak on record of consecutive months in which the economy added jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously discussed, people are moved by emotions, not reason, not data, not facts. Mel you continually insist that I substantiate reason behind the numbers in the chart chart shows.  Apparently my original point simply can not be "seen" by you.  But that is fine and I completely understand, I see it all the time.


If it means anything to you, the statement, "This is the first time the U.S. economy has lost jobs since September 2010 – seven years ago. It interrupts the longest streak on record of consecutive months in which the economy added jobs." is supported by the spreadsheet.  That statement is obvious from the data shown above.


You want me to answer your question but you haven't even acknowledged an understanding of the premise of my post.  Your question is a diversion from my point, that I'm not interested on making. @Mel Hopkins I know from previous posts you play fast and loose with interpretation of data and you are not alone.


Today it is much more common for folks to arrive at completely different conclusions from the same data.  Whether is is climate change, voter turnout, or employment data.  In all cases the devil is in the details, but in some cases, as it is with the point I made above, it is simply cherry picking a portion of a chart. Depending on the range of data you use, you can make wildly different statements some supportive of 45 and other anti-45. 


I can say, for example, based upon the same data above that. during the first 9 months of their respective presidencies that Obama lost 1.5 million jobs while 45 showed job growth of 100K jobs (estimated I did not take out a calculator).  Now if I reported that to make 45 appear to be superior to Obama, that would be silly, would it not?


I guess this what is meant by "alternative Facts."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel I can't answer your question without doing some research.  However I suspect we'd arrive at the same conclusion.


The data alone does not tell the whole story, much less tell the "truth," despite the attempts of those to who use the data that way; like the person who made the Twitter post.


That was the only point I was trying to make and I think you got what I was trying to say now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 11:28 AM, Troy said:

As previously discussed, people are moved by emotions, not reason, not data, not facts.


@Troy WHO SAID?    Doesn't matter  though because we live in a world that is governed by cause and effect...

 There is a cause for  job loss in Obama Administration.  He started with job loss.   45 Administration didn't begin with job loss. 

On 10/7/2017 at 1:29 PM, Troy said:

Mel I can't answer your question without doing some research. 

But this much I will agree with you on... Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we can agree one something...;)


I suspect you'd need to do some research too Mel.  For example, if we looked at the currently unemployment stats. I doubt anyone could say with certainty what caused the decrease, whether is was actually a bad thing, or even if it proves that 45 is a worse president than Barack Obama, as the person who shared these numbers concluded.


You see many things impact these numbers.  It is simply foolish to compare these numbers, in isolation, because so many thing were different, between this October and last October.  I'm not saying you are doing this @Mel Hopkins, but many people like the person who shared these numbers do.  In deed the media do it all the time, just announcing numbers without context as it that is meaningful information. 


We know for example that wages have not kept pace with inflation.  We know the "gig economy" has replaced  many jobs that provided a some level of security and benefits.   


The unemployment figures provide no transparency.  We know those seeking work are not counted in the unemployment figures after a period of time (two years I think).  We know the real unemployment for Black men in Harlem is 50% during Obama's presidency.  You can't tease this out from the unemployment figures.


As you implied the financial meltdown caused many job losses, some of those jobs are reflected in the numbers above.  We know many of the jobs that were lost on Wall Street are never coming back--there are fewer high paying wall street jobs today than there was in 2008.  Many of these people ultimately went back to work if not in financial services in other industries those number would be reflected under Obama, though that recovery cost us the better part of a trillion dollars.


Now we know Wall Street employment is down and Amazon employment is up.  Of course we know the Wall Street investment bankers are not packing boxes in some Amazon warehouse. But we again we know wages are down.  I'm not sure a growth of low wage jobs is something to sing about.


Again, I freely admit there is a lot I don't know so no, I don't profess to know the cause of the numbers above--any more than I know the causes of climate change.  in the former case I know enough to know I'm being misled with inadequate information and in the later case I trust the scientific community.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Troy said:

We know the real unemployment for Black men in Harlem is 50% during Obama's presidency


@Troy  Are you getting that number from somewhere other than bureau of labor statistics.   From this chart  it looks like the highest unemployment rate for the black community was 17%  and from this chart it seems participation rate makes it difficult to have unemployment rate at 50% ... Since you say I play fast and loose with the statistics, please review.  :P

I do agree with you on the jobs numbers.  I don't really pay attention to them. - other than to figure out who has a steady paycheck lol... I do have a prediction - the job numbers will be high just in time for Christmas.  So many contractors are needed to rebuild  those states hit hard by the hurricanes.  


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Net-net hurricanes are a job loser. Many of contractors working to rebuild were already working.  in any event. more jobs are lost than gained.  Indeed in the worse cases like Katrina, many jobs will never come back as entire communities are wiped out... Biloxi MS, was hit again a couple of days ago a hotel I stayed in a few times was flooded.


The information regading real unemployment in New York is not new.  A quick google search turned up this NBC report: https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/browse/?cuecard=679# When I get a chance I'll try to track down a primary source (then again you could do that too).


I live in the community I don't need anyone to tell me when it is raining... I know this is hard for people outside the community to believe, and the government statistics are laughable to anyone here, but what else is new.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Troy said:

I know this is hard for people outside the community to believe, and the government statistics are laughable to anyone here, but what else is new.



So now we aren't going to use government statistics as the standard because they don't measure up to what you believe you've seen?  bitmoji-20161010123659.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel at the risk of mansplaining, the government counts unemployment 6 different ways, the most conservative figure, is U1 which is reported by the media.  It completely hides the facts that, 50% of Black men, in Harlem are unemployed.  Nor does it tell you that many of those are working in low age, menial jobs.


So no, I do not take the government numbers as the gold standard to help me understand my community.  But I understand why others might; they have no investment in my community and in fact despise it based upon their actions and certainly there beliefs


I don't reject the government numbers on this matter, based upon what I "believe."  I reject them based upon comparison to reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation...................


You really can't believe in the distorted employment figures that are being put out by the Department of Labor regardless as to WHO'S administration they were reported under.

They only classify people who are receiving UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE as "unemployed".
That's it.
If you aren't on unemployment benefits, as far as they are concerned you are working full time.....lol.

So if you've given up and have dropped out of the workforce, you're employed.
If you're making your money illegally in the underworld, you're employed.
If you are disabled and can't work, you're not counted as unemployed.
If you are a housewife or stay at home dad and don't work, you don't count as unemployed.
They don't count prisoners and jail inmates as unemployed either.

It's like skipping over bridges, overpasses, alleys, abandoned buildings and just going straight to homeless shelters and counting the number of people you see there to determine how many homeless people are in your city.....lol.

Nearly HALF of the able bodied population in this nation is UNEMPLOYED but because of the deceptive way the numbers are tallied....they'll have you thinking unemployment is at an all time low.

As far as the Obama's job numbers..........

I remember that as soon as Obama was elected president back in November of 2008...BEFORE he took office in 2009.....we had one of the largest massive lay off campaigns in modern U.S. history!

I remember in the November, December, and January leading up to Obama's inaguration each major coporation started massively laying off people by the hundreds of thousands.

It was if they were trying to SABATOGE that man's Presidency by ruining the economy before he took office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno @Pioneer1, Wall Street made a pretty good mess of things before Obama came into office.  Wall street s motivated by greed not race. They did however make Obama bail them out by holding a global financial crisis on his watch if he failed to do it.


They'll use 45 in a similar manner.  In fact 45 will be easier because he is greedy too and has no moral compass to restrain his behavior.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


That's the point I was making.....
The high unemployment rates at the beggining of Obama's Adminstration was not the fault of his administration but was well planned BEFORE he took office.
Designed to sabatoge it.

Not only did Obama bail out Wall St, he gave the big 3 automakers a bailout too.

He just gives these automakers billions of dollars and offers them federal assistance to get their financial affairs in order with absolutely NO demand that they hire the millions of unemployed people all over the nation that need jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK then we agree @Pioneer1, I guess our fundamental point of disagreement stems from motivation.  You believe industry created high employment because they wanted to thwart  Obama's efforts.  I believe they did it because their excessive greed led to terrible decisions; decisions they were ultimately rewarded for when they should have been thrown in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It being a matter of excessive greed (oxymoron?) is probably true, but it's not the ONLY reason.
I believe there were other reasons such as:

1. Racism.
Many of the owners and CEOs of these corporations are White males, by nature racist, and wanted to see the first AfroAmerican President fail by sabatoging the economy.

2. Strategy
Knowing that a Democrat was coming into office, they probably anticipated more regulations so they felt it would be better to downsize and cut the "dead weight" ASAP before more rules were added to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greed implies excess so the one could argue the adjective is unnecessary, but it is not an oxymoron.


How then @Pioneer1 do you explain the tremendous amount of money Wall Street contributed to the Obama's campaign.  If they wanted to derail his efforts they could not given him a red cent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I was just messing with you on the "oxymoron".....lol....but to answer your question:

Wall Street is NOT a monolith.
Even at the center of the American economy you have various groups with various interests, often competing and even at odds with eachother.

One group may hedge their bets on Obama, the other on McCain/Romney.
Just like in this recent election one group hedged their bets on Clinton while others went for Trump.

Then you have some economic leaders who will support BOTH candidates!

When you have multiple billions to play with, you can put SOME of your money behind BOTH candidates making sure that regardless as to WHO wins.....you'll be set.

Think about it........

If you have 50 dollars, and there was a race between 2 characters where the winner paid off 10 to 1.......why not invest $20 by placing $10 behind BOTH.
No matter the outcome.....you're guaranteed a $100 return!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, Wall Street is a monolith if there ever was one.


Yes ,Wall Street did invest in both sides. As you said, they will win no matter who is elected. Obama bails them out gives many of them cabinet positions. Even 45 hired a bunch of Wall Streeters, despite campaigning to do the opposite.


But you were arguing that Wall Street wanted to derail a Black president.  Again don't you think they could have accomplished that more easily by not contributing to his campaign at all?  Obama raised more money on Wall Street than any candidate before him (if memory serves)--helping to fund perhaps the largest presidential campaign warchest ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the RACISTS of Wall Street as well as some of the CEOs of these major corporations were trying to derail Obama's Presidency.....but not all of Wall Street and not all CEOs.

There were and still are a LOT of White people who love Obama and supported him all the way and THEY are the ones who helped get him elected twice.
If all the wealthy and powerful Whites were racist and hated him he would have never gotten in.

Which is why....like you pointed out....he was so quick to bail out Wall Street.

Even when a lot of conservatives like Neil Cavuto were coming on television saying that the bailout wouldn't do any good and probably wouldn't be a good idea, it was Democrats like Obama who were among the main ones championing the bailout of Wall Street.

He KNEW where his bread and butter was and played to it.

I've learned that no matter who you are or what you do in this world there will be White people who are AGAINST you (for usually the same reasons) and their will be White people FOR you (for various reasons).

The key is to have the RIGHT White people on your side and stay in good standing with them so that they can help fund/finance you when you need it and help protect you from those Whites who are against you when you need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...