Quote (Thor123422 @ 9 Feb 2020 19:20)
If I'm looking at that graph I would say it was "steady at a high level" post 2011.
There were 3 consecutive quarters of anemic growth in 2012. Single quarters can always be low for various seasonal or geopolitic reasons, but 2012 had 3 of them in a row.
also, look at this chart showing quarterly non-farm payroll job growth:
If you add a trendline for 2011-2013 and one for 2013-2016, and one for 2017-now for Trump, then the former will be noticeably lower than the other 2.
source:
https://www.businessinsider.de/international/9-charts-comparing-trump-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9/?r=US&IR=TQuote (Thor123422 @ 9 Feb 2020 19:20)
Feel free to post statistics supporting your other claim about the gig jobs.
gig jobs are hard to define, and I'll admit that that I was referencing a Harvard&Princeton study ( see
https://www.investing.com/news/economy/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057 ) whose findings were walked back 3 years later (
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/economy/gig-economy-katz-krueger/index.html )
the broader point that the jobs added under obama tended to be on the shittier side still stands though.
for example, from the same businessinsider article linked above, we have this:
there is also
(see
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/02/01/manufacturers-added-6-times-more-jobs-under-trump-than-under-obamas-last-2-years/ )
on top, there are several articles referencing this trend.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/Quote
The typical American worker’s pay is finally growing more than 3 percent a year, a level not seen since before the Great Recession.
They also make the same argument as I did about how sustaining job growth in a mature economic cycle becomes increasingly harder:
Quote
The U.S. economy typically added more than 250,000 jobs each month in 2014 and 227,000 a month in 2015. Trump has not been able to top that yet, but experts say job growth remains surprisingly robust, especially given how many baby boomers are retiring and how many business owners complain they can’t find any more workers.
Quote
After a painful 2009, the economy has been growing for a decade. In the early years of the recovery, growth was lackluster, but it started to pick up in 2014 and 2015. Trump told America he could do even better as president, but his record so far looks similar to Obama’s final few years in office. While his tax cut and deregulatory push boosted growth in 2018, that appears to be fading as business owners grow concerned about the trade war.
Quote
For much of Obama’s time in office, wages remained subdued, and his economic team cited lackluster wager gains as the “unfinished business” of his presidency. Under Trump, average hourly pay has climbed and is now growing more than 3 percent a year for the first time in more than a decade. There’s debate about how much credit Trump deserves for this, but his tax cuts and the jump in business optimism probably played a role. Concern is rising, however, that wage growth is stalling in 2019.
Lo and behold.
another article, admittedly from the same author:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/161104101407-obama-service-jobs-780x439.jpgQuote
The typical middle class income in the U.S. is just over $56,000 a year. Economist Joseph Brusuelas of RSM, an accounting and audit firm, has taken a close look at jobs added in the Obama economy. He defines "high wage" as a job that has a median salary of $58,000 or more a year (so just above the median income).
Brusuelas found that 47% of the jobs created since January 2010 (he argues that's when you start to see the effects of Obama's policies) have been in the high-wage category.
So even if one defines "high-wage" to mean "just above the median", which is ridiculous in and off itself, these "high-wage" jobs still made up a minority of the jobs added under obama.
Quote (Skinned @ 9 Feb 2020 19:16)
You show a graph, see a Republican president completely shit the bed, and criticize the Democrat for not wiping his ass fast enough. That is my criticism of you. You lack objectivity.
First, I didnt defend GW Bush or Republicans in general, I was defending Trump. Second, the anemic recovery from the recession, particularly in terms of wages, was a big topic throughout Obama's presidency, as shown by the various articles I linked above. If the WaPo and CNN criticized Obama for it, you can hardly call me a biased partisan for chiming in.
Third, and irrespective of the previous point, I will admit that I was using imprecise and loaded language. I cited the Harvard/Princeton study from 2016 that was suggesting 94% of Obama's job growth were gig jobs without doing further research because it fit my narrative so well. I didnt realize that new research from 2019, three years later, was calling this study into serious doubt. That was sloppy sourcing on my part, shouldnt have happened, and I apologize for it.
Fourth, I am fully aware of the fact that I have a significant partisan bias and am no neutral observer. The truth, however, is that no one is completely neutral and objective. Just like I have a consistent pro-Trump bias, you have a consistent (and equally pronounced) liberal bias.
My goal is to be as objective as possible and to use arguments that I can back up by facts if called out. In my reponse to Thor regarding the discussion about the nature of the jobs added under Obama, I did just that if, but only if, we're looking at the broader picture. I was sloppy on the specifics and used loaded, biased language. In this sense, I failed to fully meet the standard I set out for myself, and for that, I am sorry.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 9 2020 02:26pm