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:
https://static.businessinsider.de/image/5d9f5117e94e866b837533e4/new%20nfp%20growth.pngIf 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=Tgig 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:
https://static.businessinsider.de/image/5d9f5118e94e866b837533e5/wage%20growth.pngthere is also
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fchuckdevore%2Ffiles%2F2019%2F02%2FManufacturing-jobs2-1200x675.jpg(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/They also make the same argument as I did about how sustaining job growth in a mature economic cycle becomes increasingly harder:
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.jpgSo 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.
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.
Damn, nice post. Respekt