Isn't the trend from 2020-2024 higher/faster than the previous decade?

Doesn't that go from (in thousands) 132,500 -> 162,000 in 4 years 2020->2024, 30 points in 4 years
140,000 -> 157,500 17,500 from 2011->2020, 17.5 points in 9 years.

Honestly if you took the trend since 2020 its probably very similar to pre-covid. Going from that graph it looks very similar.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jul 7 2024 03:41pm

When the starting base is exceptionally low because government shut down the economy, destroying jobs, the subsequent 'growth' will be very high if you're measuring from the trough. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to understand that you don't compare a period of normalcy and stability to a shock scenario due to Covid that was artificially remedied through trillions in debt.

Had the pre-Covid trend continued, there would be about 8 million more jobs than there currently are. Biden is campaigning on being a job creator, but the under/unemployed people have a different perspective. It will weigh heavily on his reelection chances.

How could pre covid trend possibly continue after covid? Is that not judging beyond the realms of possibility, like pretending there wasn't a global pandemic?



Trump had good employment figures and it didn't help get him re-elected. Maybe that was more about his fumbling of the pandemic.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jul 7 2024 04:06pm

https://www.vox.com/politics/356775/trump-biden-debate-truth-about-biden-record

The big macs cost more because workers wages are up.
A sound article in my opinion

"Recovering from the pandemic was always going to be painful. Covid shuttered entire sectors of the US economy and disrupted factory production the world over. At the same time, consumers suddenly shifted their spending away from in-person services and toward manufactured goods, a development that producers weren’t prepared for.

These disruptions had unavoidable economic costs. We could have paid those costs by immiserating America’s most vulnerable workers through a prolonged period of high unemployment. Instead, under Biden, we all chipped in to pay Covid’s toll through inflation while protecting the disadvantaged. I think this was a sound decision.


But I understand why some older, high-income Americans — especially those who never lost their jobs during the pandemic, keep all their savings in cash, paid off their student debts long ago, own no home, love fossil fuels, and live off Taco Bell — might disagree."

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jul 7 2024 04:14pm

Because if it was just a temporary blip with a bounceback after the pandemic conditions were lifted but underlying growth continued, we'd surge not just to recovery numbers but quickly return to a number on a curve with the prior growth. This wouldn't be a linear curve since you reach maximum employment with diminishing returns, but it wouldn't be a flatline or dip either. However if the economy bounced back from pandemic conditions being lifted but underlying growth was neutered or erased entirely, what we'd see is numbers jump back up in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic only to droop and stall and slide back down.

edited for ya

Wiki:Tenure:Fundraising:
In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe's largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric ($206,654) utilities. + Koch + NRA

=> Agree it should be more appropriate to simply omit him.