USA Gains 201,000 Jobs... Canada Looses 51,000

[Economy 53,076]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/07/us-economy-jobs-unemployment-growth-wages https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/wacky-canadian-economy-lost-51-600-jobs-led-by-ontario-plunge-1.1134558

 

The US added 201,000 last month the 95th gain in a row and unemployment remained unchanged at 3.9% as the labor market remains tight. Wage gains in the US were at 2.9% over last year

 

To the North Canada lost 51,000 jobs with the Province of Ontario loosing 80,000 jobs while the rest of Canada gained 30,000

 

92,000 job losses were part-time but at least 41,000 higher quality full-time jobs were gained.

 

Canada's monthly job numbers remain extremely volatile. Last month the exact opposite occured where there was a huge overall jobs gains but all the gains were part-time and full-time jobs were down. Unemployment is at 5.8% (4.8% the way the US measures it)

[Blond 5,715]

Good job,Trump 

[Economy 53,076]

3 minutes ago, Blond said:

Good job,Trump 

Even tho the monthly job gains in his presidency have only barely kept up with the trend under Obama 

 

But according to Trump 2 years "the economy is in terrible shape, worst economy ever we need to make America great again"

 

Fast forward only 2 years, trends and growth rates remain about the same and he says "greatest economy America has ever had etc"

 

The audacity of that guy

 

[JazzGa 14,654]

I really hate bragging about the rise in # of jobs as an indicator of economic success, without addressing the quality of those jobs. You could split any number of 40 hour a week full time jobs into twice that many shitty 20 hour a week part time jobs that don't provide, it will pump up the numbers but it is actually counterindicative of the quality of life of the country's citizens. Same thing with glossing over wage gains as one overall number for everyone; I guarantee the majority of that 2.9% wage gain went to top percentile earners. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Thanks Obama! 

[Economy 53,076]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Thanks Obama! 

He didn't really do much either that would of caused a boom

 

I think this has more to do with the imbalances that were corrected in such a bad recession and the energy boom in the US

[Economy 53,076]

2 hours ago, Satans Ex Wife said:

I really hate bragging about the rise in # of jobs as an indicator of economic success, without addressing the quality of those jobs. You could split any number of 40 hour a week full time jobs into twice that many shitty 20 hour a week part time jobs that don't provide, it will pump up the numbers but it is actually counterindicative of the quality of life of the country's citizens. Same thing with glossing over wage gains as one overall number for everyone; I guarantee the majority of that 2.9% wage gain went to top percentile earners. 

Basically why u have to look beneath the numbers

 

Canada lost 92,000 part-time jobs but gained 41,000 full time jobs. So the headline number sounds worse than it is

 

Last month's report was the opposite. We gained a lot of jobs (I forget how many now) but part-times were way up but full-times were down making the headline number seem better than it was

 

The US monthly data isn't as volatile as Canada's since it has a much larger population and your population isn't all concentrated in two provinces making local swings affect the National number  but to a lesser extent the US also has fluctuations that in the finer details can offset what the total headline number suggests

 

I think most jobs created in US have also been full-time last few years tho

[Whispering 18,865]

10 minutes ago, Economy said:

He didn't really do much either that would of caused a boom

 

I think this has more to do with the imbalances that were corrected in such a bad recession and the energy boom in the US

Who was President when those imbalances were corrected? 

 

[Economy 53,076]

8 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Who was President when those imbalances were corrected? 

 

Obama

 

But that doesn't automatically give him the credit for everything. Most of the imbalances that were corrected are the same imbalances that naturally get corrected on their own during the early phase of a business cycle right after a bust.

 

The fact that he was a good president doesn't mean we can throw all credit at him. There wasn't much policy changes on his part that would of caused this

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 hours ago, Blond said:

Good job,Trump 

 

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

Thanks Obama! 

There's really not a lot of data that suggest that US presidents have a great deal of influence over the economy & job number in particular 

[Whispering 18,865]

22 minutes ago, Economy said:

Obama

 

But that doesn't automatically give him the credit for everything. Most of the imbalances that were corrected are the same imbalances that naturally get corrected on their own during the early phase of a business cycle right after a bust.

 

The fact that he was a good president doesn't mean we can throw all credit at him. There wasn't much policy changes on his part that would of caused this

 

In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended in July when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped $241.9 billion into the economy. That increased growth to a robust 3.9 percent rate by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, almost all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent. 

Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving three million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel efficient and therefore more globally competitive.

Obama reformed healthcare with the Affordable Care Act.  Healthcare concerns were the no.1 cause of bankruptcies.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency reduced harmful practices of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from risking losses with their depositors' money. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulators.

Dodd-Frank directed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These regulated the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps and commodities futures. Dodd-Frank also asked the SEC to recommend how the credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, could be improved. 

In December 2010, Obama and Congress agreed upon additional stimulus in the form of an $858 billion tax cut. It had three main components: a $350 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts, a $56 billion extension of unemployment benefits, and a $120 billion reduction in workers' payroll taxes. Businesses received $140 billion in tax cuts for capital improvements and $80 billion in research and development tax credits. The estate tax was exempted (up to $5 million), and there were additional credits for college tuition and children.

Obama appointed Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke. She maintained an expansionary monetary policy that created the lowest interest rates in 200 years. This allowed the early stages of the housing recovery and slow but steady business expansion to continue. That's because Treasury yields affect mortgage interest rates.

Obama is the biggest job-creating president in U.S. history. His policies put 22.309 million people to work from the depths of the recession in January 2010 to the end of his term. That's because unemployment continued to rise even after the recession ended in 2009. It takes a few months of economic growth before businesses are confident enough to begin hiring again. That makes him the second best job-creator, following Bill Clinton. Job gains would have been even better if Congress had approved Obama's proposed American Jobs Act.

 

All of this was not some natural balancing act that happened out of thin air. Obama and his administration made economic recovery a priority. 

[Whispering 18,865]

7 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

 

There's really not a lot of data that suggest that US presidents have a great deal of influence over the economy & job number in particular 

See above.

[Economy 53,076]

45 minutes ago, Whispering said:

 

In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended in July when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped $241.9 billion into the economy. That increased growth to a robust 3.9 percent rate by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, almost all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent. 

Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving three million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel efficient and therefore more globally competitive.

Obama reformed healthcare with the Affordable Care Act.  Healthcare concerns were the no.1 cause of bankruptcies.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency reduced harmful practices of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from risking losses with their depositors' money. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulators.

Dodd-Frank directed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These regulated the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps and commodities futures. Dodd-Frank also asked the SEC to recommend how the credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, could be improved. 

In December 2010, Obama and Congress agreed upon additional stimulus in the form of an $858 billion tax cut. It had three main components: a $350 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts, a $56 billion extension of unemployment benefits, and a $120 billion reduction in workers' payroll taxes. Businesses received $140 billion in tax cuts for capital improvements and $80 billion in research and development tax credits. The estate tax was exempted (up to $5 million), and there were additional credits for college tuition and children.

Obama appointed Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke. She maintained an expansionary monetary policy that created the lowest interest rates in 200 years. This allowed the early stages of the housing recovery and slow but steady business expansion to continue. That's because Treasury yields affect mortgage interest rates.

Obama is the biggest job-creating president in U.S. history. His policies put 22.309 million people to work from the depths of the recession in January 2010 to the end of his term. That's because unemployment continued to rise even after the recession ended in 2009. It takes a few months of economic growth before businesses are confident enough to begin hiring again. That makes him the second best job-creator, following Bill Clinton. Job gains would have been even better if Congress had approved Obama's proposed American Jobs Act.

 

All of this was not some natural balancing act that happened out of thin air. Obama and his administration made economic recovery a priority. 

Stimulus is what just about every Nation did after the financial crisis tho that's a normal thing to do when the economy tanks. It doesn't take a genius to do that. So while he did well there that wasn't a big thing to rave about. 

 

Also those "tax cuts" in 2010 most were extensions of existing ones already so not really anything new

 

His increased banking regulations was smart and I give him props for that but it doesn't explain the entire trend because until 2012-2014 banks weren't big on wanting to lend regardless of regulations. After that period (banks are lending again) sure it helps prevent eccesses in the economy and helping prevent the next recession from being severe (in that aspect he deserves credit)

 

But in the current time frame in the cycle I don't think he can take the degree of credit some on this site like to give him

 

He did well yes, but most factors at play were not him. And even stuff that was him like stimulus, it was nothing out of the ordinary most politicians wouldn't also do

 

We did the exact same stuff here in Canada a few months after you guys did when the recession spread here. Some of our banks even got cash infusions as a preventative measure despite not failing completely like some US banks did

 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 hours ago, Whispering said:

 

In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended in July when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped $241.9 billion into the economy. That increased growth to a robust 3.9 percent rate by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, almost all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent. 

Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving three million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel efficient and therefore more globally competitive.

Obama reformed healthcare with the Affordable Care Act.  Healthcare concerns were the no.1 cause of bankruptcies.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency reduced harmful practices of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from risking losses with their depositors' money. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulators.

Dodd-Frank directed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These regulated the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps and commodities futures. Dodd-Frank also asked the SEC to recommend how the credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, could be improved. 

In December 2010, Obama and Congress agreed upon additional stimulus in the form of an $858 billion tax cut. It had three main components: a $350 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts, a $56 billion extension of unemployment benefits, and a $120 billion reduction in workers' payroll taxes. Businesses received $140 billion in tax cuts for capital improvements and $80 billion in research and development tax credits. The estate tax was exempted (up to $5 million), and there were additional credits for college tuition and children.

Obama appointed Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke. She maintained an expansionary monetary policy that created the lowest interest rates in 200 years. This allowed the early stages of the housing recovery and slow but steady business expansion to continue. That's because Treasury yields affect mortgage interest rates.

Obama is the biggest job-creating president in U.S. history. His policies put 22.309 million people to work from the depths of the recession in January 2010 to the end of his term. That's because unemployment continued to rise even after the recession ended in 2009. It takes a few months of economic growth before businesses are confident enough to begin hiring again. That makes him the second best job-creator, following Bill Clinton. Job gains would have been even better if Congress had approved Obama's proposed American Jobs Act.

 

All of this was not some natural balancing act that happened out of thin air. Obama and his administration made economic recovery a priority. 

 

3 hours ago, Economy said:

Stimulus is what just about every Nation did after the financial crisis tho that's a normal thing to do when the economy tanks. It doesn't take a genius to do that. So while he did well there that wasn't a big thing to rave about. 

 

Also those "tax cuts" in 2010 most were extensions of existing ones already so not really anything new

 

His increased banking regulations was smart and I give him props for that but it doesn't explain the entire trend because until 2012-2014 banks weren't big on wanting to lend regardless of regulations. After that period (banks are lending again) sure it helps prevent eccesses in the economy and helping prevent the next recession from being severe (in that aspect he deserves credit)

 

But in the current time frame in the cycle I don't think he can take the degree of credit some on this site like to give him

 

He did well yes, but most factors at play were not him. And even stuff that was him like stimulus, it was nothing out of the ordinary most politicians wouldn't also do

 

We did the exact same stuff here in Canada a few months after you guys did when the recession spread here. Some of our banks even got cash infusions as a preventative measure despite not failing completely like some US banks did

 

 

I really have to agree tremendously with Economy here. 

Please do not get me wrong, I admire President Obama and his legacy. If didn’t, I wouldn’t have worked for the man. With his leadership, the Great Recession was indeed reduced in size and scope. That doesn’t mean the response to the crash was not infallible. 

Like Economy said, the stimulus was the least we could have done, and it’s what almost every nation did that was affected. And as it relates to other nations, we spent a relatively smaller amount and had a relatively slower rollout. There was a long time where banks/their customers did not know if they were going to be bailed out, and it let to a lot of uncertainty and it deepened the crash, especially when you look how quickly a country like Canada responded to the crash. 

Other regulations and rule changes were not the direct result of Obama. Congress wrote Dodd-Frank, and many left leaning members had to fight Obama for the inclusion of things like the CFBP in particular (I believe Waren wrote in her second most recent book that she had to lobby Obama hard to get him to consider it). 

Secondly, there’s not a lot of evidence that banks meaningfully responded to these rule changes. And despite the massive amounts of money the Fed tried to inject through quantitative easing, backs still kept most of it in reserves and still do, hence the historic amount of excess reserves held in the banking system today. This is no one’s fault, just an observation. 

Lastly, many of the Obama-era rule changes that you cite are gone today. Particular, the Volcker rule was just repealed a few months ago, and banks are again allowed to trade dervivaties as they wish with your deposits. Despite that, we haven’t seen a drastic change in consumer confidence (or for that matter banking behavior — yet!); it’s really important that we don’t assume correlation is causation. 

It’s entirely true that Obama’s leadership stopped the recession from becoming a depression, but almost every president who faced a recession can tout this. Over time, then American economy and other economies have undergone a “great moderation” — a term used to describe the lessened volitility in business cycle changes. That was not a trend that started under Obama. 

Our government has a solid infrastructure to deal with the business cycle. That infrastructure includes the Fed, Congress, existing tax laws, and yes — the president. You say that our economy didn’t naturally pull itself out of recession, but that’s only partly true in the sense that nearly every administration would make economic recovery a “priority” and would have taken similar steps. 

Again, there’s little evidence/literature to show that American president have a great deal of impact on the economy 

[Economy 53,076]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

 

I really have to agree tremendously with Economy here. 

Please do not get me wrong, I admire President Obama and his legacy. If didn’t, I wouldn’t have worked for the man. With his leadership, the Great Recession was indeed reduced in size and scope. That doesn’t mean the response to the crash was not infallible. 

Like Economy said, the stimulus was the least we could have done, and it’s what almost every nation did that was affected. And as it relates to other nations, we spent a relatively smaller amount and had a relatively slower rollout. There was a long time where banks/their customers did not know if they were going to be bailed out, and it let to a lot of uncertainty and it deepened the crash, especially when you look how quickly a country like Canada responded to the crash. 

Other regulations and rule changes were not the direct result of Obama. Congress wrote Dodd-Frank, and many left leaning members had to fight Obama for the inclusion of things like the CFBP in particular (I believe Waren wrote in her second most recent book that she had to lobby Obama hard to get him to consider it). 

Secondly, there’s not a lot of evidence that banks meaningfully responded to these rule changes. And despite the massive amounts of money the Fed tried to inject through quantitative easing, backs still kept most of it in reserves and still do, hence the historic amount of excess reserves held in the banking system today. This is no one’s fault, just an observation. 

Lastly, many of the Obama-era rule changes that you cite are gone today. Particular, the Volcker rule was just repealed a few months ago, and banks are again allowed to trade dervivaties as they wish with your deposits. Despite that, we haven’t seen a drastic change in consumer confidence (or for that matter banking behavior — yet!); it’s really important that we don’t assume correlation is causation. 

It’s entirely true that Obama’s leadership stopped the recession from becoming a depression, but almost every president who faced a recession can tout this. Over time, then American economy and other economies have undergone a “great moderation” — a term used to describe the lessened volitility in business cycle changes. That was not a trend that started under Obama. 

Our government has a solid infrastructure to deal with the business cycle. That infrastructure includes the Fed, Congress, existing tax laws, and yes — the president. You say that our economy didn’t naturally pull itself out of recession, but that’s only partly true in the sense that nearly every administration would make economic recovery a “priority” and would have taken similar steps. 

Again, there’s little evidence/literature to show that American president have a great deal of impact on the economy 

All of this!!! Besides all the natural stuff any sane President would do u see the 2008 circumstances let's consider many factors that resulted in the current economy that had nothing to do with Obama:

 

ENERGY BOOM: The shale boom has not only created hundred of thousands of high paying direct and Indirect jobs, but it has also lowered energy prices in America (particularly natural gas) which not only saves Americans a few bucks but lower energy prices helped stop the deterioration in manufacturing and in fact manufacturing has been expanding again for years... This also has prevented the trade deficit from increasing as much as it normally would in most recoveries by cutting oil imports by millions of barrels  a day as well as natural gas. But Obama't cause the energy shale boom that really took off after 2010

 

MONETARY POLICY: The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) borrowed a page from Japan's experiment with Quantitative Easing to fight deflation by expanding money supply and force yields even lower and make credit cheaper than the benchmark rate at 0% could do on its own (10 year yields went as low as 1.6% I believe at one point). The Fed did this not Obama

 

IMBALANCES: recessions naturally correct imbalances such as high consumer debt when consumer confidence drops and people become more frugal, things like slowed housing construction fixes oversupply issues when population grows faster than construction, fewer car purchases eventually lead to more demand as cars age etc etc etc. There's countless buildups of imbalances that get corrected during recessions, that's a part of the business cycle. Obama didn't invent this cycle

 

I respect him as a President absolutely but there's a lot at play that explains the current cycle and state of economy that was not a direct result of what he did