This 'jobs legacy' shtick seems to be the big think in the newsbiz these days. Here's a graphic from this article--
--and it paints quite a different picture from the one from this NYT piece:
Posted on 01/07/2017 10:34:25 AM PST by expat_panama
President Obama in February 2009 after a brutal jobs report, the first issued during his administration. Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
On a Friday morning in February 2009, the Labor Department issued its standard monthly readout on the state of the United States labor market. It was the first of 96 jobs reports to be issued during the Obama presidency, and it was a catastrophe.
“With Grim Job Loss Figures, No Sign That Worst Is Over” was the print headline for The New York Times. “598,000 Jobs Shed in Brutal January,” said The Washington Post.
There was considerably less hand-wringing upon the release of the final jobs report of the Obama years on Friday, and for good reason. The nation added 156,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, not the 7.9 percent reached eight years ago...
...we’re close enough to the end of the Obama era that it’s hard to imagine any radical shifts in those numbers....
...when America’s postwar economy was going strong, the proportion of prime-age men in the labor force was falling. In the Nixon years, the number fell by 1.8 percentage points, more than twice the rate on a per-year basis as in the Obama administration.
In other words, during the Obama administration, more men, even of prime working age, have dropped out of the labor force, and this is one of the most worrisome long-term trends in the economy. But it has been more of a continuation of a long-term pattern than something new.
So what is the Obama jobs legacy? The administration succeeded in ending the steepest recession in modern times, and has presided over steady job growth for seven of its eight years — though less impressive than in some other recent administrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This 'jobs legacy' shtick seems to be the big think in the newsbiz these days. Here's a graphic from this article--
--and it paints quite a different picture from the one from this NYT piece:
More fake news from the bird cage bottom resource
Polishing a turd.
Do you notice they never talk about how many jobs were lost, only jobs created? I bet the net is under water. Plus they say that 94% of jobs created were part time.
This is too rich.
The New York Times quoting the Washington Post as an authority.
““With Grim Job Loss Figures, No Sign That Worst Is Over” was the print headline for The New York Times. “598,000 Jobs Shed in Brutal January,” said The Washington Post.”
#FAKENEWS quoting #FAKENEWS
One reason the unemployment rate is so low is the fact that if you have two part time jobs, they are counted as two jobs. Another big one is, of course, the fact that those who gave up looking for a job is not reflected in the unemployment statistic.
Not a single mention of part-time jobs.
Way to go New York Times.
Not a single mention of part-time jobs.
Way to go New York Times.
Its all fakery and chicanery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.