And why, General, do you use meaningless sources to advance your twisted agenda of destroying all things not in line with your agenda? As a (allegedly) former newspaper editor it would seem truth and honesty would be your first goal.
Clearly it is not. Your credibility can't get much lower.
Here is the Labor Force Participation rate from the source, the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
And as you must know, General, labor Force Participation is a hard number to change; it measures the total of the civilian labor force plus the number of individuals over 16 looking for work, compared to the total labor force. So, a change of even 0.1% is meaningful, and measuring changes on a monthly basis are pretty much meaningless as well.
And, if you care to dig into the reams of data at the BLS you will discover that Shooters other claims, of higher minority participation in the labor force are correct as well.
year Labor Force Participation
2007 66.03%
2008 66.03%
2009 65.40%
2010 64.71%
2011 64.11%
2012 63.70%
2013 63.26%
2014 62.88%
2015 62.66%
2016 62.79%
2017 62.84%

But you carry on General; don't let reality or truth get in the way of your mission.

 

People in glass houses shootersa!!

Thinskin

 

Not to mention, I believe I read that the population is or will hit 327 million soon.

Where are the jobs for this type of growth?

 

Desperation calls for more desperation....even from a foreigner...

 

Well, see, here's how labor force participation is determined. Take all the employed members of the labor force. Add all the members of the labor force who are looking for work (basically, the number of people collecting unemployment). Divide that number by the total labor force (anyone over 16, not collecting social security or who is not disabled basically). The result is labor force participation.
As the population increases, it does not automatically add to the labor force; that takes roughly 16 years. But, as labor force does increase, it takes more jobs to fill the void. It is this, more than anything else, that makes it so hard to move the LFP percentage. Labor force participation, the unemployment rate, and the long term unemployed rates are what give the best high altitude view of how the labor force is doing.

 

Shootersa the data you just provided proves I am right and you are wrong. Let's review what you said:

So no is not up as you claimed and there were still more jobs created in President Obama's last year in office than there was in Trump's first year when he was supposed the be the "jobs creator" and all the allegedly great things he did were supposed to have created more jobs.

And those are the facts you just posted yourself.

 

President Trump spent 122 days out of first 365 visiting his own properties

 

This thread should be renamed....

"President donnie's first 100 games of golf".

 

Still, you are incorrect; here are the facts Shooter posted, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Shooter has added what Administration was in charge in that year, you know, so Stumbler doesn't have to guess;
2007 66.03% Bush
2008 66.03% Bush
2009 65.40% Obama
2010 64.71% Obama
2011 64.11% Obama
2012 63.70% Obama
2013 63.26% Obama
2014 62.88% Obama
2015 62.66% Obama
2016 62.79% Obama
2017 62.84% Trump

Now yes, Shooter knows Obama inherited a recession. But the facts are that Obama's labor force participation numbers never recovered to even what Bush had in his last year, you know, when the recession started. And if you look at 2012 and 2013 (the year Obama's extensions of unemployment benefits ran out and people exited the labor market in force) the LFP number really takes a dive. That's the American labor force ("killed with kindness" by Obama's policies) leaving the labor market and jumping on welfare and Social Security Disability. Labor Force Participation never has really recovered. Trump has his work cut out for him.
Each 1% change in the LFP represents about 1.5 Million Americans. During Obama's 8 years in office, from 2009 to the end of 2016 almost 5 Million Americans left the labor force. Not working, and not looking for work.

And lets review again the issue of which President creates more jobs; You (dishonestly) used Obama's last year in office to compare with Trump's first year in office. You are cherry picking what years to compare, or are just accepting liberal talking points, or are just plain dishonest. When Shooter posted his post that has caused you such pain, he was clear that he was comparing the first year of Obama's administration with President Trump's first year. In other words, Shooter is trying to compare Apples to Apples, not blindly finding ways to attack all things not in line with Shooter's agenda.

When one compares Obama's first year in office with Trump's first year in office it's obvious who created more jobs. Now, one can argue that the recession Obama inherited was the real issue in Obama's first year. So, even though we're trying to compare apples to apples, Shooter will grant that 2009 was not all Obama. So let's compare Obama's second year in office with Trump's first year in office.
And finally, full disclosure, BLS hasn't finalized the 2017 numbers; November and December 2017 are preliminary numbers.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
Job creation, thousands
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2009 -793 -702 -823 -687 -349 -471 -329 -213 -220 -204 -2 -275 -5068
2010 23 -68 164 243 524 -137 -68 -36 -52 262 119 87 1061
2011 43 189 225 346 77 225 69 110 248 209 141 209 2091
2012 358 237 233 78 115 76 143 177 203 146 132 244 2142
2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47 2302
2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255 2998
2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239 2713
2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155 2240
2017 216 232 50 207 145 210 138 208 38 211 252 148 2055

 

@shootersa, since you are willing to grant that Obama's first year numbers were badly marred by the October, 2008 collapse of the economy and could largely be attributed to Bush, couldn't you say in all fairness that Trump's positive (but clearly diminishing) jobs numbers are at least partially attributable to the effects of the post recession economic expansion that took place under Obama? Giving Trump full marks for it seems to deny any improvement occurred. Perhaps you should wait out 2018 to give him any credit for jobs growth. If any happens.​

Well, but Shooter isn't the one that started this discussion. Stumbler posted that Obama created more jobs in his last year than Trump in his first year.
It is disingenuous .... no, downright dishonest ......... to compare the last year of an 8 year reign to the first year of a new administration.

Shooter pointed out that error, setting off Stumbler, who wants to (still) claim that Obama created more jobs. The fact is, Obama policies spent BILLIONS on extended unemployment (without, you know funding it), "Federalized" the student loan programs, and sent an estimated 1.5 MILLION otherwise productive Americans from the labor force to Social Security disability and welfare. And the icing on Obama's "kill them with kindness" shit cake was that he told the unemployed, while collecting their unemployment, that they ought return to school to "update" their skills. Which they did. And those student loans can no longer be dealt with in bankruptcy, cause, you know, the government always, but always, gets their money.

Obama did not create more jobs in his first year than Trump.

Yes, Obama was dealing with a recession so Shooter feels it is only proper, if one wants to compare job creation, to give Obama a pass on his first year and look at his second year.

Obama did not create more jobs in his second year than Trump in his first year.

Now, the only proper way to compare job creation is to look at their entire term in office, compare job creation, labor force participation, and the long term unemployment rates.

Stumbler probably knows all this, but he wanted to start a discussion about how horrible Trump is compared to Obama, so Shooter accommodated him. As usual, Shooter presented facts and logic that showed Stumbler was incorrect in his post.

Shooter doesn't expect to change Stumbler's mind. Stumbler is locked in as far as his opinion of all things Trump and what he calls conservatives. Shooter goes through the exercise because there are other readers who can learn something.

 

Shootersa just clear up one thing for me ok. When it comes to labor force participation numbers the lower the number is the better right? You can clear up just that one point can't you?

 

Trump delivering on promise to shrink the bureaucracy

"Trump has made a significant down payment on his campaign pledge to shrink the federal bureaucracy," the WashPost reports in its lead story:
"By the end of September, all Cabinet departments except Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and Interior had fewer permanent staff than when Trump took office in January — with most shedding many hundreds of employees, according to an analysis of federal personnel data by The Washington Post."

 

Trump’s first-year jobs numbers were very, very good

On Friday morning, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released employment numbers for December, bookending President Trump’s first year in office. While the number of jobs added was lower than many analysts expected — up 148,000 — it was a continuation of the trend of growth seen over the course of 2017.
With those numbers in hand, we can now compare Trump’s first year in office to his predecessors’. And in that comparison, Trump comes out looking pretty good.
Relative to the figure from January in each president’s first year in office (excluding those presidents who took office after a death or resignation), Trump saw one of the biggest percentage-point drops in the unemployment rate.

 

Manufacturing in the U.S. Just Accelerated to Its Best Year Since 2004

• Sixteen of 18 industries reported growth in December, led by machinery and computer and electronic products; wood products and textile mills reported contraction
• •ISM factory employment gauge declined to a still-strong 57 from 59.7
• •Measure of export orders increased to a six-month high of 58.5 from 56
• •Gauge of supplier deliveries climbed to 57.9 from 56.5, indicating stronger demand was leading to longer lead times
• •Index of customer inventories fell to 42 from 45.5, signaling stockpiles were declining at a faster pace
• •Factory inventories index showed a third straight month of contraction
• •Index of prices paid climbed to 69 from 65.5

 

Manufacturing Optimism Rose to Another All-Time High in the Latest NAM Outlook Survey

Optimism has been at historically high levels throughout the year, averaging 91.8 percent in the four quarters of 2017, up from a 64.3 percent average in 2016. Manufacturers have reported a robust turnaround in activity over the past 12 months, and they are very upbeat in their assessment of demand and output moving forward. NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons appeared on CNBC to highlight these results.

 

WIC Welfare Participation Hits 17-Year Low

Participation in the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) welfare program hit a 17-year low in 2017, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The data shows that WIC participation dropped to 7,283,000 in 2017, its lowest level since 2000 when 7,192,000 participated in the program.
WIC is a government grant-funded welfare program that provides food assistance to pregnant and nursing women, infants, and children up to five years of age, according to the USDA.
The program, which primarily focuses on nutrition, began as a pilot program in 1972 under the Nixon administration and became a permanent fixture of the U.S. welfare system in 1974.
Most WIC programs are administered at the state level, and states hand out vouchers that can be used at participating merchants to purchase food.
In 2000, WIC became the third-largest government-funded food assistance in terms of spending and made up 12 percent of government spending on food assistance welfare programs, according to a USDA report on WIC.

 

U.S. Economy Reaches Its Potential Output for First Time in Decade
U.S. GDP growth revised up to 3.3% rate for third quarter, with more business investment in equipment and software.

The U.S. economy is running at its full potential for the first time in a decade, a new milestone for an expansion now in its ninth year.
Total economic output in the third quarter was slightly above the maximum sustainable level of output as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This is a measure of the economy’s potential to produce goods and services based on the supply of people working and how productive they are. In downturns actual output drops below potential and slows inflation. In advanced stages of expansions output can exceed potential and cause the economy to overheat.
It was the first time actual gross domestic product had exceeded potential GDP since the fourth quarter of 2007, suggesting the nation’s economic resources are being used efficiently. An acceleration in growth at this point could generate overheating that produces financial excess or long-elusive consumer price pressures.

 

63.1%: Participation Rate Reaches Trump-Era High; Record Number of Employed

The number of employed Americans reached 154,345,000 in September, setting a sixth record since January. As the number of employed Americans reached an all-time high, the number of unemployed Americans in September -- 6,801,000 -- hasn't been this low since May 2007.

And wages are going up: In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 12 cents to $26.55. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 74 cents, or 2.9 percent,, BLS said.