Florida and Texas, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not only led the nation in the number of nonfarm jobs they added in the year running from September 2017 to September 2018 but also added the greatest number of jobs to their states in any September-to-September period on record.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—sometimes considered part of the nation’s “Rust Belt”—also saw significant job gains from September 2017 to September 2018, with Ohio showing the largest increase for its state in 21 years and Pennsylvania showing the largest increase in 18 years.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... -job-gains

Not too shabby...

NoTime wrote:

Florida and Texas, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not only led the nation in the number of nonfarm jobs they added in the year running from September 2017 to September 2018 but also added the greatest number of jobs to their states in any September-to-September period on record.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—sometimes considered part of the nation’s “Rust Belt”—also saw significant job gains from September 2017 to September 2018, with Ohio showing the largest increase for its state in 21 years and Pennsylvania showing the largest increase in 18 years.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... -job-gains

Not too shabby...

If that holds up until the data is final in ~two month time it would in deed be not too shabby.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Florida and Texas, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not only led the nation in the number of nonfarm jobs they added in the year running from September 2017 to September 2018 but also added the greatest number of jobs to their states in any September-to-September period on record.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—sometimes considered part of the nation’s “Rust Belt”—also saw significant job gains from September 2017 to September 2018, with Ohio showing the largest increase for its state in 21 years and Pennsylvania showing the largest increase in 18 years.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... -job-gains

Not too shabby...

If that holds up until the data is final in ~two month time it would in deed be not too shabby.

Best regards
Thomas

Good numbers, but I would say percentages are more important. Florida and Texas did really well, as did Nevada, Washington and Colorado.

Illinois, Iowa and New York had much lower growth than the other states.

Pennsylvania and Ohio were middle of the pack to lower in percentages of Growth.

NoTime wrote:

Florida and Texas, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not only led the nation in the number of nonfarm jobs they added in the year running from September 2017 to September 2018 but also added the greatest number of jobs to their states in any September-to-September period on record.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—sometimes considered part of the nation’s “Rust Belt”—also saw significant job gains from September 2017 to September 2018, with Ohio showing the largest increase for its state in 21 years and Pennsylvania showing the largest increase in 18 years.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... -job-gains

Not too shabby...

Funny how it does not say what kind of jobs or what they pay. It would be interesting to see if they were part time, minimum wage jobs or seasonal. The holidays are coming up, too. Being in those states, I would guess yes, but there is no information in the posted link.

Just for a comparison, my local airport (OTH) had a nearly 30% increase in commercial traffic over the summer compared to zero at CEC, a similar airport in California. Sounds great until the details come out. That nearly 30% increase was twice a week service to DEN and it was seasonal. We are now back to 3X a week to SFO.

The devil is in the details.

What kind of jobs were these?
Jobs that paid well enough for a person to live on?
I doubt it.

CNSnews is not what I would consider a reliable news service, it has a extremely conservative slant, just look at their home page CNSnews.com. The information in this article was cherry picked for political purposes. Why not talk about Hawaii 2..2% unemployment rate? Or California and Washington having new record low unemployment rates, must be Democrat run states. Why not talk about the four states that had unemployment rate increases, oh yea three of those are Republican led states (Maine, North Dakota, and Wyoming). Or New Mexico having the largest decrease of 1.4% in the unemployment rate?
As Seb146 wrote, the devil is in the details.

NoTime wrote:

Florida and Texas, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not only led the nation in the number of nonfarm jobs they added in the year running from September 2017 to September 2018 but also added the greatest number of jobs to their states in any September-to-September period on record.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—sometimes considered part of the nation’s “Rust Belt”—also saw significant job gains from September 2017 to September 2018, with Ohio showing the largest increase for its state in 21 years and Pennsylvania showing the largest increase in 18 years.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... -job-gains

Not too shabby...

I also seem to recall that, under Obama, righties were crying and carrying on and whining about the falling unemployment not being the REAL unemployment numbers. Always complaining the jobs report never included those who dropped out of the work force or those who were forced to retire or those who were not eligible for unemployment or whatever excuse? Well, what are the REAL unemployment numbers for Texas, Florida, and the Rust Belt?

salttee wrote:

What kind of jobs were these?
Jobs that paid well enough for a person to live on?
I doubt it.

You can take that to the bank, certainly service jobs, no pensions, no retirements plans, might as well be called day labor jobs. Don't worry ,the 3k coming from Guatemala shortly will help the figures from this source. They certainly will count them to pump up the stats.

If you’re unemployed and get an offer, it’s REAL employment and isn’t a party issue. Be unemployed for a while if you doubt that. Politicians don’t make make job, they make conditions better or worse. They can be Maduro or Trump and then there’s the background firmware like culture, legal traditions, rights of property.


Gf

I remember back in 2009-2010 when deficit spending on economic stimulus was bad. Now, apparently, it is a good idea. I guess it helps to buy off the correct people.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If you’re unemployed and get an offer, it’s REAL employment and isn’t a party issue. Be unemployed for a while if you doubt that. Politicians don’t make make job, they make conditions better or worse. They can be Maduro or Trump and then there’s the background firmware like culture, legal traditions, rights of property.


Gf

If people are taking these jobs because they are low wage to add to their already low wage jobs, what about that? Politicians do have a hand in creating jobs. Tax breaks for companies to build factories and tax breaks for low and middle income families to have more money in their pockets so more companies hire more people to make and sell products.

And, yes, Republicans were carrying on 2008-2016 about REAL unemployment numbers and demanding those who stopped looking for work and those who retired and those who had not previously been included now be included to make the Obama numbers look terrible. Funny how Republicans don't want that now......

cledaybuck wrote:

I remember back in 2009-2010 when deficit spending on economic stimulus was bad. Now, apparently, it is a good idea. I guess it helps to buy off the correct people.

That's the standard Republican trick. Nixon did it, Reagan did it. Bush II did it and now it's Trump's turn.

Carter took the fall for the way Nixon/Ford left the economy, Clinton took a lot of flack for his necessary austerity policies after the Reagan's runup and meltdown, Obama repaired the economy after Bush's 2007 meltdown and after Trump is gone there will no doubt have to be a belt tightening in order to reduce the deficit and rein in the national debt again.

The pattern is easy to see and well publicized.

salttee wrote:

What kind of jobs were these?
Jobs that paid well enough for a person to live on?
I doubt it.

I remember a liberal joke about the jobs created during the Clinton Admin. after the Dot.com bubble burst. It went something like this: "Yeah...there were a lot jobs back then.... I had three of them to make ends meet."

Is that another pubbie innuendo? Were you trying to say something?

BTW
The last time this country's finances were in really good shape was when Clinton turned the WH over to Bush II. Clinton had brought the economy from Bush 1's recession to a point by the time of the turnover of balanced budget and declining national debt. Obama's eight years weren't long enough to completely repair the disaster Bush left him (us).

The cycle is sure to repeat itself after Trumps' current round of deficit spending. Someday even the deplorables will figure out that the Republicans always destroy the economy and the Dems are always left with a mess to clean up.

What kind of smart alec posts will you be making then?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

salttee wrote:

What kind of jobs were these?
Jobs that paid well enough for a person to live on?
I doubt it.

I remember a liberal joke about the jobs created during the Clinton Admin. after the Dot.com bubble burst. It went something like this: "Yeah...there were a lot jobs back then.... I had three of them to make ends meet."

Absolutely an absurd as usual claim. Show me the evidence of your claim. There is nobody that I know that does not remember those days as the Good old days of a good economy.

I find it ironic that many here (NOT all) were touting the economy and job numbers under Obama, but now are using the "less quality of jobs" argument* now that the GOP is in power.

By most measurements it does appear that the economy is growing more than before, jobs are being created more than before, unemployment is lower than before, labor participation is higher than before, and wages are somewhat rising.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Trump, and I do have some complaints about the economy......... but... it is objectively better in a lot of ways, not only for the very rich... to ignore that is disingenuous, especially if you defended job numbers and creation under Obama

*To be fair, there are posters that have talked about wages for a while, even under Obama. I know you have WarRI1, don't want to lump anyone in groups they don't belong in

DeltaMD90 wrote:

By most measurements it does appear that the economy is growing more than before,

Only that with 4.2% of GDP in deficit spending 4.2% GDP growth is effectively no growth at all.

jobs are being created more than before,

But slower than before, despite more deficit spending.

unemployment is lower than before, labor participation is higher than before

that just follows. Job loss during a boom would be somewhat surprising.

and wages are somewhat rising.

Are they? https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickwwa ... y-falling/

, especially if you defended job numbers and creation under Obama

Why? Job creation and wage growth both where higher under Obama, with less deficit spending.

Best regards
Thomas

[quote="tommy1808"][/quote]
Interesting, I'll have to take a look at all that. That's why I like this site (been gone for a while though.) Why can't it all be easy?

If anyone has a counter to tommy1808 I'd love to hear it, the (civil) back-and-forth is where we all really learn a lot

DeltaMD90 wrote:

If anyone has a counter to tommy1808 I'd love to hear it, the (civil) back-and-forth is where we all really learn a lot

I'll have one

Approaching full employment job growth has to slow down at some point, so getting Obama's numbers is now a tat more difficult. It is a solid continuations of what happened before.

However, that is not all that surprising given the lack of legal changes relevant to the economy. The tax cuts not having a noticeable effect on investments, money ain't tight and was and is cheap, so why would it? Reducing regulations, especially environmental ones, also reduces the need for investments. Last but not least, people likely to spend extra money domestically, instead of parking it in investment vehicles, see their income basically flat due to moderate inflation eating up their moderate gains.

Best regards
Thomas