Economy US economy adds 2.5m jobs in May, unemployment rate falls to 13%.

[44nutman]

Lmao @ two pages of JC Penny talk. Haven’t thought about that company in forever. Didn’t even know it was still open. Must suck to be poor

As a kid that Christmas Catalogue was the shit. You could go to the toy/electric section, then flip over to the ladies in bras and panties. It was a great time to be alive.

 

[The Diplomat]

Guess the Obama economy is back now

The unemployment rate had reached 10% after the GFC and two terms of Bush. At the end of Obama's second term, it was at 4.7%.

 

[panamaican]

The hand-wringing over the unemployment rate never made sense to me. We all knew it was temporary. There's going to be some permanent loss as companies don't bring back excess labor. But most of the people who lost jobs will be back at work before the end of the summer.

To me, the more important employment questions are about gig workers and automation. I don't think the unemployment numbers are accurate reflections of what's happening at street level because the nature of work has changed too much since these metrics were invented. But that's a whole different thing.

 

[bobgeese]

The graph spans the entirety of the presidency, during which that very broad index more than tripled. And again, the president doesn't "manage the economy" anyway. The explanation would be bad, but the thing you're trying to explain didn't even happen.

Fact, the Dow was the same in 2014 as it was on Election Day.


Today it’s higher in the middle of a global freaking pandemic.

Who does the market trust more? Trump


PS You can rightfully argue whether that’s deserved or not, but the fact is they trust Trump more.

 

[Hadron90]

This is really good news. But perhaps suspiciously good. The discrepancy between prediction and report is concerning.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fact, the Dow was the same in 2014 as it was on Election Day.

Today it’s higher in the middle of a global freaking pandemic.

Who does the market trust more? Trump

PS You can rightfully argue whether that’s deserved or not, but the fact is they trust Trump more.

Yes, if you cherry-pick the data, you can find "facts" that contradict broader trends (also a fact that most indexes were down over the course of Trump's whole presidency earlier this year, for example). But it's not a fact that market growth was "lackluster" (by any reasonable definition of that term) during Obama's presidency. Further, the notion that stock-market performance during the course of a president's term reflects how much "the market trusts" that president is comically stupid. It's not any more rational than looking at the market performance during the time that Tom Brady was the Patriots' starting QB as evidence that the market trusted Brady.

 

[bobgeese]

Yes, if you cherry-pick the data, you can find "facts" that contradict broader trends (also a fact that most indexes were down over the course of Trump's whole presidency earlier this year, for example). But it's not a fact that market growth was "lackluster" (by any reasonable definition of that term) during Obama's presidency. Further, the notion that stock-market performance during the course of a president's term reflects how much "the market trusts" that president is comically stupid. It's not any more rational than looking at the market performance during the time that Tom Brady was the Patriots' starting QB as evidence that the market trusted Brady.

A - I never said Obama had a bad economy.

B - "but... but... Trump didn’t matter"

 

[jefferz]

If the riots are important enough to ignore COVID shelter-in orders for, then the economy definitely is. In fact, the lack of any formal censure or punishment of protesters has disgraced the mitigation measures for the past several months-- as justified as they might have been. Don't want to see more headlines like this:
JC Penney announces 154 stores set to close this summer. Here’s a map.

JC Penny has been struggling for years to turn a profit. With or without the Covid they were going under.

 

[PEB]

 

[Prutfis]

And full benefits
And use of the company car
And a pony

A livable wage for a full time job. What an outlandish concept.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A - I never said Obama had a bad economy.

B - "but... but... Trump didn’t matter"

A - You said that "Obama had a lackluster performance with the market." Putting aside the idiocy of attributing market performance to the president, markets boomed during Obama's presidency.

B - Not sure what the point is supposed to be. Looking at the S&P 500, it's up 36.6% so far since Trump took office. At the same point in Obama's presidency, it was up 64.9% (and it was up 175.9% at the end of Obama's presidency). Is your theory that the relatively poor performance under Trump (you described the performance while Obama was president as "lackluster," and it's been much worse while Trump has been president) because "markets don't trust him"?

 

[bobgeese]

A - You said that "Obama had a lackluster performance with the market." Putting aside the idiocy of attributing market performance to the president, markets boomed during Obama's presidency.

B - Not sure what the point is supposed to be. Looking at the S&P 500, it's up 36.6% so far since Trump took office. At the same point in Obama's presidency, it was up 64.9% (and it was up 175.9% at the end of Obama's presidency). Is your theory that the relatively poor performance under Trump (you described the performance while Obama was president as "lackluster," and it's been much worse while Trump has been president) because "markets don't trust him"?

Compared to trump he did. You’re pretending you don’t remember Obama came in at the absolute bottom.

Trump is packing on teh gainz mid pandemic at 26k.

 

[James Bomb]

Nobody could have ever guessed...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/05/may-2020-jobs-report-misclassification-error/

When the U.S. government’s official jobs report for May came out on Friday, it included a note at the bottom saying there had been a major “error” indicating that the unemployment rate likely should be higher than the widely reported 13.3 percent rate.

The special note said that if this “misclassification error” had not occurred, the “overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs reports, said it was working to fix the problem.

“BLS and the Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking additional steps to address the issue,” said a note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labor Statistics report.​

 

[TUFNewb]

Its much higher than that, there was an error in that jobs report and millions have dropped out of the workforce. It's like 20% stock market has gone bonkers, not discounting potential negative earnings failing to justify ppe, or slow burn of new cases that will become in some states another nightmare come fall. Hate to do it but prudence demands I go bearish. Awesome ride though.

 

[HereticBD]

Short cliffs:

He's maintained his overall support. Nothing has changed.

 

[agourbet]

I have a multi channel product line that’s sold through independent brick and mortar, national chains, department stores, e-commerce sites and interior designers. I don’t predict the demise of b&m as a whole - though the department store model may not be long for the world. That would represent a reduction and reshaping of b&m but not a majority demise.

There are a few reasons for this. Minimum pricing policies are becoming a normal way of life which limits the advantage ecomms have had in early years. My own policy actually preferences the B&M retailers as they are in greater need of margin/protection. I also suspect we are on the leading edge of a commercial real estate collapse. The potential reduction in occupancy costs will be a lifeline for many retailers. Finally, the behavior of the major ecomms suggests that they themselves don’t believe in the demise of B&M as they are all trying to figure out how to grow into the channel.

Thanks for the valuable reply @Gunny! Sure they will not vanish, but they need to change their business model. I am thinking that most B&M shops in the future will rent shops just for showing that "i am a real business" and they will not sell many stuffs from their shops directly. It is much cheaper to rent a big warehouse outside of pricey real estate area,storing all your products there and use the B&M shops in expensive streets just for pick up(so much smaller space = smaller rent). That way you can reduce the cost of operations but you will not be another online store without physical presence.

 

[tenniswhiz]

lol this is the biggest word vomit.

P.S. JC Penney has been in a bankruptcy tailspin for years what is this?

That’s cuz they don’t sell pants that are wide enough to fit real Americans.

 

[Scheme]

A - You said that "Obama had a lackluster performance with the market." Putting aside the idiocy of attributing market performance to the president, markets boomed during Obama's presidency.

B - Not sure what the point is supposed to be. Looking at the S&P 500, it's up 36.6% so far since Trump took office. At the same point in Obama's presidency, it was up 64.9% (and it was up 175.9% at the end of Obama's presidency). Is your theory that the relatively poor performance under Trump (you described the performance while Obama was president as "lackluster," and it's been much worse while Trump has been president) because "markets don't trust him"?

Not that I think the president has too much effect on the market, but Obama got the economy at the lowest point in the recession, so there is no doubt that there should have been a huge increase from when he started as president, since he got it a the lowest point and the recovery was on it's way.

It's like if Trump got in as president at the lowest point after COVID-19, and then claimed, " I've done such an amazing job, in just a few months I've grown the economy 50%". Most of that was going to happen anyways just by the nature of the market after a crash.

What I think the difference is is that Obama's recovery was slower compared to what it could have been, while this recovery seems to be happening much faster. Ultimately I can't find many policies to dictate why this recovery would happen much faster other than the nature of the crash, maybe reduced tax rates helped a little bit, but again I don't think either president has done much for the economy with their policies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Compared to trump he did. You’re pretending you don’t remember Obama came in at the absolute bottom.

Trump is packing on teh gainz mid pandemic at 26k.

I'm not pretending anything. Just starting facts (and, no, stocks were still falling when Obama took office). But look what happened here: First you introduce a ridiculous analytical claim--that stock prices during a president's time in office reflect how much "markets trust" that president. Then you provide a false factual basis for it--stock returns were "lackluster" during Obama's presidency. Then it's pointed out to you that stock returns were actually much better during Obama's presidency than they have been during Trump's presidency and suddenly you discover that other factors do contribute significantly to stock prices during a presidency. That discovery is certainly correct, but it invalidates your whole analytical approach.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not that I think the president has too much effect on the market, but Obama got the economy at the lowest point in the recession, so there is no doubt that there should have been a huge increase from when he started as president, since he got it a the lowest point and the recovery was on it's way.

It's like if Trump got in as president at the lowest point after COVID-19, and then claimed, " I've done such an amazing job, in just a few months I've grown the economy 50%". Most of that was going to happen anyways just by the nature of the market after a crash.

I think you're misunderstanding me here. My claim is not "geese is right and stock performance primarily reflects how much trust people have in the president." That would be stupid. Stock performance has nothing to do with presidents. I'm just pointing out that he got his facts wrong, and if he believes what he claimed to believe (which I don't think he does or should), he'd have to acknowledge that Obama did much better than Trump by that metric.

I'd also note that the turnaround in the real economy that happened under Obama (and that drove stock prices up) was a result of the stimulus, and the turnaround that happened under Trump was largely due to the incompetent handling of the COVID crisis.

What I think the difference is is that Obama's recovery was slower compared to what it could have been, while this recovery seems to be happening much faster. Ultimately I can't find many policies to dictate why this recovery would happen much faster other than the nature of the crash, maybe reduced tax rates helped a little bit, but again I don't think either president has done much for the economy with their policies.

Presidents don't generally do much to affect the economy or the stock market. But the ARRA clearly precipitated a turnaround. And what recovery are you talking about? You realize that unemployment is currently much, much higher than it ever was under Obama or any president in the past 80 years, right? Also, there are many reasons to expect a faster recovery, as the nature of the crash was extremely different. I remember some idiot trying to compare Trump and Obama by looking at average unemployment rates during their presidency. I knew that if there were a downturn, that guy would suddenly get a little more sophisticated.