Before Donald Trump was elected president, there was a lot of negative media coverage with a lot of pundits predicting that he would wreck our economy. About a year and a half into his presidency, it appears to have been the exact opposite. But why? Does it really make sense for the economy to have been doing so well with these crazy policies, insane tweets, and political rollercoasters of emotion? The short answer is yes.
While I may have studied economics, I cannot say for sure what the reasons are for this economic boom under Trump, which has been beyond piggybacking off of Obama’s economy for some time. I will try to explain what’s going on as I understand it.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a new jobs report on Friday, reporting an addition of 178,000 jobs and a nice, low 4.6 percent unemployment rate. FiveThirtyEight’s Ben Casselman, their chief economics writer, said that Trump and Clinton could both spin this jobs report, but he also wrote that “Millions of Americans abandoned the labor force during the recession and are now returning at a trickle, if that.” But isn’t it a good thing that the unemployment rate is low and jobs were added? Well, yes, but also no.
I don’t mind it when people support President Obama if they believe in the things that he’s doing. However, I do have a problem with people quoting economic indicators to people who might not understand them. For example, why would they quote GDP growth when that doesn’t necessarily mean that the economy is doing good? Why show the unemployment rate, but not the rate of those not in the labor force and the labor force participation rate?
The answer is simple: Either the creator of biased infographics like this don’t understand much about economic indicators or they know enough to know better, but they think you don’t. It’s not fair for people like this to mislead the country into support like this. I’m going to show how to analyze data for yourself so that you don’t get misled.
As everybody knows, election day was this month. This day was a chance for Oregon to move forward in the right direction. Below is a picture of how the gubernatorial election went in Oregon. Even though the majority of the state, in terms of counties, voted for Dennis Richardson, John Kitzhaber won the higher populated areas of Portland and Eugene. In the form of an economic analysis, complete with what we can expect, here’s why Oregon chose poorly.
Oregon is always called a blue state, but county results usually say otherwise. (Click to Enlarge)
What Oregon Had at Stake
Oregon had a lot riding on this election. More jobs, better education, and less waste of money. These were desperately wanted in Oregon. Now that John Kitzhaber is serving a fourth term, the issues Oregonians really care about will most likely not be addressed. At least, not for the next four years. It was very clear: Under Kitzhaber, we had higher unemployment than the national average and our high school graduation rates were pretty low compared to the rest of America. Under Richardson, we would have someone doing their best to see that all of these things were improved. In order to economically survive as a state, the state needs to ensure that jobs are available to those seeking employment, education is nothing less than top quality, and that state money is carefully monitored.