Screen Shot 2017-07-07 at 11.05.00 AM

Nonfarm payrolls jumped 222,000 in June, against expectations of 179,000.

By Jeff Cox

The U.S. job market roared back to life in June, with a better-than-expected 222,000 new positions created in June while the unemployment rate held at 4.4 percent, according to a government report Friday.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had been expecting nonfarm payrolls growth of 179,000 and the unemployment rate to be 4.3 percent.

Wage growth, however, remained muted, with average hourly earnings rising 2.5 percent on an annualized basis, essentially unchanged from the previous month. On a monthly basis, the rise was 0.2 percent, which actually was a shade below the 0.2 percent expectation. The average work week edged higher, rising 0.1 hours to 34.5.

The report “is another illustration that the real economy is in good health,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. “The only disappointment is that wage growth still shows few signs of accelerating.”

The jump in payrolls came following a disappointing May that saw an increase of just 152,000. However, even that number was revised up from an initially reported 138,000, and April was revised upward as well, from 174,000 to 207,000.

Employment gains have averaged 180,000 per month in 2017, a shade below the 187,000 in 2016.

Health care was the biggest contributor, with 37,000 new positions, with professional and business services adding 35,000. Social assistance added 23,000, Wall Street-related jobs grew by 17,000 and mining — a focal point for the Trump administration — saw 8,000 new positions.

“The strong job growth in June and the upward revisions for May and April suggest that the concerns about a major slowdown in job growth were premature,” said Gad Levanon, chief economist, North America, for The Conference Board.

An alternative measure of unemployment that counts discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons — the underemployed — rose from 8.4 percent to 8.6 percent.

The labor-force participation rate edged higher to 62.8 percent.Those considered out of the labor force declined by 170,000 to 94.8 million while the labor force increased by 361,000 to 160.1 million. The employment population ratio rose to 60.1 percent, a full half percentage point above its level from a year ago.

Jobs overall tilted to full-time positions, which grew by 355,000, while part-time fell by 224,000.

Investors watched the report both for headline numbers and for indications on whether worker salaries were increasing. Despite the plunge in the unemployment rate during the recovery, there have been only scant signs of wage pressures.

That lack of inflation has vexed policymakers at the Federal Reserve, which is expected to raise its benchmark interest rate once more this year. Indications from central bank officials are that they believe the low inflation pressures to be temporary, though a continued lack of wage growth could change that perspective.

Get the market reaction here.

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over USA…

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.16.59 PM

‘I represent the people of Pittsburgh NOT Paris’: Trump pulls U.S. out of climate accord saying it is a foreign attempt to seize American jobs and American wealth – and is immediately attacked by Obama.

By Francesca Chambers

Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris accord on climate change on Wednesday afternoon – deriding it as bad for American jobs and bad for the environment.

He dared opprobrium from foreign leaders, environmentalists, scientists and celebrities to say he was putting the jobs of American workers first.

‘We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be. They won’t be,’ Trump declared. ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.’

Before he even sat down, his predecessor Barack Obama launched an all-out assault, saying Trump ‘joins a small handful of nations that reject the future’.

Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire, said he was quitting advising the White House, tweeting: ‘Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.19.47 PM

America first: Trump was unrepentant in saying he was standing up for U.S. interests

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.22.23 PM

Trump complained in the White House’s Rose Garden that major polluters like China are allowed to increase their emissions under the agreement in a way that the US cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of dollars of foreign aid.

The deal is a ‘massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries,’ he said.

‘The Paris accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

‘This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,’ Trump said.


On the accord… 

As of today the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. 

This includes ending the implementation of the National Determined Contribution and – very importantly – the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune. 

The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States. 

On its cost… 

Compliance…could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Rconomic Research Associates.

The cost to the economy at this time [by 2050] would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that. 

America first… 

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. 

They don’t put America first. I do and I always will. 

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices, and in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. 

What he wants now…

We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. 

We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.

Trump said he would also end the United States’ participation in the United NationsGreen Climate Fund.

In a slap at European leaders who’d lobbied him last week, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Trump said the Paris exit is ‘a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.’

‘Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the United States economy that our own citizens and their elected representatives,’ Trump proclaimed.

Trump told off naysayers in a lengthy explanation of his decision and the effect he expects it to have on the US economy.

‘The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do and I always will,’ he said.

He outlined what he said the accord would do to the American economy: 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025; $3 trillion in lost GDP by 2050; and an average household income loss of $7,000.

Trump said he would be willing to get back in but only if he is allowed to renegotiate the terms of the United States’ participation.

Among Trump’s reasons for leaving the accord was the ‘massive legal liability’ that administration lawyers had warned him about.

The Republican president also said he could not support the agreement ‘in good conscience,’ from an environmental stand point, either, ‘as someone who cares deeply the environment, which I do,’ because it is non-binding.

It imposes ‘no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters,’ Trump said – naming India and China as countries which could ‘do what they like;.,

Sitting in the front row for Trump’s outdoor announcement chief strategist Steve Bannon, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Vice President Mike Pence – all of whom were part of a push to leave the agreement.

Trump ended months of speculation in an afternoon Rose Garden event promoted with all the anticipation of a major press conference.

He sided with conservative groups over world leaders and his daughter Ivanka, declaring that the accord poses a dire threat to the American economy and jobs market.

She was not there to see more conservative advisers applaud loudly as he said the United States was out of the treaty. Neither was her husband, Jared Kushner, one of his closest aides, who had also been said to have lobbied to stay in.

The White House tipped its hand just an hour before the president spoke, when it distributed a set of ‘talking points’ to allied organizations that proclaimed, ‘The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first.’

The document says the US is exiting the international climate accord because it is in the best interest of US economy.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.24.27 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.25.36 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.27.05 PM

A successful businessman before he was elected, Trump has already taken steps to end the ‘job-killing’ regulations his predecessor enacted in order to bring the US in line with the environmental pact.

In a May 26, 2016 speech to a gas- and oil-friendly crowd in Bismarck, North Dakota, he declared flatly: ‘We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.’

Trump also said then that if he were elected he would stop making payments to United Nations programs that fight global warming.

The talking points the White House gave to conservative organizations on Thursday said, ‘The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation.’

‘It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.’

Trump, the most unpredictable U.S. president in a century, performed as expected despite sending signals of ambivalence about his yes-or-no decision during the week and telling reporters that he was ‘hearing from a lot of people, both ways.’

Asked if America would be in or out, Trump would only say: ‘You’re going to find out very soon.’

European allies had begged Trump not to ditch the pact last week, and the White House said the president was considering their position.

When White House sources said he was pulling out on Wednesday morning, the reports set off worldwide condemnation led by the United Nations secretary general.

The Vatican called the move a ‘slap in the face’ before it was announced.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said: ‘If he really does [pull out], it would be a huge slap in the face for us. It will be a disaster for everyone.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.28.58 PM

Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end the United States participation in the global warming agreement.

Their ask ran as a full page ad in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

Lakely said Thursday that there were four possible outcomes of Trump’s deliberations – including a pullout that could spark lawsuits and an end-run involving sending the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

‘The Senate fails to get the two-thirds votes necessary to ratify the treaty, and it’s really dead, instantly,’ he said.

Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, said at a weekend summit in Italy he was sure Trump would back the deal after listening to his G7 counterparts.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.10 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.41 PM


Screenshot 2017-06-01 10.38.16

Withdrawal from suspect treaty would greatly benefit US economy

By John Carney – JUNE 1, 2017

The president is expected to formally announce this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

  1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
  2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
  3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and OhioThe industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
  4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big BusinessBig businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.
  5. Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 
  6. Much PoorerThe overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.

Bias: Trump Blamed For Sluggish Economy, Obama Lavished With Praise

by TOM CICCOTTA2 May 2017

Several mainstream media outlets have linked sluggish first quarter economic growth to President Donald Trump, who presided over just seventy of the first ninety days of the year. But back when the economy shrank considerably during the first quarter of the Obama administration, there was no attempt to link the contraction to the president.

The Commerce Department reported last week that Gross Domestic Product only grew 0.7 percent during the first quarter of 2017, following a gain of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Associated Press claimed that the slow GDP growth in the beginning of 2017 “marks the first quarterly economic report card for President Donald Trump, who has vowed to rev up the U.S. economy.”

“Americans say they feel more optimistic about the economy since President Trump was elected,” The New York Times wrote on April 28, “but they certainly are not acting that way, and that is shaping up to be a challenge for his administration.”

Bloomberg added to the chorus of outlets that expressed pessimism about the economy under President Trump’s first 100 days. “The U.S. economy is in better shape than Friday’s first-quarter figures will probably indicate,” Sho Chandra and Patricia Laya wrote, “but getting the growth that President Donald Trump wants is becoming even more difficult.”

But the media was singing a different tune during President Obama’s first 100 days.

Despite the slow growth that occurred at the outset of 2009, the outlets that linked President Trump to poor GDP performance failed to hold President Obama to the same standard.

“The Commerce Department reported last week that Gross Domestic Product only grew 0.7 percent during the first quarter of 2017, following a gain of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016,” the New York Times reported in 2009. The only mention of President Obama in the article was a reference to Paul Volcker that identified him as an adviser to the president.

In early 2009, Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti, and likely in response to concerns over less than desirable economic performance, heaped lavish but meaningless praise on President Obama. “It didn’t take long for Barack Obama — for all his youth and inexperience — to get acclimated to his new role as the calming leader of a country in crisis,” she wrote. “Rookie jitters? Far from it.” He spoke in “firm, yet soothing tones.” He used a “just-folks approach.” He “displayed wonkish tendencies, too,” and “engaged in witty batter,” and on foreign policy, he “struck a statesmanlike stance.”

On April 29, 2009, The Washington Post, without mention of the slow GDP growth, said Obama had “moved quickly to strengthen the U.S. economy, refine the American strategy in two foreign wars and reverse Bush-era detention and interrogation policies that have drawn condemnation at home and abroad.”

An extensive blog prepared by The New York Times that covered President Obama’s first 100 days in office failed to mention GDP growth even once. The blog, which was written by five presidential biographers, covers a wide range of topics including foreign policy, the economy, and the president’s interactions with congress.

Investor’s Business Daily was unable to “find mainstream media critiques of Obama’s policies early in 2009,” claiming that “there were virtually none.” Although the economy was contracting in the early months of Obama’s presidency,  “no one blamed him for that. Instead, there was lavish praise, even as he stumbled from error to error. They blamed Bush.”

If anything, “lavish praise”  may be an understatement. On February 20, 2009, ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran argued that “in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval office.”

Katie Couric came out in full support of Barack Obama’s early stimulus package proposal, citing a survey that claimed that slightly more than half of Americans supported the proposal. Couric used this survey to ask then-House Leader John Boehner why congressional Republicans wouldn’t support the policy.

“A recent CBS News poll shows that 53 percent of the American people fully backs the stimulus package, 63 percent of people we polled thought the Republican opposition to the stimulus package was for political reasons. So, are you out of touch with the American people?…Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the President’s proposals?” Couric asked.

The policies enacted in President Obama’s first 100 days cost a whopping 141 times what President Trump’s first new policies have cost. According to an analysis from the American Action Forum, President Trump’s new regulations have cost a mere $28 million in comparison the $4 billion enacted by President Obama in the same period.

Tesla Holding Mexico Job Fair – Recruiting Mexicans To Build “American Made” Model 3


By Rick Wells

What’s the point and how genuine is the claim that Tesla builds its cars in America if they do so using labor imported from other countries? They’re American jobs, technically but they’re going to foreigners. Why not just hire our own citizens for those jobs? Has Congress just made it too easy to abuse the H-1B program and get the more compliant, cheaper foreign labor force?

Reuters is reporting that Tesla is recruiting Mexican engineers and will be hosting a three day job fair between May 5th and 8th in Monterrey, Mexico in the lead up to what is expected to be a six-fold increase in production at their Fremont, California facility. Maybe California has deteriorated to the point that Mexicans actually blend in better than people from this country. After all, they already speak Californian, but they’re not Americans.

The company supposedly prides itself on their vehicles being “Made in America,” and from a strictly geographic perspective that may be a true statement. That’s another fine mess they’ve gotten themselves into by locating their plant in California. If they had picked a more rural, normal type of location for a factory, anywhere outside of the parasitic redistributive socialist state of California, they could have spent their money on the underutilized American labor, rather than facilities overhead. Maybe they could have gone recruiting in Detroit or Ohio. They still have American car engineers willing to work in those places and it’s not as if engineers can’t be retooled or updated to a different specialty.

Tesla is recruiting for 15 different types of engineers for work on their robotics and other automated equipment, according to LinkedIn postings. If these brainiacs aren’t smart enough to set up shop where it’s financially viable, does it really doesn’t matter where they get their labor from? Will anybody be working for them in a few years, or are the destined to be the next DeLorean? Reuters reports that:

Mexico boasts a substantial pool of educated manufacturing engineers, with 19 automotive plants owned by global automakers including General Motors, Ford Motor Co, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and Volkswagen.

Tesla has been actively hiring in the past few months for assembly-line jobs at the Fremont plant. But finding manufacturing engineers, who are in even shorter supply than software engineers in Silicon Valley, is a tougher challenge.

Doug Patton, president of SAE International, a professional association of automotive engineers headquartered in Pennsylvania, said Tesla’s search for engineers in Mexico underscored a dearth of talent in the industry. “There are many more jobs than engineers, this is an engineering problem across the board,” he said.

U.S. automakers and suppliers will sometimes bring employees from Mexican plants to the United States for short-term assignments, but Patton said he had not heard of any company recruiting on a “wholesale basis” as Tesla appeared to be doing.

That’s a damning commentary on NAFTA, making Monterrey the replacement for Detroit and the consequences of our corrupt Congress allowing rampant abuse of the visa system, H-1Bs in particular. If it’s true that we don’t have the qualified engineers here in the US, which is a highly suspect claim, it’s not because Mexicans are more capable. It’s because Americans have been excluded from the job opportunities and been warned to get a degree in something else. The word is out, STEM field degrees don’t translate into good jobs, at least not for Americans.

And if the student is incredibly lucky and able to find a STEM job at a decent wage in the US, he can’t expect to be able to hold on to it. There’s a foreigner in India, Mexico or somewhere else willing to work for less, and an unscrupulous American company more than willing to sell its countrymen out, and our nation as well.