Are all these stories written by twenty-somethings? They are an offense to anyone with a knowledge of history:
"US adds robust 224,000 jobs in June" -- ABC
"Strong hiring in June: 224,000 new jobs, 3.7% unemployment" -- CBS
"Big month for jobs, big headache for Fed Chair Powell" -- NBC
"U.S. adds 224,000 jobs as hiring rebounds in June, calming worries about the economy" -- MarketWatch
"US labour market booms in June" -- BBC
"The US labor market rebounds in June, adding far more jobs than expected" -- Business Insider
"Jobs report smashes expectations" -- AOL
"Labor market comes roaring back as jobs see 'nice pop', economists say" -- MarketWatch
Meanwhile, the facts.
Trump has yet to put numbers on the board which distinguish payrolls as robust, strong, big, calming, booming, rebounding, smashing or roaring.
For roaring you have to look back to Reagan and Clinton. Trump is not in their league. So far he's not even as good as Obama for putting up big months (granted, over eight years), and is merely one term president Bush 41-league, the best comparison for comparable time in office. It ain't over 'til it's over, but 30 months in Trump has just two big months to his name, that's it, and the clock is ticking on the longest, but nowhere near best, economic expansion in history.
On a net population-adjusted basis there are as of 2018 5.2 million more Americans 16 to 64 years of age not in the labor force who used to be in it since low levels reached for respective age groups in 1989, 1995 and 1997, including one million fewer not in labor force age 25-54 since 1989. There are 2.8 million more 16-24 not in labor force in 2018 than in 1995 on a population adjusted basis, and 3.4 million more age 55-64 since 1997.
5.2 million people actually sitting on the sidelines added to payrolls in a real jobs boom would boost current monthly levels by 108,333 on an average basis over 4 years, in other words, well above 300,000 monthly.
