So the response will be that you are a moron because (1) your source sucks, (2) you are cherry picking the good parts, (3) it has nothing to do with Trump....
Did I miss anything?
Yeah...you forgot to read the article....
Has Mr Trump kept his promise to revive American manufacturing, mining and the like? A more probable explanation is that he came to office just as America began to run out of willing workers to fill all of its job vacancies. As unemployment has fallen, from over 6% in mid-2014 to 4.1% today, wage growth has gradually picked up.
This part is a bit misleading as the article only captures wages thru the end of Sept. Sept was when the hurricanes hit and those threw a lot of service workers (dining and entertainment) out of work during the reference weeks of the survey. (I know you people thing everything is politics...but you are, "as usual" quite wrong.):
At first it seemed as if the biggest beneficiaries of a tight labour market would be those in service occupations, such as waiting and cleaning. A year ago service workers were enjoying the biggest pay rises in the economy—3.4%, on average. (Higher minimum wages also helped; 25 states and localities raised minimum pay in 2016.) Over the past year, however, growth in service wages has decelerated slightly. Blue-collar wage growth has surged ahead.
This is also a bit misleading as they fail to mention the actual boom in imports. If you think Trump is helping workers in any manner whatsoever then you need to ask why imports are surging in 2017 under Trump's "leadership":
Strong demand, rather than a productivity boom, is driving the scramble for workers. In the manufacturing sector, for example, output per hour worked is just 0.1% higher than a year ago, and has not grown at all in the past five years. Production and wages have picked up anyway. One reason is a cheapening dollar. On a trade-weighted basis, the greenback fell by almost 9% between the start of the year and mid-September (it has since recovered a little). A weaker dollar and a strengthening world economy have spurred demand for American goods. In the first three quarters of the year, goods exports were up by nearly 4% on 2016.
So you all would like to credit Trump with the stabilization and rise of oil prices that began before he was elected?
At the same time, a rebound in oil prices from their trough in early 2016 has set off another cycle of investment in the shale industry. America currently has 907 active oil rigs, up from 568 a year ago, according to Baker Hughes, an oil-services firm. Economists at UBS, a bank, estimate that energy investment has caused nearly three-fifths of all economic growth in 2017, once the effect of fluctuating inventories has been stripped out of the figures.
UBS’s economists note that Texas and neighbouring oil states such as Oklahoma account for almost all of the acceleration in manufacturing employment this year.
This is rather stupid as the top income earners don't receive the majority of their income from wages...
Rising incomes for lower- and middle-earners may help reduce inequality, especially if wage growth for higher-earners remains subdued. A recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think-tank, found that real wages for the top 1% of earners fell by 3.1% in 2016, and were lower that year than they were in 2007.
The finale is interesting as it basically says the electorate may be too stupid to understand the difference between correlation and causation...this is proven here on a daily basis.
Yet wage growth also helps determine the fate of politicians, whether or not they deserve it. Mr Trump’s election led to soaring small-business confidence, which is yet to abate. His promise to deregulate the energy sector may have spurred some investment. Yet his apparent economic success to date mostly reflects fortunate timing.
That will not stop him from taking the credit should a tight labour market lift America’s spirits as the 2020 presidential election approaches. Rightly or wrongly, the biggest beneficiary of a sustained wage boom for workers may be a suited man sitting in the Oval Office.
The economy is doing well...it was expected to do better in 2017 than 2016, due in large part to the stabilization of the oil patch and improving global fundamentals...not the man who is sitting in the Oval. Wouldn't have been markedly different if a woman was there now either since she would likely have accomplished about as little as Trump has.
