Economically, there isn't wide consensus about anything related to jobs. Take the minimum wage for example. The Econ 101 story is that increasing prices reduces the quantity demanded. However, there was a study from well regarded economists that turned into a book that showed a circumstance where employment increased at the same time as the minimum wage did. Other economists tried to reproduce the result with a different data source but instead found the originally expected employment drop.
The net result? People who like the idea of employment increasing as the minimum wage cite Card and Krueger's study supporting that. People who believe that employment and the minimum wage vary inversely cite Neumark and Wascher or other studies that show that. And that's a policy that lends itself to natural experiments where the minimum wage changes in some otherwise similar counties but not in others.
The Card/Krueger study surveyed employment at small local restaurants on the New Jersey/Pennsylvania border after New Jersey increased the minimum wage and Pennsylvania didn't. The subsequent Neumark and Wascher study looked at payroll data from larger restaurant chains in the same area. Why did they produce different results?
There's any number of speculative possibilities. Perhaps different size businesses react differently. Perhaps some workers prefer the larger chains but when laid off go to work at the small chains. Perhaps small chains don't properly understand how to pay people and underpay normally. Perhaps young people choose education over low wages. Any or perhaps all of these could be true, but we don't know.
Anyway, the point is that this is an area with large amounts of data, easily processed. And there is still disagreement and a lack of consensus. Many other areas of policy lack the natural experiments available with minimum wage laws. It's difficult to isolate policies. Too much is happening. For example, if one country has a lax monetary policy and the other has strict, does that explain why one has higher growth? Or is that the result of tax policy? Or the recent discovery of new oil fields? Or education policy? Draconian regulations? For whatever reason, countries don't seem satisfied to just change one aspect of policy. New administrations want to change many things at the same time. Some may help and others hurt. Which are which?
Rising deficits are stimulative! Except in the late 1990s in the US, falling deficits corresponded with growth. And in the 2008-2016 period, the highest deficits were in the period with the lowest growth. Trade is good! Except some economists now argue that trade is bad. And others argue that it is good for some people and bad for others.
Even historical periods like the Great Depression aren't well understood. Horrible monetary policy in the 1929-1933 period (dating back to the creation of the Federal Reserve during Woodrow Wilson's presidency). Trade wars (Herbert Hoover). Collapse of the post war system of reparations and borrowing (that Wilson started). Comparatively small government (Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge). Yet Hoover and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt increased spending and the deficit and the depression persisted into the 1940s. It ended with World War II. The standard post war recession and things were back to normal.
John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan cut tax rates and the economy improved. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama increased taxes and the economy improved.
If you're waiting for economists to reach consensus, you'll be waiting a long time.