You are the one with the major fail asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
Saying the job number appears to be a statistical fluke isn't rooting for the economy to fail dipshit.
Printable View
You are the one with the major fail asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
Saying the job number appears to be a statistical fluke isn't rooting for the economy to fail dipshit.
http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/wp...-Flip-Fail.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
CC's favorite channel will clarifiy everything! :lol
Fox News Banners Job Conspiracy: ‘Is The Number Real?’
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...2.30.20-PM.png
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...e-number-real/
I believe you are better at math than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Assumptions are dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
This is all they have left. It's hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I just couldn't be happier that Romney made "Obama's" critical 8% unemployment rate such a central part of his campaign message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
:lol Exactly. Those drones are headed right for Romney's campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
– Labor force grows. The labor force grew by 418,000 people, so the drop in the unemployment rate was not due to people giving up on looking for work.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...r-jobs-report/
:lmao
OK smart guy. Tell me how the labor force grew by 418,000 when only 114,000 new jobs (by the same report) were created.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
LOL another thinkprogress clown
:lmao are you really THAT stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Maybe 304,000 people started looking for work? *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Valid Question CC:
I haven't read the report yet, but on NPR this morning, they were saying that it seemed that the differences came from revisions of the past two reports. The good thing being that employment figures were better than reported, the bad thing being that most of those revisions came from new government jobs (mostly state government).
I am just providing info, like I said, I haven't read the report yet.
I shouldn't be surprised that CC doesn't understand what "labor force" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
yep, labor force = job holders and (unemployed) job seekers
the jobless rate will stay high as the economy picks up and out-of-labor-force people re-enter the labor forced as unemployed job seekers.
There's an easy conflation, in the minds of the voters, of Labor Force and Employed.
That confusion is easily exploited, tbh.
So seriously...if 114,000 people got new jobs and 304,000 new people started looking for jobs...how does unemployment go down?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Probably a net figure that controls for population growth, i.e.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
gains-(net losses+population growth)= new jobs number
(edit)
one has to keep in mind that jobs are lost all the time, even in healthy economies, this is right and what free markets do, what matters is the NET number.
I think we quit firing teachers to fill budget gaps, just a hunch.
Per here:
The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.
Are newly created jobs the only jobs that can be filled?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Doesn't sound like a .3% drop would require cooking any books...
well, then there is this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper