...economists born in this forum, (Nbadanallah and DeSPURate will no doubt reveal their, up to now unknown, PhD's in economic theory), but the rest of us can just try to understand what the Old Grey Lady is trying to tell us in this article.
Still talking about March? March was a great month. Who cares. It didn't last. And it was six months ago.How can a nugget of news like the economy's addition of 308,000 new jobs in March - the biggest monthly gain in about four years - yield a report that The Associated Press labeled "Bond prices tumble on jobs data"? Bias, the researchers suspected.
I didn't last? You mean all of those people got laid-off or fired?
308,000 in March....144,000 in August, don't know the in between numbers--I'll have to find them later.
So during those 2 months = almost 1/2 a million jobs and WGAF?
m'kay.
1/2 a million jobs weren't even enough to make up for new people entering the market. Not to mention that their is still a net loss on jobs under Bush.
Obviously, you missed the overall idea in the article. And March was when they started their study, I believe.
March was when they started their study, I believe.
You amuse easily.
how can march be when they started their study if it was the biggest gain in 4 years?
BINGO!how can march be when they started their study if it was the biggest gain in 4 years?
I was referring to your comment that they had to go back to March to find favorable numbers. I was stating that maybe they started looking at the numbers when the media reported the March numbers as being bad...and that, the intervening months of April through the present, weren't a part of the MEDIA STUDY you imbeciles.
They started in March and looked back through 3 Presidential administrations. Did you read the article?
they had to go back to March to find favorable numbers
Again, I say, you are easily amused.
I think it is still a net loss in jobs for Dubya during his term.
But hope is on the way.
From what I've been reading, one thing that most economists can agree on is that, nearly three years into the "recovery," our labor market has dramatically under-performed.
It took nearly two years after the end of the recession for job growth to return, something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, and once it did, the pace of growth has been anemic and way over hyped.
The 1.7 million jobs created in the last year is weaker than any comparable period in a recovery since the 1950s and weaker than even the worst year of job growth in the Clinton administration.
Meanwhile workers wages have been falling in real terms, not only over the past year, but since the recovery began in December 2001.
The Bush administration likes to suggest that the current 5.4 percent interest rate is not that far from Clinton's 5.1 percent in 1996. The problem is that Clinton's unemployment rate was going down while Bush's is going up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote