May 2015 jobs report.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Last1Out

"here's no way to spin this month's job report as a negative, no matter how hard conservatives try. We're growing despite them."

Sure there is, you just have to wait for the inevitable adjustment to the figure that always follows the fanfare of the original number.

And what happens if the adjustments show better job growth?

Originally Posted by mkpunk

And what happens if the adjustments show better job growth?

Simple. Accuse the government of faking the numbers.

[keepingquiet]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Very relevant to the thread topic...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...ay-jobs-report

I will care about republican's stance on immigration when they propose, strict and prohibitively expense fines on any business that hires any worker under the table combined with a reward for anyone who accurately reports someone being hired under the table. The quickest way to get every illegal immigrant to go home is to get people to stop hiring them.

[Tonyafd]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

I found this little chart on the BLS web site, detailing the labor participation rate. Seems to me it give a great indication of how well the Obama recovery? is doing.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


In fact, this interesting fact jumped out of the latest report also.

260,000 new jobs, but 397, 000 entered the job market. No wonder the unemployment rate went up. Probably a lot of HS and college grads are very happy with our President.

By blaming the current President you ignore the fact that the economic forces that caused the recession of 08 were building up over time. The momentum of the 08 recession continued into the Obama administration because economies are like oil tankers. They take nine miles to stop. You also fail to document the diminished work force participation from the 01 recession.

As far as the 260,000 jobs are concerned, why aren't you Obama haters holding a do nothing Congress and your blessed job creators somewhat responsible?

Your analysis is obviously biased and flawed.