Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even more important, EVERY YEAR we have job growth in April over the last decade (except 2009).. These people are acting like this is something out of the norm...
Even McDonalds said the 50K they hired in April was their typical hiring for summer..they just publicized it and did it in one day.
Would you mind disputing the numbers I provided? Would you mind providing a link that proves that there was a positive growth over first four years of this decade?
Actually you need to stay focused on what was said.. here, lets try to explain it to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
actually the job growth average for 2005 was over 200k a month
Why dont you stop selectively picking and choosing numbers that have nothing to do with whats being discussed? Oh I know, it wouldnt allow you to tow the typical Democratic bs with selective figures to show you have an agenda..
The unemployment number are down because a lot of folks are not looking for work, and the feds took them off the employment roles. Once people do see a future they will start looking for work the unemployment numbers will go up; the real unemployment is 16%.
That has been true for a long time. Why else would unemployment rate be low between 2001 and 2008 despite the job growth trailing the population growth?
Mickey D's contributed 60,000 of those jobs so after a month expect about 20 to 30,000 to be gone when people quit.
Michele Obama will soon stop talking about eating healthy and will promote McDonald's. What about reinstituting a summer youth work corps like the did back in the 1930s? Sign up teenagers and send them out to rural areas and farms and national parks to work. They could pick fruits and veggies, clean up brush and cut grass, clean up parks and have their room and board provided as well as also earning money.
Actually you need to stay focused on what was said.. here, lets try to explain it to you..
Why dont you stop selectively picking and choosing numbers that have nothing to do with whats being discussed and it wouldnt allow you to tow the typical Democratic bs with selective figures to show you have an agenda..
Eh, cherry picking would be ignoring an entire decade while whining about "only" 244K jobs added in April 2011. If you care about focus, how about you only talk about April 2011 and NOTHING else? Can't handle the truth eh? Never mind being called out on lies you spewed about jobs added in 2005 that you better not touch again. Wanting to be mishandled, again? I shall oblige.
You said, 404K private sector jobs were added in Jan 2005. What you claim to be your source (BLS) shows, 110.624 million jobs at the end of December 2004 and 110.718 million of the jobs at the end of January 2005. That amounts to a growth of... 94000 jobs.
So, how did you manage to compute 404K jobs? Holy cow. Its not just about being illogical anymore, it is about lacking even a fundamental grasp of elementary school mathematics.
actually the job growth average for 2005 was over 200k a month
Actually, the private sector job growth in 2005 was only 184K (2.21 million jobs over a year). Now, you may want to resume your previously scheduled program about bad mouthing 240K plus jobs added now...
Eh, cherry picking would be ignoring an entire decade while whining about "only" 244K jobs added in April 2011.
I find this funny considering the cherry picking you did
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If you care about focus, how about you only talk about April 2011 and NOTHING else?
I did
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Can't handle the truth eh?
What truth, that EVERY YEAR in April jobs are added?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Never mind being called out on lies you spewed about jobs added in 2005 that you better not touch again.
So now you claim the BLS is lying? Really, considering thats where the job growth of 244K jobs were added, are you now saying thats a lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You said, 404K private sector jobs were added in Jan 2005. What you claim to be your source (BLS) shows, 110.624 million jobs at the end of December 2004 and 110.718 million of the jobs at the end of January 2005. That amounts to a growth of... 94000 jobs.
So, how did you manage to compute 404K jobs? Holy cow.
Having trouble reading charts again ha?
Scroll down to
Total Private, All Employees, (in thousands),
Over-the-month change as revised,
you will see that the BLS calculated the figures posted.
What truth, that EVERY YEAR in April jobs are added?
Not every year, if you care for the truth (and actually have the data you claim to have). The increase (compared to March, if that is your point) happened in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010 (and now 2011), while it decreased in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008 and 2009.
Quote:
So now you claim the BLS is lying? Really, considering thats where the job growth of 244K jobs were added, are you now saying thats a lie?
No, I'm saying that you're lying, assuming the benefit of doubt that you can't be that bad with basic math. Again, according to BLS:
Dec 2004: 110.624 million private sector jobs
Jan 2005: 110.718 million private sector jobs
My calculation: 94K jobs private sector jobs added in January 2005
Your claim/math: 404K private sector jobs added in January 2005
Quote:
Having trouble reading charts again ha?
Scroll down to
Total Private, All Employees, (in thousands),
Over-the-month change as revised,
you will see that the BLS calculated the figures posted.
You need help. Just quote the numbers of total private jobs by the two months that you happen to have. If you don't have it, ask me, I will provide you with a link where you can generate your own reports instead of resorting to lies and misinformation.
There is no such thing as a "non-farm" unemployment rate. They come from totally different surveys.
Payrolls are measured by interviewing employers. They only count how many new employees they have hired for each position. The unemployment rate comes from a household survey, which interviews individuals independently of the payroll survey. The key difference is that the household survey takes into account multiple job holders. In the payroll figure, it does not factor for one person who holds two jobs.
People did not enter the labor force in significant numbers, instead the number of multiple job holders surpassed the number of single job holders who were hired last month. This is why unemployment ticked up despite payroll gains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
