Job growth slows to a six-year low in Trump’s first year. MAGA! (salary, companies)
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.
People .... PLEASE READ THE DATES OF THE POSTS YOU'RE REPLYING TO BEFORE YOU REPLY TO SOMEONE!
Sheesh!
Yes, I have learned my lesson: start a new thread when a new jobs report comes out. I had thought to use an old thread, since we don't need repetitive threads for the same topic, but I did not reckon on the inability of some to recognize an update to a prior thread.
Yes, I have learned my lesson: start a new thread when a new jobs report comes out. I had thought to use an old thread, since we don't need repetitive threads for the same topic, but I did not reckon on the inability of some to recognize an update to a prior thread.
You'd think that that little icon that literally represents a "revived old thread" would be a give-away, but I guess not.
I don't think we will see greater than 64% anytime in the near future; unless a whole bunch of retired people decide to return to the labor force or students leave school for work.
I have heard this liberal argument for a long time now.
DOW -710
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-06-2018 at 12:53 PM..
But why bump this thread? It was a big stinking turd from the outset lol.
It points out numbers but with no context with the sole intention of misleading....which is why the OP was citing Rachel Madow....followed by others countering with Sean Hannity propaganda garbage.
The OP's defense "the numbers are valid" was hilarious because the problem lies with the conclusions.
But I do 100% agree that if HIllary were in office the left\right posters would completely flip-flop on their positions.
If you want to mindlessly bicker then great, but don't play with numbers while doing so. We're innumerate enough as a country without partisans spreading their idiot analytics and faux use of statistics.
............The bigger picture is that wage growth remains weaker than most economists would expect when unemployment is so low. Economists have proposed a long list of possible explanations, from globalization to weak productivity growth. Most still expect employers to have to raise pay eventually to attract and retain workers...........
Could be that what many have been saying - unemployment is much higher than reported - is true. More and more people are coming out and finding a job. People who had fallen off the "unemployment" because they had given up.
If that's true, wages should start to go up significantly in the next few months as there really is a worker shortage.
The OP's defense "the numbers are valid" was hilarious because the problem lies with the conclusions.
Oh really? Are you saying my conclusion that job growth was at a six-year-low (now revised to a five-year-low, as I noted earlier today) was incorrect?
If so, then math isn't your strong suit, ironic given your screen name.
It points out numbers but with no context with the sole intention of misleading.
We're innumerate enough as a country without partisans spreading their idiot analytics and faux use of statistics.
What context would make it not misleading? And as far as I can tell from the BLS website, the figures he cites are in fact accurate. Why do you say they are "faux" statistics?
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.
