Because unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story. It's misleading.
Obviously. Seems to me the better answer is the actual number of employed persons, relative tot he number of employable persons in the 18-65 agre group.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story. It's misleading.
The ONLY thing that I can think of that sort of makes sense is that there are 10,000 boomers a day, turning 65 years old this year....A DAY!
So, maybe with the economy being in the crapper and fears on whether social Security will be there in the long term, these people have decided to move themselves out of the work force and put themselves in to retirement.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.
Fact Check: Suspicion Falls on Labor Secretary Solis as She Misleads on Jobs Revisions
When ya' think we'll see the revision?
Honest question here.
We had months with double that and it barely budged.
Please explain.
It's not possible.
This is open fraud.
Honest question here.
We had months with double that and it barely budged.
Please explain.
Drudge is reporting that the two leading economists at the bls are huge Obama donors.
Drudge is reporting that the two leading economists at the bls are huge Obama donors.
Color me shocked...
Drudge is reporting that the two leading economists at the bls are huge Obama donors.
No, Drudge is reporting that 2 economists at BLS are Obama donors - not "leading economists", nor "huge" donors.
BLS employs hundreds of economists.
Drudge is reporting that the two leading economists at the bls are huge Obama donors.
No, Drudge is reporting that 2 economists at BLS are Obama donors - not "leading economists", nor "huge" donors.
BLS employs hundreds of economists.
Drudge is reporting that the two leading economists at the bls are huge Obama donors.
No, Drudge is reporting that 2 economists at BLS are Obama donors - not "leading economists", nor "huge" donors.
BLS employs hundreds of economists.
BLS employs hundreds of economists.
What whining assholes.
And yet stupid people will vote for Obama and Mitt. It's hard to get anything done when the majority of the voters in the US only care about "their side" winning, at any cost.
Honest question here.
We had months with double that and it barely budged.
Please explain.
Honest question here.
We had months with double that and it barely budged.
Please explain.
Understandable. Not many Village Idiots can do the math.
No, Drudge is reporting that 2 economists at BLS are Obama donors - not "leading economists", nor "huge" donors.
BLS employs hundreds of economists.
Do you think everyone at the BLS is an economist?
Do you think the qualifications of an "economist" consist of passing the civil service exam?