cbirch2
Active Member
- Jul 9, 2011
- 1,394
- 49
- 36
Point me to one conservative in this thread.These workers were striking workers returning to work.
You realize that even the conservatives that are normally on this board are coming out to say that your wrong, right??
What problem do you have with BLS reporting people that are temporarily out of work? Thats the whole point...
Is it that you somehow think a person out of work because of a strike has no effect on the economy??? because it does....
Heres Six
UER is unchanged because, though there MAY have been 103,000 new jobs added, apparently there were just as many lost.
Push
103,000 new jobs were reported in Octobers jobs report Sounds good doesn't it?
But wait something is not rightUS adds 103,000 new jobs but unemployment rate unchanged
Better-than-expected figures provide some relief for Barack Obama and boost markets, although unemployment still at 9.1%
US adds 103,000 new jobs as unemployment rate unchanged | Business | guardian.co.ukThe increase in employment partially reflected the return to payrolls of about 45,000 Verizon telecoms workers who had been on strike in August. The number of unemployed people, at 14 million, remained essentially unchanged in September.
So there were no 103,000 new jobs which means obama's labor department lied.
Good point....I didn't realize that
So I guess what you are trying to tell us is that the employment numbers from August to October were actually too low by 45,000 jobs
Did they count the jobs as lost when they went on strike?
Just curious because if they did, I suppose there's nothing wrong with counting them as gained once they go back to work.
^^That person agreed with you, at least thanked you, one page 1 or 2. Now hes realizing your a retard... ^^
I am still wondering how folks who go out on strike qualify for unemployment in the first place?
and they did minus 45k a few months ago, now they have counted it back in, the term NEW can be problematic, but in all fairness I am not sure if they even have that quantification/qualification in the mumbo jumbo they use.
The unemployment number and the payroll number come from two seperate surveys, so it's not unusual for them to be out of sync.
If the workers were all laid off and the owners sold the company to new people that hired the old workforce, then yes. It happens so rarely that we don't have to worry about it....When a company shut's down for the holidays, when they return to work is that considered new jobs add to the economy?
BLS numbers are good. They're not perfect but no tools are perfect. As with other tools the big problem is with the person who uses them. Right now we got people trying to do economics complaining about their tools, and we all know that it's a very poor carpenter that blames his tools for his bad workmanship.
All of those people are conservatives. I know either because of their sig, or because i have personally had arguments with them in the past
You need to pay particular attention to what rightwinger said, and what ba1614 said.
Your doing the same thing that ringwinger was doing, only he realized it right away.
If your claim is that the October numbers are artificially high, and those arent new jobs. Fine. But that also means that the September numbers were artificially low, and those werent lost jobs.
Idk if you can understand that....
Last edited: