obama's labor department cooks the numbers of new jobs in Octobers report.

103,000 new jobs were reported in Octobers jobs report Sounds good doesn't it?

US 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%

But wait something is not right

The 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.
US adds 103,000 new jobs as unemployment rate unchanged | Business | guardian.co.uk
So there were no 103,000 new jobs which means obama's labor department lied.

What did they lie about, exactly?

Stupid no further need to reply
 
I believe that NYCarbineer just did a good job of explaining it to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Oh well, carry on.
 
103,000 new jobs were reported in Octobers jobs report Sounds good doesn't it?

US 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%

But wait something is not right

The 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.
US adds 103,000 new jobs as unemployment rate unchanged | Business | guardian.co.uk
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
 
I believe that NYCarbineer just did a good job of explaining it to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Oh well, carry on.

Just like you he proved just how stupid really can be
People returning to old jobs is not new jobs.
 
103,000 new jobs were reported in Octobers jobs report Sounds good doesn't it?

US 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%

But wait something is not right

The 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.
US adds 103,000 new jobs as unemployment rate unchanged | Business | guardian.co.uk
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

People returning to their old existing jobs is not the same as people getting new jobs.
 
103,000 new jobs were reported in Octobers jobs report Sounds good doesn't it?



But wait something is not right


US adds 103,000 new jobs as unemployment rate unchanged | Business | guardian.co.uk
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

People returning to their old existing jobs is not the same as people getting new jobs.

So the labor departments unemployment rate for August to October underreported by 45,000 jobs. By your argument, the jobs were still there, there was just nobody filling them

So Obamas employment figures should have been Higher
 
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.
 
I believe that NYCarbineer just did a good job of explaining it to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Oh well, carry on.

Just like you he proved just how stupid really can be
People returning to old jobs is not new jobs.

Moron, if the 45k workers weren't counted when they went on strike, then they should be counted when they go off of strike. How you don't get that really simple concept is beyond me. :cuckoo:
 
I believe that NYCarbineer just did a good job of explaining it to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Oh well, carry on.

Just like you he proved just how stupid really can be
People returning to old jobs is not new jobs.

Hey asshole.

Here's the first line of the Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up in September (+103,000). The increase in employment partially reflected the return to payrolls of about 45,000 telecommunications workers who had been on strike in August.

Now,

1. Show us where they say anything about 'new' jobs

2. Show us where they hide the fact of the telecom workers coming back.

Payroll employment edges up in September 2011
 
And your point is...?

The point is they cooked the books. Same shit, different day.
Look at virtually every economic data point 30 days after it is issued by this administration. In nearly every case, the numbers will be revised downward. The revisions rarely make the news, but a few days later, we'll get the next month's (inflated) numbers that paint a rosy picture.
 
The unemployment numbers are skewed right from the start. How can you take them seriously when they don't count people who ARE unemployed but have been unemployed for so long that they have given up even looking for a job? Those people are taken OUT of the unemployment equation which is a feat of governmental 'sleight of hand' that's nothing short of astounding. There are more long time unemployed right now than at any time since the Great Depression. Each and every day more and more of THEM fall through the cracks, no longer being counted.
 
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.

Yes, and I already pointed out that they did. The OP is an ineducable troll, but since he puts a nice face on the true nature of conservatism,

I for one will never discourage him from posting.
 
And your point is...?

The point is they cooked the books. Same shit, different day.
Look at virtually every economic data point 30 days after it is issued by this administration. In nearly every case, the numbers will be revised downward. The revisions rarely make the news, but a few days later, we'll get the next month's (inflated) numbers that paint a rosy picture.

It's already been proven that they didn't cook the books. Make yourself a turkey sandwich and go back to bed.
 
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.

Yes, and I already pointed out that they did. The OP is an ineducable troll, but since he puts a nice face on the true nature of conservatism,

I for one will never discourage him from posting.

Ahh, No. You didn't. Show us in the August numbers where the 45K Verizon workers were added to the unemployment numbers. When you do, I will gladly accept the premise.
 
And your point is...?

The point is they cooked the books. Same shit, different day.
Look at virtually every economic data point 30 days after it is issued by this administration. In nearly every case, the numbers will be revised downward. The revisions rarely make the news, but a few days later, we'll get the next month's (inflated) numbers that paint a rosy picture.

It's only cooking the books if they didn't include those workers as unemployed in previous reports

As long as they are consistent in what counts as a job and what doesn't ...how does it matter?

as an aside, I'm glad those workers are back on the job
 
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.

Yes, and I already pointed out that they did. The OP is an ineducable troll, but since he puts a nice face on the true nature of conservatism,

I for one will never discourage him from posting.

Ahh, No. You didn't. Show us in the August numbers where the 45K Verizon workers were added to the unemployment numbers. When you do, I will gladly accept the premise.

Only if you honestly answer this question:

Why are you asking me that and not the OP? Why are you accepting his unsubstantiated as FACT and then turning around and asking me for links?
 
If you want to actually talk about something worthwhile, consider this:

ted_20111007.png


Look where the biggest loss of jobs was, GOVERNMENT JOBS. This is not unique either this has been going on now for years.

We ARE shrinking government, but is it the path to creating jobs as the Republicans claim, or is it simply hurting the jobs situation as I have explained to you people repeatedly,

as the reality of austerity?

You tell me.
 
I believe that NYCarbineer just did a good job of explaining it to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Oh well, carry on.

Just like you he proved just how stupid really can be
People returning to old jobs is not new jobs.

Hey asshole.

Here's the first line of the Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up in September (+103,000). The increase in employment partially reflected the return to payrolls of about 45,000 telecommunications workers who had been on strike in August.

Now,

1. Show us where they say anything about 'new' jobs

2. Show us where they hide the fact of the telecom workers coming back.

Payroll employment edges up in September 2011

old jobs are not new jobs so shut the fuck up asshole.
 

Forum List

Back
Top