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

[NYcarbineer]

45,000 workers returning to the same job is not new jobs. Be a fucking hack I really don't give a shit. It's not going to change a damn thing. They are lying to you and you are asking for more of the same old shit

Well they were counted out when they began the strikes.

So naturally they are counted in when returning...

People returning to old existing jobs would not be the same as people going to new jobs.

Show us where in the BLS report they claim that new jobs were created that weren't really new jobs.

Show us word for word, with a link, from the BLS website.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Meltdown!! lololol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

And with that Ernie leaves the building. Well, I'll take his stunned silence as 'uncle' and thus:

Employment Situation News Release

The August employment report.

Note about paragraph 13:

Employment in the information industry declined by 48,000 in August. About
45,000 workers in the telecommunications industry were on strike and thus off
company payrolls during the survey reference period.

bwaa ha ha.

 

[J.E.D]

I must say America is doomed because everybody wants to blame the last president it's always been this way. We will continue to do this until every right we have is taken away, then we will only have ourselves to blame.

If people like you could do basic math and tell the truth instead of making shit up or ignoring the facts, then we might stand a chance. I don't hold out hope, though.

What is 45,000 from 103,000?

What is the previous months job numbers, minus 45,000, then the next months job numbers, plus 45,000?

I'll help you out. It's 103,000.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well they were counted out when they began the strikes.

So naturally they are counted in when returning...

People returning to old existing jobs would not be the same as people going to new jobs.

Show us where in the BLS report they claim that new jobs were created that weren't really new jobs.

Show us word for word, with a link, from the BLS website.

Read the fucking link moron.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

And with that Ernie leaves the building. Well, I'll take his stunned silence as 'uncle' and thus:

Employment Situation News Release

The August employment report.

Note about paragraph 13:

Employment in the information industry declined by 48,000 in August. About
45,000 workers in the telecommunications industry were on strike and thus off
company payrolls during the survey reference period.

bwaa ha ha.

People returning to their old jobs is not new jobs. But do continue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Meltdown!! lololol.

No thats just my normal nasty self with stupid people. but do continue to remain stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If people like you could do basic math and tell the truth instead of making shit up or ignoring the facts, then we might stand a chance. I don't hold out hope, though.

What is 45,000 from 103,000?

What is the previous months job numbers, minus 45,000, then the next months job numbers, plus 45,000?

I'll help you out. It's 103,000.

old existing jobs are not new jobs

 

[NYcarbineer]

People returning to old existing jobs would not be the same as people going to new jobs.

Show us where in the BLS report they claim that new jobs were created that weren't really new jobs.

Show us word for word, with a link, from the BLS website.

Read the fucking link moron.

Please...dude...calm down.

Your link is the British Guardian. The use of the term 'new' is the British reporter's. If you're cramping over the use of the word 'new' then take it up with the Guardian,

that was their term.

 

[Trajan]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Show us where in the BLS report they claim that new jobs were created that weren't really new jobs.

Show us word for word, with a link, from the BLS website.

Read the fucking link moron.

Please...dude...calm down.

Your link is the British Guardian. The use of the term 'new' is the British reporter's. If you're cramping over the use of the word 'new' then take it up with the Guardian,

that was their term.

OH I'm very calm read the fucking source. The numbers have been cooked old is not new. I don't care what country you go to old existing will still be old not new.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Well they don't at least for washington state

Q. I voted against the strike although I'm a member of the union on strike. Am I eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits?
A. Since the majority of the bargaining unit voted to strike, you are technically “on strike” and are not eligible for unemployment benefits, regardless of how you voted.
Frequently asked questions about labor disputes

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the fucking link moron.

Please...dude...calm down.

Your link is the British Guardian. The use of the term 'new' is the British reporter's. If you're cramping over the use of the word 'new' then take it up with the Guardian,

that was their term.

OH I'm very calm read the fucking source. The numbers have been cooked old is not new. I don't care what country you go to old existing will still be old not new.

Do you at least understand that it was the British reporter who decided to call them new jobs and not the Obama administration, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Do you still dispute that??????

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Their number is how many people are working, i.e., on a payroll. They don't spin the number and there is no evidence they cook the books.

The OP did a bit of posting before thinking and researching, and now keeps digging himself deeper in reaction to having been advised of his error.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please...dude...calm down.

Your link is the British Guardian. The use of the term 'new' is the British reporter's. If you're cramping over the use of the word 'new' then take it up with the Guardian,

that was their term.

OH I'm very calm read the fucking source. The numbers have been cooked old is not new. I don't care what country you go to old existing will still be old not new.

Do you at least understand that it was the British reporter who decided to call them new jobs and not the Obama administration, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Do you still dispute that??????

Do you start to understand the government is lying to you? Old existing jobs is not new jobs

 

[cbirch2]

I dont even understand why your freaking out kid.

Are you saying you would rather have the labor department not subtract striking workers from month payroll stats?

This is insane.

 

[cbirch2]

OH I'm very calm read the fucking source. The numbers have been cooked old is not new. I don't care what country you go to old existing will still be old not new.

Do you at least understand that it was the British reporter who decided to call them new jobs and not the Obama administration, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Do you still dispute that??????

Do you start to understand the government is lying to you? Old existing jobs is not new jobs

How would you have them report the numbers differently?

i dont think you know what your talking about, unless you can answer that question.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you at least understand that it was the British reporter who decided to call them new jobs and not the Obama administration, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Do you still dispute that??????

Do you start to understand the government is lying to you? Old existing jobs is not new jobs

How would you have them report the numbers differently?

i dont think you know what your talking about, unless you can answer that question.

I'm not sucked up with the obama haze so I can think clearly when the haze no longer affects your common seance come back and I'll bring you up to speed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I dont even understand why your freaking out kid.

Are you saying you would rather have the labor department not subtract striking workers from month payroll stats?

This is insane.

Junior you need to grow up before you call your elders kid.

 

[cbirch2]

I dont even understand why your freaking out kid.

Are you saying you would rather have the labor department not subtract striking workers from month payroll stats?

This is insane.

Junior you need to grow up before you call your elders kid.

People that cant answer the question resort to ad hominem.

Just tell me, what should the labor department have done differently from the start??