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.
No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.
The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.
103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Just sayin'...
Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.
And you read but skipped over this:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math and get back to us.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
How'd they find other jobs if more people left the workforce than left their jobs?No, they did not "lose" their jobs, they left there jobs on finding better ones. Pretty puny try Mac.No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.
The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.
103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Just sayin'...
And you read but skipped over this:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math and get back to us.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
It's logic you moron. If the labor force increases or shrinks, the expected change in employed holding LFPR constant can be calculated. Jeebus, if you are going to spew statistics, at least try to think about how they are used.
No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.
The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.
103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Just sayin'...
Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
Learn some math and get back to us.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
It's logic you moron. If the labor force increases or shrinks, the expected change in employed holding LFPR constant can be calculated. Jeebus, if you are going to spew statistics, at least try to think about how they are used.
LOL....really.
And what is that exact mathematical formula that can calculate such a thing?
And where on the BLS website did you find this (hypothetical) formula?
Man...you just keep digging the hole deeper.
No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.
The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.
103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Just sayin'...
Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.
The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.
103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Just sayin'...
Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
Learn some math.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
It's logic you moron. If the labor force increases or shrinks, the expected change in employed holding LFPR constant can be calculated. Jeebus, if you are going to spew statistics, at least try to think about how they are used.
LOL....really.
And what is that exact mathematical formula that can calculate such a thing?
And where on the BLS website did you find this (hypothetical) formula?
Man...you just keep digging the hole deeper.
^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^
Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).
First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.
Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job and probably still want one. These are called Discouraged Workers.
'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
So, what has obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.
Got it now, Bub (I doubt it)?
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
It has to do with math and logic, both of which are concepts with which you are seemingly unacquainted.
And now for the kill-shot: non-seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employment. Note, it increases April over February.
View attachment 262104
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Learn some math.
Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.
I will ask you again:
You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.
And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.
Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?
I guarantee that you cannot.
And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.
It's logic you moron. If the labor force increases or shrinks, the expected change in employed holding LFPR constant can be calculated. Jeebus, if you are going to spew statistics, at least try to think about how they are used.
LOL....really.
And what is that exact mathematical formula that can calculate such a thing?
And where on the BLS website did you find this (hypothetical) formula?
Man...you just keep digging the hole deeper.
^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^
I will take that as proof that no such mathematical calculation exists and - once again - you made up another thing in this thread.
LOL...kill shot? Apples and Oranges. Man you ARE desperate to mask these bad numbers.
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
I just showed the data that proves that non-seasonally adjusted employment INCREASED April over February. You lose.
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.
The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
And he ducks the question:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.
The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Do you have Tourettes?
I didn't say that, but for the icing on my victory cake, here is the seasonally adjusted data for non-farm employed. It increased April over February as well.
You really should learn something about the BLS dataset before you try to spin in, bub.
View attachment 262105
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.
The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Do you have Tourettes?
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
That is from the Establishment Survey, ignoramus. That is a TOTALLY different Survey from the Household Data.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
You mean you do not even know the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's?
Obviously you are just running around the BLS website - desperately looking for any data that you can find...having NO IDEA what it actually means.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.
The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Do you have Tourettes?
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
To quote Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
I never said they were irrelevant. I said that looking at them out of context with the other stats is bogus. And then I showed how the logic of your presentation of one stat was disingenuous when the Civilian Labor Force and LFRP were included in the assessment of the situation.
Silly Wabbit. I am showing you how there is a great variety of data on BLS and that your cherry picking of one number you don't understand to try to spin that the Trump economy is bad is just desperate twaddle.
But thanks for playing!
Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.
The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Do you have Tourettes?
And you ducked the question again:
So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?
True or False, please?
Asked and answered.
At this point, I must conclude that you are well advanced on the Autism Spectrum.
To quote Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
I never said they were irrelevant. I said that looking at them out of context with the other stats is bogus. And then I showed how the logic of your presentation of one stat was disingenuous when the Civilian Labor Force and LFRP were included in the assessment of the situation.
You are babbling again...the CLF and LFPR have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with job gains or losses.
So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant as the number of employed are part of the unemployment rate tabulation?
True or False, please?
