To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Well if you read the
actual press release,
you can see that employment actually fell by 97,000,
and unemployment is UP by 251,000.
Does that sound "good" to you?
To: Willie Green
Well if you read the actual press release, you can see that employment actually fell by 97,000, and unemployment is UP by 251,000. Does that sound "good" to you? Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted (1) Willie,
I looked in the chart and couldn't find it.
But I did find this: (the wrap when I pasted it makes it obscure...)
The 2nd and 4th columns are BOTH Feb.2004 and are not seasonally adjusted...
Employment status, race, sex, and age
Feb. Jan. Feb. Feb. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
2004 2005 2005 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005
11 posted on
03/04/2005 3:34:23 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Willie Green
Also, one might note that the participation rate is at 65.6% on a non-adjusted basis. That's a weak number, and year-on-year it's down from February 2004 where it was at 65.9%, which itself was pretty weak.
To: Willie Green; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; grey_whiskers; snowsislander; expat_panama
Willie,....Willie....Jan is a fluke month...
Lets compare Feb to the seasonal quarterly numbers....The Feb 2005 employed figure (140,144 ) is up over the III Qtr avg number ( 139,608 ) and the IV Qtr avg number (140,092|) ...
The Feb 2005 unemployed number is (7,988 ) and is lower than III Qtr avg number ( 8,069 ) and IV Qtr avg number ( 8,044 )...
Looks GOOD to me.....
16 posted on
03/04/2005 9:11:55 PM PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson