* Sorry, but you have failed despite mighty rhetorical exertions, to demonstrate a single error by Roberts. *
Very weak try, Paul -- Or should I call you Mr. Roberts?
I already refuted what's below, something Roberts wrote:
PCR:
* The ratio of employment to population fell again in November. *
"Fell again." Roberts tries to suggest with this wording that the one month drop in November (by 0.1 percent) is a trend.
I posted this earlier. You perhaps missed it or you also are attempting to distort matters.
Calif. Conservative:
In November 2005, this employment to population ratio was 62.8. In 11-04, it was 62.5. In 11-03, it was 62.3. In 11-02, it was 62.5. And in 11-01, it was 63.0. So the trend generally has been improving for the last four years.
This ratio -- a way to measure whether employment growth is keeping up with, or lagging behind, population growth and the presumptive labor force, also has been improving during 2005 itself.
I also pointed out that despite Roberts whining about govt. jobs, over the last 12 months, private sector employment has increased much more rapidly than government sector employment.
To review
Over the last 12 months:
-- Non-farm payrolls have increased 1.5 percent, or 2 million jobs
-- Private sector employment is up 1.7 percent, or 1.8 million jobs.
-- Government employment is up 0.8 percent, or 166,000 jobs.
As you can see, Roberts is guilty of distortions when focuses on the government jobs created in November 2005, when the rate of job growth is far greater in the private sector compared with the public sector.
Those are just two direct refutations that show errors/distortions/invalid conclusions by Roberts.
No rhetoric. No exertion. Just facts.
All those irrelevant facts. Hence wasted exertions, since you are inapt to the issues.
There were only 194,000 new jobs in the private sector. Of those, 37,000 are in construction and only 11,000 are in manufacturing. The bulk of the new jobs – 144,000 – are in domestic services.
None of your points deals with any of that.