[St. Louis Conservative]

That’s a lower number than was cut in March. It seems to be on the right trend, no?

[algernonpj]

“That’s a lower number than was cut in March. It seems to be on the right trend, no?”

.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. It seems to me that the actual # of jobs cut is frequently updated/increased after the original release.

And don’t forget 138,000 legal new workers are still being imported each month.

[The Duke]

That’s a lower number than was cut in March. It seems to be on the right trend, no?

The difference between last month and this month coincides to the number of temporary government employees who were hired to document homes via GPS for the 2010 census. Guess how much these folks are being paid, and how long they'll have a job?

There's been no real change (though I wish there had been for the sake of us all).

[bill1952]

That’s a lower number than was cut in March. It seems to be on the right trend, no?

LOL! Okay, okay, people aren't very up on prob and stat.

When the gross number of any series is diminished, then each seceding diminishment is of a smaller number, even though the gross percentage of loss (delta) is unchanged.

IOW, if the number of jobs lost was the same after each count, then the trend would be accelerating dramatically, not slowing.

The trend is virtually unchanged.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. - the purview of the media.
See tag...