Posted on 09/02/2011 5:35:14 AM PDT by Free Vulcan
Edited on 09/02/2011 5:57:03 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Job growth was unchanged in August, the weakest performance in almost a year...lower than the 53,000 gain expected.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
That’s funny. They think that there have been “spending cuts”. And somehow those magic, non-existent spending cuts caused employers not to hire people. Pure genius!!!
If the job pool was the same as 2009, the unemployment rate wpuld be 11.4% per Rush
German Parliament is going to vote whether they want to be on the hook for the whole of the Eurozone debt.
Because we all know saddling Germans with huge amount of debt is such a great idea, right?
Actually we need 150,000 jobs per month to handle new entries into the workplace and a lot more than that to make a dent into unemployment.
If 250,000 jobs were created each month starting now, it would take 5 years to get the unemployment number back to 5%.
U6 was the statistic used during the Great Depression.
Not sure why anyone would think comparing a different stat, U3, with U6, is acceptable.
It’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Thanks PMAS. That puts things in perspective and I appreciate it.
I guess after five years, we could then start working on the people who have basically given up. Then another five yeas?
Ouch...
I realize there are different references such as U3, U6, I’m sure others too, but I’m not sure where you drew the connection to reference this here.
Is it the non-Farm specific reference in the article?
There are about 400,000 NEW claims each week for unemploument.
That is about 1,600,000 NEW claims each month.
“New jobs” are not even on the radar.
I don’t understand the formula that keeps unemployment at 9.1% when over a million & a half people are filing NEW claims every month.
In the midst of back to school shopping==retail jobs down!!!
That's happened a number of times...of course the revised down numbers don't get as much reporting as the incorrect previous "high" job growth numbers that were previously touted.
I’m sure it is being repeated. More ominously, the prior months were all revised downward. And that means there’s a good chance that the ZERO initial print will get a downward revision
And does anybody believe the number really was PRECISELY zero? That was President Zero can continue to claim that it’s been x number of months without job losses.
I suspect those claims will vanish come the early October release of the next employment report.
-George
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.