1 posted on
11/04/2016 5:45:23 AM PDT by
John W
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: John W
Most of that number was part-time jobs for women. That is a miserable jobs number for men and those wanting full time employment. Obamacare is to blame.
To: John W
The usual pre-election faked democrat stats.
To: John W
I have to laugh. If GW Bush Labor Department ever reported less then 250,000 in a month these same “Journalists” were ranting and raving about how we were showing signs of a “slowing economy”.
37 posted on
11/04/2016 6:39:36 AM PDT by
MNJohnnie
( Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered)
To: John W
38 posted on
11/04/2016 7:03:45 AM PDT by
New Perspective
(Proud father of a son with Down Syndrome and fighting to keep him off Obama's death panels.)
To: John W
You knew it was coming! Bullsh*t!
To: John W
NYT headline the day after Trump wins: Number of Homeless Nationwide QUADRUPLES!!!
42 posted on
11/04/2016 7:15:12 AM PDT by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys-Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat-But they know what's best for you.)
To: John W
Drudge reporting right not that 49,609,000 not in the labor force.
43 posted on
11/04/2016 7:18:36 AM PDT by
New Jersey Realist
(America is the land of the free BECAUSE of the brave)
To: John W
It’s Fun-with-Number Friday, again.
45 posted on
11/04/2016 7:30:15 AM PDT by
fwdude
(Stronger, To Get Her)
To: John W
Sure it did.
And I bet the tens of millions that are on food stamps versus last time we were at this rate are a total fiction.
50 posted on
11/04/2016 7:40:09 AM PDT by
Bogey78O
(We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
To: John W
While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force.
It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.
51 posted on
11/04/2016 7:45:17 AM PDT by
stocksthatgoup
(When the MSM wants your opinion, they will give it to you)
To: John W
If you accept the government figures that there are approximately 150 million jobs in the US, an increase of 161,000 in a percentage increase of .001 and would have no impact on the unemployment rate.
.001 raise on an income of $50k a year would be a $50 raise. A .001 increase in sale on a yearly sales of a million dollars is only $1000.
NYT ran a piece yesterday that the homeless rate in NYC is higher than during the depression, yet all is well?
It is like reading the old Soviet newspapers.
53 posted on
11/04/2016 7:56:43 AM PDT by
rey
To: John W
Does anyone remember the quote by Nancy Pelosi, during the bush admin that any number of jobs under 500K was not good? i have spent time trying to find that and have had no luck. Would be awesome to revive it.
To: John W
and how many are unemployed and not included in the 4.9%???
FYI - It once was a rule of thumb that 5% unemployment equaled full employment as there will always be 5% unwilling or unable to wok.
57 posted on
11/04/2016 9:06:45 AM PDT by
elpadre
(AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
To: John W
And chocolate rations are going up 2 grams next month.
58 posted on
11/04/2016 11:15:48 AM PDT by
wastedyears
(The best self-destruction you'll ever see.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
