On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:19:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

Oh.. sorry.. I didn't address that. I think it's probably that people
stopped being counted. Obviously, that's not good news.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are
not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

On 8/5/11 2:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.



It's been that way for a long, long time.

--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

On 05/08/2011 10:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

Yep, the rise of unemployment started with Bernanke and the Democrat
congress of 2006. Go figure.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:10:14 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 10:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

Yep, the rise of unemployment started with Bernanke and the Democrat
congress of 2006. Go figure.

You are incredibly stupid.

wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent
opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch

On 8/5/2011 6:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my
recent opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch



Me thinks you spoke too soon.

On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu

Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to
stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed
itself with debt.

--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs
lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs
just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government
only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu


Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to
stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed
itself with debt.

The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now.
China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings.