On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

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

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, 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*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

And assuming zero population growth, that is about a 20 year recovery
not including that new jobs pay less than old jobs lost.

Bottom line, bad news. This is typically the good time of year for
employment, wait until Sept/Oct.

No. You're just stupid.

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.

On 8/5/2011 12:44 PM, 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.
Would you all polish up your insults a bit?

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:50:50 -0400, LilAbner wrote:

On 8/5/2011 12:44 PM, 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.
Would you all polish up your insults a bit?

No insult was intended. I pointed out that it's not an empirical math
issue.

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.

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.)

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 Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:12:00 -0400, "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


Darn it, I forgot to call you a moron. Oh well!

Actually, I hunted around it was The Who...