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...

In article ,
says...


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

Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about
your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change.

On 06/08/2011 7:05 AM, X-Man wrote:
In ,
says...


wrote in message
...

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

Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about
your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change.

Yep, no one expects you too. Your not smart enough to change.
--
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.