Fuzzy Math
 

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*?

Fuzzy Math
 

On 8/5/2011 9:41 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*?

Just forget about the 157K for now and readjust in a future month.

Fuzzy Math
 

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.
--
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.

Fuzzy Math
 

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.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working

Fuzzy Math
 

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.

Fuzzy Math
 

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.

Fuzzy Math
 

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?

Fuzzy Math
 

In article ,
says...

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.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working

You know I like to use people's personal thoughts for attacks against
them, so would you please tell me what is racist about asking that
question?

Fuzzy Math
 

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.

Fuzzy Math
 

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.