Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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*? |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Fuzzy Math
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Fuzzy Math
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Math Predictor | General | |||
Need Help with the Math | General | |||
Rules of the Road Fuzzy - ON TOPIC! | General | |||
Do the math | ASA | |||
Do the math | ASA |