On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.


Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum "not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.


Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709


That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.

The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

On 9/5/2011 5:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.


Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709


That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.

The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Well they did put you out of work at the car wash.

On 9/5/11 6:34 PM, BeachBum wrote:
On 9/5/2011 5:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those
charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry
picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up
13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only
use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to
produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was
included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but
there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you
haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.


Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709


That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.

The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Well they did put you out of work at the car wash.


A mop and a bucket retired you from the navy.

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

On Sep 5, 8:02*pm, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/5/11 6:34 PM, BeachBum wrote:





On 9/5/2011 5:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those
charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry
picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up
13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only
use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to
produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was
included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but
there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you
haven't
been very successful in doing so.

Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.

Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.

The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Well they did put you out of work at the car wash.

A mop and a bucket retired you from the navy.



.... and none too soon, from what I hear.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:09:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:26:03 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum "not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:

On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:


The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.

I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those charts.

They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry picked."

You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up 13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)

You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to produce that
chart.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.

As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you haven't
been very successful in doing so.


Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709

If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.


Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709


That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.

The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Who blamed anyone? you really are trolling here.

You said "The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos". Do
you deny typing that? You're the one who's trolling.

On 9/6/11 2:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:04:00 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:09:02 -0400, wrote:


The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Who blamed anyone? you really are trolling here.

You said "The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos". Do
you deny typing that? You're the one who's trolling.

That is not complaining, it is just stating a fact. If I was hiring I
would probably hire the Mexican. They work harder and are not as
affected by the heat.

The point is that you are not propping up the economy with lawn mowing
jobs


Without those lawnmowing jobs, several right-wing posters here would
have to rely on their food stamps alone.

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:15:58 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:04:00 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:09:02 -0400, wrote:


The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.

Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.

Who blamed anyone? you really are trolling here.

You said "The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos". Do
you deny typing that? You're the one who's trolling.

That is not complaining, it is just stating a fact. If I was hiring I
would probably hire the Mexican. They work harder and are not as
affected by the heat.

The point is that you are not propping up the economy with lawn mowing
jobs

Really? So, who exactly is "the Mexican"? Do you mean someone who
looks Hispanic?

The point is that there are plenty of gardeners who aren't Hispanic
and this has nothing to do with Green Jobs. Of course, you continue
your trolling with half-truths and false equivalencies in the hope of
bolstering your flawed "research."