Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (275027)	2/17/2006 3:31:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572516

CJ, You still haven't explained why you feel the numbers were from different sources. I don't feel like digging up the original source, but I remember wondering how vague "job creation" is, especially when I hear stuff like "non-farm payroll" or other exceptions like that. Non farm payroll is standard terminology. Its the key barometer in determining if jobs grew or did not grow from month to month. Like CJ pointed out it comes from the Bureau of Labor. I'd sure like to see concrete numbers on how many people have simply given up on looking for a job, and how that is supposedly making the unemployment numbers lower than they should be. Hard to trust those whose only motives are to trash Bush. Its very hard to come up with that statistic. People don't announce when they are giving up looking for a job or sign a form telling us that that's what they are doing. They simply withdraw from the labor force. The only way to get a rough guess is to measure........actually, I don't know what is the best way. What we do know for sure....job growth has been lackluster even if the drop from 5.5% to 4.7% [which most economists expect will be revised upwards] was due to the unemployed getting jobs. It suggests an economy barely creating more jobs than new people entering the labor force. And given the numbers of new jobs created since Bush took over, its more likely that roughly half of the drop was due to people giving up. But then you have the Roberts article that points out that this recovery has been the weakest statistically since WW II. What do you need to have happen before you accept that fact......someone hitting you over the head with the news?