The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: isAnd we should listen to this guy...
BLS faking the initial numbers? https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
And we should listen to this guy...
...why exactly?
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: isAnd we should listen to this guy...
BLS faking the initial numbers? https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed >>>>> people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at >>>>> SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed >>> people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but >>>>> they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy...
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed >>>>> people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at >>>>> SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created >>>>> keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is >>>>> BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but >>>>>>> they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy...
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed >>>>>>> people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at >>>>>>> SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created >>>>>>> keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is >>>>>>> BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but >>>>>>> they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployedAnd we should listen to this guy...
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at >>>>>>> SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created >>>>>>> keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is >>>>>>> BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but >>>>>>> they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployedAnd we should listen to this guy...
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created >>>>>>> keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but >>>>>>>>>>>> they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployedAnd we should listen to this guy...
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created >>>>>>>>>>>> keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation) >>>
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation) >>>>>>
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the currentOn Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!Answer my question about why yours matters first.
:-)
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!Except for how the above URL answers where the new jobs came from, as delineated by industry sector (the standard/default means of reporting on this).
But of course you'll now claim that you *intended* to ask for some different "where" question.
Nah, being deliberately vague doesn't fly:
Cry harder for your failed troll attempt, yon Intellectually Impoverished Imbecile.
-hh
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 2:14:41 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
Except for how the above URL answers where the new jobs came from, as delineated by industry sector (the standard/default means of reporting on this).
But of course you'll now claim that you *intended* to ask for some different "where" question.
Nah, being deliberately vague doesn't fly:
Cry harder for your failed troll attempt, yon Intellectually Impoverished Imbecile.
This AIN'T a trick question, Lyin' Asshole
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the currentOn Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous >>>>>>>>>> figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Why would that matter?
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the currentOn Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing? >>>>>>>>>
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole??? >>>>>
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Why would that matter?
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one: >>>>>>>Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the currentOn Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!! >>>>>>>>>>
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing? >>>>>>>>>
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507> >>>>>>>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole??? >>>>>
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Why would that matter?
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the currentOn Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine? >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!! >>>>>>>>>>
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing? >>>>>>>>>
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole??? >>>>>
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hh
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one: >>>>>>>On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!! >>>>>>>>>>
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing? >>>>>>>>>
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507> >>>>>>>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
Nope.-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one: >>>>>>>On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!! >>>>>>>>>>
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing? >>>>>>>>>
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507> >>>>>>>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one: >>>>>>>
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butHey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!! >>>>>>>>>>
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507> >>>>>>>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
-hh
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.
On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butHey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE> >>>>>>>>
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
-hh
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?
On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE> >>>>>>>>
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE> >>>>>>>>
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
-hh
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE> >>>>>>>>
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected >>>>>>>>
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!! >> Answer my question about why yours matters first.
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I didn't "mix" anything: that was Table A8 right out of BLS' report w/o ANY modification.
It clearly shows gov't employment UP by 402,000 and private DOWN by 70,000.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:51:12 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote::-)
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE> >>>>>>>>
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!)
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected >>>>>>>>
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!! >> Answer my question about why yours matters first. >>
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I didn't "mix" anything: that was Table A8 right out of BLS' report w/o ANY modification.But you've not shown why your DIY derivation is *contradicted* by the above BLS link for the same month.
It clearly shows gov't employment UP by 402,000 and private DOWN by 70,000.
FYI, here's the link again in case you try to be lazy/dodge:
"Employment by industry, September 2023, Seasonally Adjusted, 1-month net change"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
This BLS page shows that all industries grew, except as I noted for 'Information' for both the 1-month & 3-month views.
One has to go to the 6- and 12-month views to find _any_ other sector with a job loss, which is limited to just one
industry segment, namely 'Transportation & Warehousing', and its decline is like -0.5%: nowhere near large enough
to flip the entire 'private' segment negative as you're trying to claim.
FYI, this is an unambiguous contradiction to your claim. It is also why it is wise to go through the entire official
report to find where they've already answered the specific sub-question is you're looking for an answer on, rather
than try to make mistakes with your DIY.
-hh
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:53:22 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:51:12 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first. >>
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that?
I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures.
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!) >>>>>>>>
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected >>>>>>>>
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I didn't "mix" anything: that was Table A8 right out of BLS' report w/o ANY modification.But you've not shown why your DIY derivation is *contradicted* by the above BLS link for the same month.
It clearly shows gov't employment UP by 402,000 and private DOWN by 70,000.
FYI, here's the link again in case you try to be lazy/dodge:
"Employment by industry, September 2023, Seasonally Adjusted, 1-month net change"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
This BLS page shows that all industries grew, except as I noted for 'Information' for both the 1-month & 3-month views.
One has to go to the 6- and 12-month views to find _any_ other sector with a job loss, which is limited to just one
industry segment, namely 'Transportation & Warehousing', and its decline is like -0.5%: nowhere near large enough
to flip the entire 'private' segment negative as you're trying to claim.
FYI, this is an unambiguous contradiction to your claim. It is also why it is wise to go through the entire official
report to find where they've already answered the specific sub-question is you're looking for an answer on, rather
than try to make mistakes with your DIY.
-hhYou haven't explained the contradiction ...
... I stand by the data presented by BLS.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:53:22 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:51:12 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, but
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I haveAnd we should listen to this guy...
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly?
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that? >>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures. >>>>>>>>>>
That remains unsubstantiated.
U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!) >>>>>>>>
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected >>>>>>>>
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I didn't "mix" anything: that was Table A8 right out of BLS' report w/o ANY modification.But you've not shown why your DIY derivation is *contradicted* by the above BLS link for the same month.
It clearly shows gov't employment UP by 402,000 and private DOWN by 70,000.
FYI, here's the link again in case you try to be lazy/dodge:
"Employment by industry, September 2023, Seasonally Adjusted, 1-month net change"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
This BLS page shows that all industries grew, except as I noted for 'Information' for both the 1-month & 3-month views.
One has to go to the 6- and 12-month views to find _any_ other sector with a job loss, which is limited to just one
industry segment, namely 'Transportation & Warehousing', and its decline is like -0.5%: nowhere near large enough
to flip the entire 'private' segment negative as you're trying to claim.
FYI, this is an unambiguous contradiction to your claim. It is also why it is wise to go through the entire official
report to find where they've already answered the specific sub-question is you're looking for an answer on, rather
than try to make mistakes with your DIY.
-hhYou haven't explained the contradiction ...
I don't need to, because it wasn't my bad math that made that bad claim.
... I stand by the data presented by BLS.
So do I. That's why I defer to the conclusions of BLS's online report instead of your
so-called 'math', because BLS's "Employment by industry, monthly changes" Chart
unambiguously contradicts you.
Asa a reminder, the BLS "Employment by industry, monthly changes" Chart, is at URL:
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
So then! This is now your third opportunity to explain why your 'math' is contradicted by
BLS's reporting. Time for you to either put up, or run away again, yon "yellow bellied coward & liar".
-hh
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:13:55 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:53:22 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:51:12 AM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:06:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:10:54 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:24:38 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:18:03 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:34:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:36:22 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 20:45, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 13:54, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:41:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Answer my question about why yours matters first.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:15, Tommy wrote:Because Tommy wants say something 'not nice' about NJ or something like that.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:36:58 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-05 21:07, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:U6 rate isn’t substantially high compared to historical norms .. indeed, U6 is
On 2023-10-05 20:21, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:07:36 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I "substantiated" what you asked for, so FUCK YOU!!!!
But there's MORE to what the article claimed, right Sunshine?On 2023-10-05 18:15, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:46:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
So produce THOSE sources, Sunshine.On 2023-10-03 20:27, Tommy wrote:
The libtards keep gloating about the low unemployment number, butAnd we should listen to this guy...
they don't know SHIT about what makes up that number. As I have
REPEATEDLY said, the U3 number reported by BLS is ONLY people
actively looking for a job, and IGNORES discouraged and underemployed
people. If you include those the unemployment rate is MUCH HIGHER at
SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT! Furthermore, the initial new jobs created
keeps being adjusted DOWNWARD, and by SUBSTANTIAL numbers!
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
This has happened SEVEN MONTHS IN A ROW! This begs the question: is
BLS faking the initial numbers?
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/job-numbers-have-been-revised-down-for-seven-straight-months/
...why exactly? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you got another more authoritative source?
Hey Fool, this stuff ALL comes out of BLS.GOV - is that "authoritative" enough for you?
So, you are TOO LAZY to look it up for yourself, sunshine? Ok, this ONE TIME I will do it for you:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Notice that the TOTAL unemployed is SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT, EXACTLY what the article stated!
They claim that earlier reports had a different figure.
Can you substantiate that? >>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
Because the original article compares what they claim are previous
figures with current figures. >>>>>>>>>>
That remains unsubstantiated. >>>>>>>>> Plus even if one wants to use U6, there’s still the observation that the current
near historical lows .. so how is this a “bad” thing?
< https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE>
Oh, and in the meantime, the reason for Tommy repeating a spin attempt becomes clear:
Presser, 7 Oct 23:
US Employment report
New Jobs: 336K vs 170K expected (!) >>>>>>>>
Unemployment rate: 3.8% vs 3.7% expected
Hourly earnings up 0.2% versus 0.3% expected (still ahead of inflation)
BONUS:
Revisions ADDED another 119K jobs >>>>>>> And because Tommy's OP troll is obviously a partisan one:
"Job growth during the last 3 GOP Presidencies averaged 10,000 a month, 120,000 a year over 16 years.
Last month 336,000 jobs were created. That would be almost 3 years of job growth under Republicans. In a single month."
<https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1710348690093670507>
-hh
And do you KNOW where the job growth came from, Lyin' Asshole???
Why would that matter?
In contrast to Tommy, wealthy investors know how to look at market opportunities by sectors
and other relevant metrics...for which the Government is helpful in providing date, case in point:
"Graphics for Economic News Releases
Employment by industry, monthly changes" >>>>
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
-hh
LOL! The libtards CAN'T answer a simple question!!
:-)
No, Fool, not playing that game
Of course not!
You're a coward.
Always have been.
If you have a point...
...make it.The funny part is that even his implied conspiracy theory in his earlier posts on this thread
has been debunked (e.g. that it is significant that the last seven revisions have all been down)
because this past month's report's revision to prior months was up .. and by a hefty +119K jobs.
So perhaps Tommy can explain this 180 reversal in revisions trend. I'll give him a head start:
a) The Over/Under revisions have been just statistically random chance all along: nothing
to see here but the rants of loony conspiracy theorists who don't understand statistics;
b) The initial monthly data collection process is known to over-estimate, so having more
downward revisions than upwards (and why the revisions process exists) is very normal.
Again, nothing to see here and this again illustrates that conspiracy theorists who are lazy
and don't research the details in the weeds will falsely find things to try to rant about;
c) The end-of-Quarter data collection & reporting process are different down in the weeds,
basically representing better data. This effectively means that the significance wasn't really
"7 in a row" of months, but more like just two (2) more accurate quarterly reports being in the
same direction, which makes this a far more statistically normal variance occurrence and
again something that bad-at-analytical-analysis conspiracy theorists come up short on;
d) It really was a conspiracy! /s The Fed had been sandbagging the numbers. Why? Well
they wanted to keep consumer confidence low (for TBD reasons): they unwound it because
they realized that they've been caught by this 'celebrity' investor Peter Schiff, who is actually a
highly honest man with no grudges despite his public comments and how his Puerto Rican bank
was caught up in the world’s biggest tax evasion probe in 2020 .. or something like that /s;
e) Some other clearly more plausible explanation that Tommy will have to provide.
-hhLOL! Ok, you libtards COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT!! Well, here it is:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The employment GAINS were 402,000 in GOVERNMENT employees, while private
industry had a LOSS of SEVENTY THOUSAND!!! Take home point: the economy
SHRANK based on private employment numbers.
Nope.
Govt jobs growth was just 73K of the +336K MoM employment gain.
WRONG: read the fucking report, Lyin' Asshole.I did, and nowhere does it say “402,000” or equivalent.
Feel free to quote where that is listed in your cite.
FYI, the +73K comes from the BLS cite I previously provided; the exact value requires
you to click on the link to go to the Table data instead of eyeballing off the chart.
You HAVE to do simple arithmetic, Lyin' Asshole:Yet your math contradicts what BLS has published here:
21,601,000 - 21,199,000 = 402,000
< https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
which suggests you’re doing something wrong in your numbers.
FYI, the above cite also says that the only sector which didn’t have MoM jobs gain
in September was Sector 7 (“Information”): all others had positive gains, which is
contrary to your narrative attempt.
And why did Sector 7 have a decline? Well, it is the sector for writers & actors,
who are on strike.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, those aren't MY numbers, they are BLS numbers. So, YOU need to explain the differences.
Already have: BLS didn’t publish your claim that all segments except Govt were doen.
You did that after you mixed BLS values from different sources.
That’s why your claim conflicts with BLS’s.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I didn't "mix" anything: that was Table A8 right out of BLS' report w/o ANY modification.But you've not shown why your DIY derivation is *contradicted* by the above BLS link for the same month.
It clearly shows gov't employment UP by 402,000 and private DOWN by 70,000.
FYI, here's the link again in case you try to be lazy/dodge:
"Employment by industry, September 2023, Seasonally Adjusted, 1-month net change"
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
This BLS page shows that all industries grew, except as I noted for 'Information' for both the 1-month & 3-month views.
One has to go to the 6- and 12-month views to find _any_ other sector with a job loss, which is limited to just one
industry segment, namely 'Transportation & Warehousing', and its decline is like -0.5%: nowhere near large enough
to flip the entire 'private' segment negative as you're trying to claim.
FYI, this is an unambiguous contradiction to your claim. It is also why it is wise to go through the entire official
report to find where they've already answered the specific sub-question is you're looking for an answer on, rather
than try to make mistakes with your DIY.
-hhYou haven't explained the contradiction ...
I don't need to, because it wasn't my bad math that made that bad claim.
... I stand by the data presented by BLS.
So do I. That's why I defer to the conclusions of BLS's online report instead of your
so-called 'math', because BLS's "Employment by industry, monthly changes" Chart
unambiguously contradicts you.
Asa a reminder, the BLS "Employment by industry, monthly changes" Chart, is at URL:
<https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm>
So then! This is now your third opportunity to explain why your 'math' is contradicted by
BLS's reporting. Time for you to either put up, or run away again, yon "yellow bellied coward & liar".
No, this is your LAST CHANCE to explain it ..
… Table A-8 speaks for itself, Lyin' Asshole.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:37:55 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,420 |