RIGHT THERE IS EVIDENCE. If the data was monthly increases, then discouraged workers from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011 would have increased by over 12 million, resulting in a decline of 12.184 million discouraged workers. Instead, the decline was 184,000. Furthermore it says TOTAL for the month. Not INCREASE from prior month. Seriously, did you entirely skip math in school?that Discouraged workers is cumulative and why would it be since none of the other numbers are cumulative. Here is what the Employment Summary states
Furthermore, a GIANT ASS SIGN it's cumulative is that the first line is "NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE." If this was monthly increases, it would outpace the population of the entire country within 5 months. So yes, the other numbers are indeed cumulative. Table A-14 is cumulative as well. If the table is not cumulative, there is a title for the change either in total or percentage, table B-4 for example.
Good grief. You've been citing this data and you can't read it properly?
Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
See above. I'm embarrassed for you.So where is the evidence that the number is cumulative and not monthly? I suggest you don't buy information given you by another liberal just because that is what you want to believe. Maybe you ought to do a better job fact checking since you take great pride in your research.