- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How can economists be so pathetic as to look at the basic numbers of this report and not read the details?
How can a job report with full time jobs lost, most of the new jobs are part-time and/or unskilled AND the U-6 rises 0.5% as anything but a negative?
I mean the number of full time workers dropped by 240,000!?!
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
Yet Wall Street seemed to generally like it because all they saw was the 195,000 number and the fact the U-3 did not go down.
The more I follow Wall Street...the dumber it looks to me (with notable exceptions).
And don't even get me started on 'economists' and/or the macroeconomic, bean counter morons at the Fed.
Thanks a lot Obama...under your leadership, America is becoming a nation of part time, unskilled workers.
Plus, the nation has WAY MORE debt.
Go back to Chicago you macroeconomic moron.
How can a job report with full time jobs lost, most of the new jobs are part-time and/or unskilled AND the U-6 rises 0.5% as anything but a negative?
I mean the number of full time workers dropped by 240,000!?!
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
Yet Wall Street seemed to generally like it because all they saw was the 195,000 number and the fact the U-3 did not go down.
The more I follow Wall Street...the dumber it looks to me (with notable exceptions).
And don't even get me started on 'economists' and/or the macroeconomic, bean counter morons at the Fed.
Thanks a lot Obama...under your leadership, America is becoming a nation of part time, unskilled workers.
Plus, the nation has WAY MORE debt.
Go back to Chicago you macroeconomic moron.
Last edited: