• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. loses 33,000 jobs. 1st time since Sept 2010

I can read but perhaps you can't understand what I was writing. Those that did not receive a paycheck are not included in the 33,000 number. They were considered employed. This is from the BLS:

You are quoting the Current Population Survey definition of employed. The CPS showed an increase of 903,000 employed.
The -33,000 is from the Current Employment Statistics Survey. The definition of Employed is a little different:
"Employment data refer to persons on establishment payrolls who worked or received pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month.

The data exclude proprietors, the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid volunteer or family employees, farm employees, and domestic employees. Salaried officers of corporations are included. Government employment covers only civilian employees; military personnel are excluded. Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency also are excluded.

Persons on establishment payrolls who are on paid sick leave (for cases in which pay is received directly from the firm), on paid holiday, or on paid vacation, or who work during a part of the pay period even though they are unemployed or on strike during the rest of the period are counted as employed. Not counted as employed are persons who are on layoff, on leave without pay, or on strike for the entire period, or who were hired but have not yet reported during the period.
"
Source: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#section3a
 
I believe California's population continues to rise.

Also I learned that those not working temporarily are considered employed.

Actually people are leaving California in droves because they cannot afford to live in the areas that they work.
 
Of course the president isn't directly responsible for a bad jobs month. But, let's be real here. If these numbers showed growth, the jackass in the white house would be retweeting them and taking full credit, so he fully deserves the political hit that comes with this.

SO please tell everyone here how Trump can control the weather now.
pretty much every economist says to ignore this one.
 
Actually people are leaving California in droves because they cannot afford to live in the areas that they work.

The numbers do not support what you claimed. This is the population of California over the last 17 years:

Year population growth%
2016 39,497,345 0.90%
2015 39,144,818 0.91%
2014 38,792,291 0.98%
2013 38,414,128 0.94%
2012 38,056,055 0.94%
2011 37,700,034 1.20%
2010 37,253,956 0.96%
2000 33,871,648 1.30%
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Of course the president isn't directly responsible for a bad jobs month. But, let's be real here. If these numbers showed growth, the jackass in the white house would be retweeting them and taking full credit, so he fully deserves the political hit that comes with this.
SO please tell everyone here how Trump can control the weather now.
pretty much every economist says to ignore this one.
What Joe is saying is that if Trump is going to go to a casino, he can't only take credit for his winning hands. He has to accept his losing ones too. Trump wasn't responsible for good jobs reports, but took credit anyway. This is the flip side.
 
The numbers do not support what you claimed. This is the population of California over the last 17 years:

Year population growth%
2016 39,497,345 0.90%
2015 39,144,818 0.91%
2014 38,792,291 0.98%
2013 38,414,128 0.94%
2012 38,056,055 0.94%
2011 37,700,034 1.20%
2010 37,253,956 0.96%
2000 33,871,648 1.30%

Californians fleeing high cost of housing

There are many other stories, plus what is talked about on news radio and television.
 
Back
Top Bottom