another interesting visual...

[jimpeel]

Found the answer to your question.

From THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – SEPTEMBER 2010

what if we break that down a little farther???
Are all those U.S. Citizens?

Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?

It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants. However, neither the
establishment nor the household survey is designed to identify the legal status of workers. Therefore, it
is not possible to determine how many are counted in either survey. The establishment survey does not
collect data on the legal status of workers. The household survey does include questions which identify
the foreign and native born, but it does not include questions about the legal status of the foreign born.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Sorry Jim, that premise has already been soundly rejected as having no merit what-so-ever. It wasn't part of the graphica fablioso .

~30 million illegal immigrants?

For several years, Mexico has been solving their own unemployment problem by sending their jobless citizens to the United States. The result has been a low, steady rate of unemployment in Mexico since 2000. Of course, the unimpeded flow of cheap labor headed north, has had a disastrous effect on U.S. workers.

Examiner

yep. just as i suspected. no comments of substance yet.

 

[Gonz]

If you don't give the answer that he is looking for, you'll be ignored or belittled. Hardly much fun there.

 

[Winky]

mui fablioso

 

[2minkey]

If you don't give the answer that he is looking for, you'll be ignored or belittled. Hardly much fun there.

horseshit. again, only jim has even tried to put something behind his opinions. now if he could just read and do math .

 

[2minkey]

jim, pls. review.

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-95,000) in September, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Government employment. declined (-159,000), reflecting both a drop in the number of temporary jobs for Census 2010 and job losses in local government. Private-sector payroll employment continued to trend up modestly (+64,000).

non-farm jobs.

government jobs, non-farm. -159k
private sector jobs, non-farm. +64k
the difference is... 95k

got it yet?

 

[jimpeel]

jim, pls. review.

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-95,000) in September, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Government employment. declined (-159,000), reflecting both a drop in the number of temporary jobs for Census 2010 and job losses in local government. Private-sector payroll employment continued to trend up modestly (+64,000).

non-farm jobs.

government jobs, non-farm. -159k
private sector jobs, non-farm. +64k
the difference is... 95k

got it yet?

Then why do they give three figures if government losses are simply more non-farm jobs?

Your graph states very specifically that it is about Private Sector Employment. Government jobs are not private sector jobs.

There are three figures given:

1. Private sector job losses of 95,000

2. Government sector job losses of 159,000

3. Private sector job increases of 64,000

You started this thread with a graph which detailed private sector job increases; and I have addresses only the private sector aspect of those increases or decreases. Why you now wish to introduce the government sector into the discussion I have no idea. What I do know is that the two are distinctly different.

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

What Does Non-Farm Payroll Mean?
A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

SECOND SOURCE

Non-Farm Payroll
In the United States, a figure compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics representing the total number of working-age persons working in all professions, except the following: government employees, household employees, many nonprofit employees, and farm employees. At any given time, this number represents approximately 80% of the American workforce currently employed. Economists use the non-farm payroll to help gauge the state of the overall economy.

NOW I GET IT. DO YOU?

I rest my case.

 

[2minkey]

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – SEPTEMBER 2010
Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-95,000) in September, and the unemployment rate was
unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Government employment
declined (-159,000), reflecting both a drop in the number of temporary jobs for Census 2010 and job
losses in local government. Private-sector payroll employment continued to trend up modestly
(+64,000).

you posted it.

 

[2minkey]

jim, you don't find it strangely coincidental that my numbers add up perfectly?

 

[2minkey]

explain this, jim. you posted it.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION –MAY 2010
Total nonfarm payroll employment grew by 431,000 in May, reflecting the hiring of 411,000 temporary employees to work on Census 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Private-sector employment changed little (+41,000). Manufacturing, temporary help services, and mining added jobs, while construction employment declined. The unemployment rate edged down to 9.7 percent.

 

[jimpeel]

explain this, jim. you posted it.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION –MAY 2010
Total nonfarm payroll employment grew by 431,000 in May, reflecting the hiring of 411,000 temporary employees to work on Census 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Private-sector employment changed little (+41,000). Manufacturing, temporary help services, and mining added jobs, while construction employment declined. The unemployment rate edged down to 9.7 percent.

I can't explain that any more than you can explain why these examples don't fit your mold. The numbers were apparently coincidental. I can't find any other examples where the numbers coincide.

Perhaps the temporary workers were hired by temp agencies contracted by the government.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_07022010.pdf

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – JUNE 2010
Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 125,000 in June, and the unemployment rate edged
down to 9.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The decline in payroll employment
reflected a decrease (-225,000) in the number of temporary employees working on Census 2010.
Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 83,000.

225 - 125 = 100 not 83; and shouldn't that be 125 + 225 = 350 as both numbers reflect losses?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_08062010.pdf

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – JULY 2010
Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 131,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was
unchanged at 9.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Federal government employment
fell, as 143,000 temporary workers hired for the decennial census completed their work.
Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 71,000.

These numbers don't add up either. Doesn't 131 + 143 = 274?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_09032010.pdf

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – AUGUST 2010
Nonfarm payroll employment changed little (-54,000) in August, and the unemployment rate was
about unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Government
employment fell, as 114,000 temporary workers hired for the decennial census completed their work.
Private-sector payroll employment continued to trend up modestly (+67,000).

114 - 54 = 60 not 67; and shouldn't that be 114 + 54 = 222 as both numbers reflect losses?

 

[2minkey]

I can't explain that any more than you can explain why these examples don't fit your mold. The numbers were apparently coincidental. I can't find any other examples where the numbers coincide.

Perhaps the temporary workers were hired by temp agencies contracted by the government.

yes, that would be the case, jim. thus, the 95,000 figure is correct for the month that you insisted on 31,000. but, really, don't you think LESS GOVERNMENT JOBS is swell? i do.

 

[catocom]

yes, that would be the case, jim. thus, the 95,000 figure is correct for the month that you insisted on 31,000. but, really, don't you think LESS GOVERNMENT JOBS is swell? i do.

imo That partially depends on how many of them are now drawing unemployment,
and at what rate.

 

[2minkey]

there you go again cato, asking for details. we don't want no details. we want bumperstickers.

less government workers!!! less government!!! get them commiez!!!

 

[Winky]

I got your visual right here.

So when are these aresholes gonna start calling this a depression?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

we want bumperstickers.

less government workers!!! less government!!! get them commiez!!!

I guess you can look at letting go the census team as shrinking the fed, I dunno...

OK Dr. Lexus, its about time you tell us about the secret data flaws. And can you do it in a bumper sticker for those of us who like the funny fonts?

​

 

[valkyrie]

Re: I got your visual right here.

So when are these aresholes gonna start calling this a depression?

Funny, we were all asking when they were going to start calling it a recession back with the last administration. LOL! Eventually, they did... but quietly.

But to answer your question: A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. There is no agreed upon definition of Economic Depression, unfortunately. I've looked.

 

[Winky]

another interesting visual... It's plain to see

Only white people make money

 

[jimpeel]

yes, that would be the case, jim. thus, the 95,000 figure is correct for the month that you insisted on 31,000. but, really, don't you think LESS GOVERNMENT JOBS is swell? i do.

I've never disagreed that fewer government jobs would be a good thing. Government is the only growth industry in America right now; and that needs to change.

I believe that I have shown that government jobs are not included in the non-farm payroll figures. I can get a reiteration of the reiteration for you if you wish.