| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2006 06:07:02 PM |
| Object: |
New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
16 Jun 2006 04:54:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:07:02 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
The start of another Bush recession?
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
02 Jun 2006 09:28:07 PM |
|
|
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in nearly 5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
03 Jun 2006 09:49:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in nearly 5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a
unemployment rate of 6.4% ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
03 Jun 2006 10:54:52 AM |
|
|
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the labor
participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a unemployment rate
of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul, even
though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal media,
while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because the real
poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it never occurred
to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an empirical sampling, or
that those who exit the polls, specifically those who voted for Bush have
jobs and places they need to go and/or they just may not have wanted to
bother with what they already know to be a liberal media polling operation.
Beyond that, the left can never understand why America rejects their
devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 03:15:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the labor
participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a unemployment rate
of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul, even
though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal media,
while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because the real
poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it never occurred
to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an empirical sampling, or
that those who exit the polls, specifically those who voted for Bush have
jobs and places they need to go and/or they just may not have wanted to
bother with what they already know to be a liberal media polling operation.
Beyond that, the left can never understand why America rejects their
devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower
in the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita have
jobs than Canadians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 04:35:26 PM |
|
|
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:59Hgg.284$Wy.19887@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a unemployment
rate of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul,
even though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal
media, while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because
the real poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it
never occurred to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an
empirical sampling, or that those who exit the polls, specifically those
who voted for Bush have jobs and places they need to go and/or they just
may not have wanted to bother with what they already know to be a liberal
media polling operation. Beyond that, the left can never understand why
America rejects their devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower in
the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita have jobs
than Canadians.
I addressed your general comment when you said something "stinks about the
numbers". Any substantive information regarding the remainder of your
comment comparing USA and Canada is "ABSENT" in either article posted by
hairy hopeless or me. So as far as I'm concerned your comparative stats were
made up from thin air or pulled from your *****.
Whichever, your claim of facts is not established. So why don't you go fish
that information from the world wide web and produce some credible evidence
of it, if you want to be taken seriously....
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 08:18:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:59Hgg.284$Wy.19887@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a unemployment
rate of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul,
even though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal
media, while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because
the real poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it
never occurred to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an
empirical sampling, or that those who exit the polls, specifically those
who voted for Bush have jobs and places they need to go and/or they just
may not have wanted to bother with what they already know to be a liberal
media polling operation. Beyond that, the left can never understand why
America rejects their devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower in
the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita have jobs
than Canadians.
I addressed your general comment when you said something "stinks about the
numbers". Any substantive information regarding the remainder of your
comment comparing USA and Canada is "ABSENT" in either article posted by
hairy hopeless or me. So as far as I'm concerned your comparative stats were
made up from thin air or pulled from your *****.
Whichever, your claim of facts is not established. So why don't you go fish
that information from the world wide web and produce some credible evidence
of it, if you want to be taken seriously....
LN
It's well established Canada's labor participation rate is currently
67.2 percent
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2006/06/01/1609964-cp.html
The US rate is 66.1 percent
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=akptoCWkbuLI&refer=home
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 09:37:14 PM |
|
|
Ok, I accept your stats, even though your comments were both not in the
original postings of this thread nor are they relevant to the discussion
since Canada wasn't remotely the topic. In fact I could ask why didn't you
post the same stats for Mexico or another country? Your point you see is
apples and oranges.
And that is especially true because I was addressing that hairy hopeless was
avoiding the economic news which did not fit his agenda. The fact that both
were reported concurrently makes his action even more revealing. Furthermore
both facts regarding America's economy were relevant facts to the its health
& the thread's subject matter. Yours on the other hand was from left field,
so I don't think you have a coherent point to make here....
LN
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aCLgg.253$LV.16037@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:59Hgg.284$Wy.19887@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the
lowest in nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a
unemployment rate of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul,
even though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal
media, while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because
the real poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it
never occurred to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an
empirical sampling, or that those who exit the polls, specifically those
who voted for Bush have jobs and places they need to go and/or they just
may not have wanted to bother with what they already know to be a
liberal media polling operation. Beyond that, the left can never
understand why America rejects their devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower in
the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita have
jobs than Canadians.
I addressed your general comment when you said something "stinks about
the numbers". Any substantive information regarding the remainder of your
comment comparing USA and Canada is "ABSENT" in either article posted by
hairy hopeless or me. So as far as I'm concerned your comparative stats
were made up from thin air or pulled from your *****.
Whichever, your claim of facts is not established. So why don't you go
fish that information from the world wide web and produce some credible
evidence of it, if you want to be taken seriously....
LN
It's well established Canada's labor participation rate is currently
67.2 percent
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2006/06/01/1609964-cp.html
The US rate is 66.1 percent
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=akptoCWkbuLI&refer=home
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
05 Jun 2006 11:18:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ok, I accept your stats, even though your comments were both not in the
original postings of this thread nor are they relevant to the discussion
since Canada wasn't remotely the topic. In fact I could ask why didn't you
post the same stats for Mexico or another country? Your point you see is
apples and oranges.
And that is especially true because I was addressing that hairy hopeless was
avoiding the economic news which did not fit his agenda. The fact that both
were reported concurrently makes his action even more revealing. Furthermore
both facts regarding America's economy were relevant facts to the its health
& the thread's subject matter. Yours on the other hand was from left field,
so I don't think you have a coherent point to make here....
LN
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aCLgg.253$LV.16037@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:59Hgg.284$Wy.19887@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the
lowest in nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a
unemployment rate of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be afoul,
even though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal
media, while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry because
the real poll by the American people decided otherwise. I suppose it
never occurred to the left that exit polls are not necessarily an
empirical sampling, or that those who exit the polls, specifically those
who voted for Bush have jobs and places they need to go and/or they just
may not have wanted to bother with what they already know to be a
liberal media polling operation. Beyond that, the left can never
understand why America rejects their devious, onerous agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower in
the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita have
jobs than Canadians.
I addressed your general comment when you said something "stinks about
the numbers". Any substantive information regarding the remainder of your
comment comparing USA and Canada is "ABSENT" in either article posted by
hairy hopeless or me. So as far as I'm concerned your comparative stats
were made up from thin air or pulled from your *****.
Whichever, your claim of facts is not established. So why don't you go
fish that information from the world wide web and produce some credible
evidence of it, if you want to be taken seriously....
LN
It's well established Canada's labor participation rate is currently
67.2 percent
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2006/06/01/1609964-cp.html
The US rate is 66.1 percent
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=akptoCWkbuLI&refer=home
The topic was job figures and economic news, which you claimed were
great. I used a comparison to Canada which has a higher listed
unemployment rate than the USA to show the US rate could not be as rosy
as claimed because they are not backed up by the labor particpation
rate. Unlike the employment rates the labpr participation rate is more
difficult to fudge and tells a truer picture of the economy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
06 Jun 2006 09:13:43 PM |
|
|
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Gl7hg.733$Wy.65690@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
Ok, I accept your stats, even though your comments were both not in the
original postings of this thread nor are they relevant to the discussion
since Canada wasn't remotely the topic. In fact I could ask why didn't
you post the same stats for Mexico or another country? Your point you see
is apples and oranges.
And that is especially true because I was addressing that hairy hopeless
was avoiding the economic news which did not fit his agenda. The fact
that both were reported concurrently makes his action even more
revealing. Furthermore both facts regarding America's economy were
relevant facts to the its health & the thread's subject matter. Yours on
the other hand was from left field, so I don't think you have a coherent
point to make here....
LN
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aCLgg.253$LV.16037@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:59Hgg.284$Wy.19887@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"mike wilcox" <appraisers@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Sihgg.4154$EF1.295698@news20.bellglobal.com...
needham@syix.com wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the
lowest in nearly 5 years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month
in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April
increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year
low isn't atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a
unemployment rate of 6.4% ?
Of course if it doesn't fit the left's agenda, something must be
afoul, even though there's no proof to back their conspiracies.....
This reminds me of the 2004 election when exit polling by the liberal
media, while on their kerry winning love fest, somehow went awry
because the real poll by the American people decided otherwise. I
suppose it never occurred to the left that exit polls are not
necessarily an empirical sampling, or that those who exit the polls,
specifically those who voted for Bush have jobs and places they need
to go and/or they just may not have wanted to bother with what they
already know to be a liberal media polling operation. Beyond that, the
left can never understand why America rejects their devious, onerous
agenda.
WELL DAHHHHHHHHHHH...
LN
Why don't you address the facts? The labor participation rate is lower
in the USA, this means a smaller percentage of Americans per capita
have jobs than Canadians.
I addressed your general comment when you said something "stinks about
the numbers". Any substantive information regarding the remainder of
your comment comparing USA and Canada is "ABSENT" in either article
posted by hairy hopeless or me. So as far as I'm concerned your
comparative stats were made up from thin air or pulled from your *****.
Whichever, your claim of facts is not established. So why don't you go
fish that information from the world wide web and produce some credible
evidence of it, if you want to be taken seriously....
LN
It's well established Canada's labor participation rate is currently
67.2 percent
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2006/06/01/1609964-cp.html
The US rate is 66.1 percent
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=akptoCWkbuLI&refer=home
The topic was job figures and economic news, which you claimed were great.
I used a comparison to Canada which has a higher listed unemployment rate
than the USA to show the US rate could not be as rosy as claimed because
they are not backed up by the labor particpation rate. Unlike the
employment rates the labpr participation rate is more difficult to fudge
and tells a truer picture of the economy.
In other words you went off topic by 180 degrees. So noted just as your
dodge as to why you didn't compare anywhere else in the world nor why your
comparison was valid, which I consider it is not...
Try starting a new thread when you feel so obtuse next time!
LN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "js" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
05 Jun 2006 11:39:23 AM |
|
|
mike wilcox wrote:
Something stinks about the numbers, how can it be so low and yet the
labor participation rates are lower than Canada, which has a
unemployment rate of 6.4% ?
Olfactory disfunction.
First off - fewer students as a percentage in Canada
Second off - different population distribution
Third off - participation rates of older workers (55-64) is higher
Fourth - Canada uses a 15-64 metric for the denominator
There are others.
The differences is nominal and likely close to or within the margin of
error of the estimate - for participation rates. The same cannot be
said for une,ployment rates, however.
So, what do these things mean economically? Is a lower unemployment
rate with a lower participation rate an indicator of a good or bad
economic situation? Should public policy drive toward higher
participation rates or should it focus on reducing unemployment? Can
it do both?
js
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
02 Jun 2006 10:51:56 PM |
|
|
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
03 Jun 2006 08:59:21 AM |
|
|
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the good news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
03 Jun 2006 06:55:06 PM |
|
|
I simply asked who was the president five years ago.
And I don't speak for Harry.
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:ZAggg.130891$F_3.75018@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the good
news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
03 Jun 2006 07:02:04 PM |
|
|
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-4GdnRP2ErnQvB_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
I simply asked who was the president five years ago.
And I don't speak for Harry.
Your capitulation duly noted.
Now go stick you head in the toilet and flush. On second hand the EPA would
have to send out a haz mat team so better not...
LN
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:ZAggg.130891$F_3.75018@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the good
news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month
in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April
increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 08:03:13 PM |
|
|
I thought you were the one promoting civil debate?
( by the way, if you're going to insult....bring something
a little funnier. )
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:0qpgg.131040$F_3.60433@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-4GdnRP2ErnQvB_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
I simply asked who was the president five years ago.
And I don't speak for Harry.
Your capitulation duly noted.
Now go stick you head in the toilet and flush. On second hand the EPA
would
have to send out a haz mat team so better not...
LN
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:ZAggg.130891$F_3.75018@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was
above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the good
news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second month
in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April
increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year
low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
04 Jun 2006 09:38:11 PM |
|
|
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YfydnZBEpNleHx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I thought you were the one promoting civil debate?
I didn't tell you it was time for you to take yours from the toilet yet.
Back to the latrine with you lib!
LN
( by the way, if you're going to insult....bring something
a little funnier. )
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:0qpgg.131040$F_3.60433@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-4GdnRP2ErnQvB_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
I simply asked who was the president five years ago.
And I don't speak for Harry.
Your capitulation duly noted.
Now go stick you head in the toilet and flush. On second hand the EPA
would
have to send out a haz mat team so better not...
LN
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:ZAggg.130891$F_3.75018@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was
above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the good
news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was the
fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second
month
in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April
increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year
low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
05 Jun 2006 10:07:38 AM |
|
|
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:nOMgg.91149$H71.90324@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YfydnZBEpNleHx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I thought you were the one promoting civil debate?
I didn't tell you it was time for you to take yours from the toilet yet.
Back to the latrine with you lib!
Surrender accepted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: New jobs figure for May is ghastly |
05 Jun 2006 05:28:58 PM |
|
|
So you admit your hypocrisy.
I'm so surprised.
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:nOMgg.91149$H71.90324@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YfydnZBEpNleHx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I thought you were the one promoting civil debate?
I didn't tell you it was time for you to take yours from the toilet yet.
Back to the latrine with you lib!
LN
( by the way, if you're going to insult....bring something
a little funnier. )
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:0qpgg.131040$F_3.60433@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-4GdnRP2ErnQvB_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
I simply asked who was the president five years ago.
And I don't speak for Harry.
Your capitulation duly noted.
Now go stick you head in the toilet and flush. On second hand the EPA
would
have to send out a haz mat team so better not...
LN
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:ZAggg.130891$F_3.75018@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You either didn't read the article I posted or understanding it was
above
your mental faculties lib, but that's par for you.
Still, I noted you ran away from the point that HAIRY ignored the
good
news
and instead spun the benign information into his typically tiresome
Bush-Hate mouth frothing style...
LN
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnasG44PSmhzZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Who was president five years ago?
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:Xs6gg.106400$dW3.81377@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060602/economy.html?.v=14
Taking a bit of the sting out of the sluggish job creation was
the
fact
that
the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest
in
nearly
5
years.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:55h182himdt8ej99uh0f5ar4e83krg36k1@4ax.com...
From Bloomberg, 6/2/06:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aGXLNtbGjCgI&refer=home
June 2 (Bloomberg) --
The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected for a second
month
in
May and wage growth slowed, suggesting employers were wary of
stepping
up hiring at a time when growth shows signs of cooling.
The 75,000 gain in payrolls followed a revised 126,000 April
increase
that was lower than the government initially reported, Labor
Department figures showed today.
Economists expected a 170,000 increase.
_________________________________________________________
Atrocious
Harry
Why would you NOT want to discuss the good news lib?
As if hairy NOT disclosing the unemployment rate is at its 5-year
low
isn't
atrociously disingenuous...
That's a euphemism for lying so as not to confuse scum
liberals...
LN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
