“In the past, the president has referred to particular job reports as phony or totally fiction,” a reporter asked. “Does the president believe that this jobs report was accurate and a fair way to measure the economy?”
“I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly,” Spicer said. “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/t ... cer-235936
Almost forget about the "Brady Report"
This is a great report. The fact that hundreds of thousands more people found new jobs last month is a good sign that our economy is moving in the right direction.
Note: The Department of Labor reported today the economy added 235,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/brady-st ... bs-report/
But...... One year ago
While it’s good news that more Americans have joined the labor force, it’s disappointing to see so little growth in full time work and wages.
Note: The Department of Labor reported today the economy added 242,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate remained 4.9 percent.
'Post-Truth Is Pre-Fascism
Smart people knew it was BS because of its composition.
- John Q. Public
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19887
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
The number he quoted in his speech - 94 million, I believe - was all Americans 16 and older who weren't working, including full-time students, stay-at-home parents and retirees.
John Q. Public
The best part is how the reporters all started laughing, and even Sean Spicer started laughing!broman wrote: “I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly,” Spicer said. “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”
What's BS are the GOP talking points about the "real" unemployment rate. Now that a GOP is president that rhetoric has disappeared.joefutbol wrote:Unemployment is really 9.2%. Those numbers are complete BS.
joefutbol wrote:Unemployment is really 9.2%. Those numbers are complete BS.
I think what's really BS is anybody in Washington or on this forum pretending to know what the "real" unemployment rate is, especially since there are probably a dozen definitions of the term. A rate is one number divided by another, and when both the numerator and denominator are murky estimates, the resulting "rate" has to be taken with a grain of salt, if not outright incredulity. Add to that the ambiguous meaning of what it means to be "employed", and the rate number becomes almost meaningless. I guy working a temp job or a part-time job is considered employed. A 30-year department manager or shop foreman who gets laid off and finds a new career as a Walmart greeter or McDonald's "assistant manager" is considered employed. A guy with a masters degree in molecular biology or astrophysics working as a barista at Starbucks is considered employed.Wabash wrote:What's BS are the GOP talking points about the "real" unemployment rate.
The one number that used to be somewhat meaningful is "new jobs created". Now however, since many of those new jobs are temporary, part-time, contract or downgraded and lower paying, even that number has become specious.
Until we resolve all the ambiguities and inconsistencies in the definitions, formulas and raw numbers, any effort to define the "real unemployment rate" is little more than a political tool and a silly joke.
The claim is the numbers were "fake" under Obama and "real" under Trump. Nothing to speculate about these claims are very specific.MDDad wrote:I think what's really BS is anybody in Washington or on this forum pretending to know what the "real" unemployment rate is
Jimmying the numbers vs. claiming the whole process is completely fraudulent is on two different levels. That is the danger of the Trump/Bannon world view.... absolute truth or absolute falsehood.MDDad wrote: Jimmying the numbers is a good way to misrepresent without actually lying
Which isn't really the point. The point is how the current administration once derided those numbers as inaccurate and now embraces them.MDDad wrote:I think what's really BS is anybody in Washington or on this forum pretending to know what the "real" unemployment rate is, especially since there are probably a dozen definitions of the term.
Keep in mind Trump has been claiming that he inherited a disaster.
"What you should really look at is the number of jobs created," Mulvaney said on "State of the Union." "We've thought for a long time, I did, that the Obama administration was manipulating the numbers, in terms of the number of people in the workforce, to make the unemployment rate -- that percentage rate -- look smaller than it actually was."
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/12/news/ec ... index.html
Fascist march continues