Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT Jobs Numbers
22 views
Skip to first unread message
R...@rsh.com
Oct 8, 2012, 10:19:54 AM10/8/12
to
Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
Dano
Oct 8, 2012, 10:52:17 AM10/8/12
to
wrote in message news:o4o5781rca0kamelb...@4ax.com...
Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
======================================
It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure. You
can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone
prove they changed the formula.
Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure. You
can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone
prove they changed the formula.
OceanView
Oct 8, 2012, 11:44:09 AM10/8/12
to
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k4upb1$7ma$1...@dont-email.me:
They've tweaked it here and there, but the big one was when Reagan included
the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and
denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
--
-------
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
but most stupid people are conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill
the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and
denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
--
-------
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
but most stupid people are conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill
Dano
Oct 8, 2012, 12:13:51 PM10/8/12
to
"OceanView" wrote in message news:XnsA0E677...@216.196.97.131...
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k4upb1$7ma$1...@dont-email.me:
> wrote in message news:o4o5781rca0kamelb...@4ax.com...
>
> Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
>
> The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
>
> ======================================
>
> It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure.
> You
> can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone
> prove they changed the formula.
>
>
They've tweaked it here and there, but the big one was when Reagan included
the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and
denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
==================================================
Well to be fair...folks serving in the military ARE employed are they not?
By the federal government. I would not expect otherwise. I never heard of
what you're saying. But there would be a point where they would join the
rolls of the unemployed as they left the service.
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k4upb1$7ma$1...@dont-email.me:
> wrote in message news:o4o5781rca0kamelb...@4ax.com...
>
> Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43 all fudged the job numbers.
>
> The real jobless rates were much hgher than they reported.
>
> ======================================
>
> It's been my understanding that this has always been how they measure.
> You
> can only compare if you use the same criteria. I'd like to see someone
> prove they changed the formula.
>
>
They've tweaked it here and there, but the big one was when Reagan included
the entire military as being employed, increasing both numerator and
denominator by the same amount. Made unemployment look much lower.
Well to be fair...folks serving in the military ARE employed are they not?
By the federal government. I would not expect otherwise. I never heard of
what you're saying. But there would be a point where they would join the
rolls of the unemployed as they left the service.
0 new messages