Let’s see the spin on this one: evidently there were more than 300,000 new jobs in March. But unemployment also grew.
So basically, it seems that the new jobs were offset (and more) by the loss of jobs. Weird.
Also, part of that 300,000 figure is the return to work of striking grocery workers in California. So, in other words, even though their jobs weren’t new, they’re being counted as such.
Weird.
I really needed this laugh today: a Bush impersonator reads speeches written by children. Astonishingly, they sound just like real Bush speeches.
And while I was finishing up that video, the news broke: Ashcroft is, as they say, “going home.” Mac over at Pesky Apostrophe points out the most bizarre part of his resignation, the part where he says: The [more...]
The Washington Post, Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page B06 Now that the Spanish government is criticizing American war policy in Iraq [news story, March 18], I await a congressional declaration that “Spanish [more...]
It’s not necessarily that the new jobs were offset by the loss of jobs, but by the expansion of the labor force. An estimate is that it grows by about 150,000 per month as people graduate, or decide for other reasons to look for jobs.
Many economists think that the unemployment rate is lower than it might otherwise be because so many people have become discouraged and stopped looking for work, thereby taking themselves out of the labor force.