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.
When George W. Bush was sworn in as president 4 years ago, it probably didn’t escape his notice that the oath said nothing about telling the truth. For instance, during Bush’s first inaugural speech, it [more...]
Am I the only one who sees the parallels between the current atmosphere for gay people in twenty first century America and the beginnings of 1930s Nazi persecution of such groups as Jews, gays, Gypsies, and other [more...]
This ridiculous piece of prose appears in George Will’s column today: Speaking of indiscriminate chaos, many elements of the Democratic Party, including most of its base and many of its most conspicuous leaders [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.