That's not true - yes, they are net jobs, but if a job converts from full time to part time, that includes 1 gained part time job and 1 lost full time job. The NET new full time jobs would be correct. That doesn't mean more new full time jobs weren't created - but it does mean that, once you account for the lost full time jobs, you'd only have 1000 more full time jobs than the previous month.
I'll admit to not understanding this stuff like most in here, and I may be missing the point entirely, but if there is a gain of 291,000 full-time positions and a gain of 290,000 part-time positions, that is a gain in both full and part time positions. Why would you subtract one from the other and say there is a net gain of 1000 full time positions? Why not add them and say there is a gain of 581,000 full and part time positions? Edit: nevermind, Major's post explains to some degree, but I am still unclear if the original totals were "net" to begin with and would be mutually exclusive?
Because the 291,000 number isn't the gain in full-time positions, it's the gain in the number of people employed, which includes both full time and part time. You can't add the part-time number to it because it (apparently) already includes the change in part-time employment.
One thing I will say - I'm just using the numbers in this thread. But I don't know where the 291,000 number came from in the first place? The net job creation was 216,000 from all the reports out there. So based on that, everyone may just be working off of entirely different data.
I agree with what you wrote. I would expect most those part-time jobs to become full-time if the economy continues to get better. It was a mediocre report, not a bad one.
Indeed, so why don't you point me to the "full time job" number, if this is true it should clearly be indicated in the chart, yet for some reason the BLS not only doesn't mention it in the text of their remarks, I can't find this mysterious 1,000 job numer anywher in that whole page of stats. Can you think of any reason for this? LIke maybe, perhaps, you can't just take the net jobs created number and subtract the unadjusted payroll reporting numbers, like Sweet Lou 4 2 is doing?
It came from the household survey data, see post #174 for the explanation. The 216,000 is from the establishment survey. Also note the comment at the bottom of the household survey: Which indicates that the 1,000 number might not be completely accurate, although there's no reason to assume that it's not a good approximation.
I can think of a reason. Perhaps the full-time numbers are obvious if you subtract the part-time from the total, so showing them explicitly would be redundant? Perhaps there is specific worth to the part time data that doesn't exist for the full time data, like whether workers are working part time for economic or non-economic reasons. Seems just as plausible as your explanation.
It's about as plausible as you being an Pretend-Indian American-Undergrad at Arizona-PhD holder-who posits that the Sept 11 planes flew vertically backwards into the Burlington Coat Factory -Texas has a budget surplus. I'm pretty sure "suck it, new yorker" is by far the best response to the sh-t carnival you and your carny friends are tilt-a-whirling for us. And ultimately, a better use of everyone's time, even yours. May we meet again, with one of your new user ID's.
His team's prediction was shown to be wrong years ago. They severely underestimated the depth of the recession. How is that relevant now?
I felt it was an interesting number to bring up in order to get some perspective on the current status. No one should be jumping for joy at this level of jobless Americans.
Who is jumping for joy? I don't see anyone doing that. So that's two comments you've made that I don't see the relevance of. Note that when somebody calls this jobs report a good one or better than expected, they are referring to the numbers as compared to recent expectations. You're saying that these reports are bad, but you're not making it clear that you're only commenting in relationship to the pre-recession numbers. Are you trying to make some larger point?
The relevance of the chart below (as pointed out by the ace of spades link i put up earlier) is the curve of the actual unemployment numbers, which matches the curve of what would occur (according to Team Obama) if no stimulus had been passed. Even if they had underestimated the depth of the recession, it doesn't really explain that fact.
I don't know where you get the idea that the actual matches the "Without Recovery Plan" projection and not the "With Recovery Plan" projection. It looks closer to the "With Recovery Plan" line to me. But regardless, it's irrelevant, because both projections were based off an incorrect assessment of the severity of the recession. Unless you can identify exactly how far off that initial assessment was, you can't tell whether the "With Recovery Plan" or the "Without Recovery Plan" line is more accurate. Showing that graph now is dumb and only effective as a political ploy. Obama's team was initially too optimistic with the economic projections they based their stimulus projections on. That was figured out a couple months later before the stimulus even went into effect. So after that, there is no more relevance to the chart and it certainly doesn't show anything one way or another about the effect of the stimulus.
Using the always accurate eye-ball test, I would say it matches the without-recovery curve, but I understand someone claiming otherwise. It is fairly close. One could claim it shows an inability to access an economy. Did they not have most the statistical information everyone else does?
You could make that claim two years ago. Why is it relevant now? And what do the current job numbers included in the chart have to do with that? The chart, and the use of it now, clearly try to imply that with the stimulus plan the unemployment situation is worse than it would have been otherwise. But that is clearly faulty logic. So using the chart now is only relevant if you're attempting to mislead. (Also note that other comprehensive reports also came to similar conclusions at the time, so it isn't really a strong indication of an overall lack of ability to assess an economy either. It's just an indication that their projections were overly optimistic that one time.)
Absolutely nothing. I would use the chart to show that Team Obama doesn't know **** about economics. Lets say next year Obama comes out and says we need a second stimulus and here is what we predict the result of this stimulus will be (then he shows some graph). I would say: hey; I don't trust that assessment because Obama's last assessment could not have been more off. I would use a similar argument whenever Obama tried to predict the economic impact his policies would have. I take a similar attitude towards CBO projections of the cost of government programs.
The funny thing about this conversation is that it certainly appears that you are wrong, but don't want to admit it. You assumed that what tallanvor said was wrong and made a mistake when you tried to find the initial evidence for it. Since then, it's been a train wreck of instances of you being wrong, all done in an attempt to save face: In this post you incorrectly assume tallanvor made a mistake, and incorrectly assume the mistake was based on misreading the press release, probably because you mistakenly confused temp jobs and part-time jobs. You acknowledged that mistake in this post. In this post you again confuse temp with part-time, and also mistakenly assume that tallanvor is looking at gross numbers, rather than the net numbers he is really referring to, so you incorrectly accuse him of confusing gross with net when it is you that actually does so. In this post you continue your temp vs part-time confusion, while making a remark about english and ignoring the evidence of your original mistake (the same evidence I presented in this post). In this post you questioned the logic of subtracting the net part-time jobs gained from the net total jobs gained as a way of finding the net non-part time jobs gained, even though that logic is perfectly valid (as I showed in this post). In this post you came up with the number 8,000, a minor mistake which you acknowledged in this post. Also in that post you claim that this link shows me vouching for tallanvor's claim that the Texas State Budget was not in a deficit. In fact, if you read the thread, you'll see I make zero mention of tallanvor's claim or the Texas Budget. Nor do I defend his claim. The only reference I made to the situation was in this post where I point out that Deckard's link and comment, Major and Politifact all say basically the same thing and apparently refute tallanvor's point (which wasn't even given in that thread and which I was not aware of which is why I didn't mention it and didn't comment on it). Also in that post you claim that this link shows me going to bat for his interpretation of Arizona immigration law. As it turns out, I made it clear in that post that I wasn't saying that I agreed with him. And later in the same thread, in this post, I specifically tell him that his interpretation of "lawful contact" is wrong. I subsequently pointed this out to you in this post and this post where I state: "I think tallanvor is wrong about it being a legal term". (You stopped responding at that point.) Also in that post you claim that this link shows me going to bat for his opinions on the Ground Zero Mosque. In fact, what I'm doing in that post is stating that due to confirmation bias people will discount or disregard solid evidence like Major provided, and then pointing out that tallanvor had predictably already done exactly that. I'm criticizing tallanvor's logic, which of course is not the same as going to bat for it. Also in that post, this post, this post and this post you imply that I am tallanvor, or am constantly agreeing with and defending tallanvor. I haven't contributed to this forum yet so I can't do a search to show all the times I have disagreed with and argued against tallanvor. Alas, I do have the threads you so graciously linked to, and re-reading just those three, I found this post, this post, this post, this post and this post from those three threads where I respond directly to tallanvor and correct him or dispute something he says. The funny thing was that your initial skepticism was probably warranted, as even tallanvor thought his claim was wrong until he researched it further. He does have a history of making dubious claims (just as I have a history of pointing that out to him). Perhaps what makes me unusual is that I don't assume you're right and he's wrong in all cases just because your and my political beliefs are similar or just because his logic is generally poor. Perhaps that is why you have noticed a history of me challenging you and appearing to defend him. Unlike some posters, I prefer to withhold judgment until I can study the issue further, which makes it less likely that I will cheerlead what turns out to be one of many mistakes. And once I've looked into it, I will defend whoever I think is making an accurate argument against somebody who is, in my opinion, making an invalid one. I do this regardless of their overall stance or their history (except in extreme cases). It turns out that I tend to argue with you and tallanvor as much as anybody else in this forum even though you have very opposing beliefs. In this case, it's still possible that you turn out to be right. I don't claim to be 100% sure and I'm always willing to listen to additional evidence or reasoning. But without that, I'm not sure why you don't just do as pgabriel said and, "LOL, just admit your mistake" instead of just making new ones.
