You don't have to coerce any civil servants. You just have to change the parameters, i.e. directing them to count part-time jobs. How else do you, a purported numbers guy, explain how 114,000 jobs can move the national jobless rate from 8.3 to 7.8?
Gotcha. So it seems that the only talking point is that the job gains are concentrated in part-time and lower paying jobs. Don't think that is attention grabbing enough to the average person.
Yes, and all it takes it one person to come out and say "hey, we changed how we count numbers!" to bring the whole thing down. I told you, Google it. Or if that's too hard, I just posted the article with the explanation a few posts ago. SPEND 5 MINUTES AND READ THE DAMN THING. IT'S NOT COMPLICATED. Education is a good thing. If you voluntarily want to be stupid, that's your choice. But then don't be surprised when people call you an idiot.
The BLS has all the data on their site. They actually have rules for what is part time and full time jobs. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Look at the the U-6 value. It seems people who were on part time are getting full time jobs now.
Education is also a good thing when it comes to realizing that certain people do voluntarily want to espouse obviously stupid beliefs, in order for you to get angry and call them an idiot, which, for whatever reason, gives them great pleasure. You may, in fact, be involved in this scenario right now.
The Wall Street Journal report you cited actually supports my contention. For example: "In September, the number of part-time workers who would like full-time jobs surged by 582,000. That represents about two-thirds of the increase in employment last month and is larger than the drop in the number of unemployed."
I really enjoy calling out stupid people on their stupidity, so I think thumbs and I may have a symbiotic relationship in that case.
So you are the one suggesting they change parameters? That makes no sense then that you would complain about changing parameters.
No - your contention is that they changed how they count employment. The WSJ article suggests no such thing. They are counting full and part time jobs the same way they always have. I guess reading it wasn't good enough. Now you need to work on reading comprehension.
Yes, that's fascinating and all. But we know the denominator (the size of the labor force) didn't decrease. In fact, it increased.
