Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Job creation at record high. Stocks at record levels. Millions getting healthcare. Bin Laden dead... [View all]progree
(13,019 posts)66. Over the past year, part-time jobs were 9.2% of the 2.1 million new jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34
The Household Survey numbers that produce the part-times job figures is highly volatile.
[font color = blue]>> There were 523,000 full time jobs lost and they were replaced with 799,000 part time ones for a net gain of 288,000 jobs. There were only 12,000 full time jobs added. <<[/font]
Not true. The 288,000 jobs came from the Establishment Survey of payroll jobs. You are mixing numbers from two separate surveys -- the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey.
The Household Survey said Employment increased by 407,000 jobs
EDITED to add: This OP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439
has a section, "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" that covers a lot of the nonsense interpretations of the economic numbers. Two that were used in the excerpt above (I'm not saying intentionally):
(1). Highlighting adverse one-month changes in some highly volatile component, and making it seem like it's the story of the whole Obama administration's job record
(3). Cleverly mixing statistics from the household survey (CPS) and the establishment survey (CES) (without making that clear of course)
The Household Survey numbers that produce the part-times job figures is highly volatile.
[font color = blue]>> There were 523,000 full time jobs lost and they were replaced with 799,000 part time ones for a net gain of 288,000 jobs. There were only 12,000 full time jobs added. <<[/font]
Not true. The 288,000 jobs came from the Establishment Survey of payroll jobs. You are mixing numbers from two separate surveys -- the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey.
The Household Survey said Employment increased by 407,000 jobs
EDITED to add: This OP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439
has a section, "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" that covers a lot of the nonsense interpretations of the economic numbers. Two that were used in the excerpt above (I'm not saying intentionally):
(1). Highlighting adverse one-month changes in some highly volatile component, and making it seem like it's the story of the whole Obama administration's job record
(3). Cleverly mixing statistics from the household survey (CPS) and the establishment survey (CES) (without making that clear of course)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Job creation at record high. Stocks at record levels. Millions getting healthcare. Bin Laden dead... [View all]
Triana
Jul 2014
OP
The lawsuit, not yet even filed, is summer talk bait for Republican politicians who are committed to
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#4
All is not perfect, say I, but we sure are a lot better off than we were in the final days of the
JDPriestly
Jul 2014
#5
How do we know this? I'm starting a business because of ACA now, I'm no longer tethered to my
uponit7771
Jul 2014
#64
Like everything else in this country basic numbers have become political.
former9thward
Jul 2014
#65
Hmmmmm, interesting ... we don't have to go to who quit because of ACA ... it's on 10% max anyway
uponit7771
Jul 2014
#76
unnnnnn, there are some that show their work and are credentialed... If I see some from there
uponit7771
Jul 2014
#75
Over the past year, 9.1% of the job gains were part time, and 91.9% were full time
progree
Jul 2014
#87
I suppose next you will defend the decline in the labor participation rate.
former9thward
Jul 2014
#90
The Wall Street high is simply a matter of your tax dollars flowing to the banks
obxhead
Jul 2014
#13
Well, Dr J, what you call "disgusting" I call a lifesaver. My husband has had Type I
catbyte
Jul 2014
#93
"20% or so" is not just profits but all expenses and overheads of the health insurers
progree
Jul 2014
#99
And you refuse to look past your arrogance and self righteousness. You are also
catbyte
Jul 2014
#97
Am I? Am I really? No, I'm not. Better than McCain?!? Of course Obama is better
AnotherMother4Peace
Jul 2014
#22
Why is the deficit falling good? We're democrats that falling deficit means cuts on the poor.
craigmatic
Jul 2014
#26
And Yet - Wages Adjusted For Inflation - Are Still Flat Since Reagan - Some Progress
cantbeserious
Jul 2014
#40
The problem is that we never decisively turned our backs on Reaganomics. It's still operating
nomorenomore08
Jul 2014
#49
and yet Reagan is the greatest president and Obama the worst in a recent poll ... ?
napkinz
Jul 2014
#54
I get the feeling GOP would sue him if he gave them the moon. /sarcasm> n/t
deafskeptic
Jul 2014
#92