Apologies - I think I had to edit that thing a 1,000 times to get it right!
It is the total number of people working part time for economic reasons the number went up by 79,000 so 79,000 of the 227,000
Defined as
â. . . those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for an economic reason such as slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work, or seasonal declines in demand.â
I am an old man an recall the Carter/Regan era when president were blamed for âcreating only part-time burger flippers, part-time cashiers, etcâŚâ
It was considered a bad thing, not a good thing. I have a funny feeling the media will start to discuss it in such terms beginning . . . ooh, in a few months.
The entire table is at this link:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
But here are a few more relevant parts
(Full-disclosure: As noted above, The usual way to count that is from the âB-Tables.â Below is one of the "A-Tables):
Uh, huhâŚit is for the specific segment of the year being discussed.
Letâs look at thatâŚit went from 242,000 per month to around 174,000 per month. Now divide the lessor by the greater and wallaaaaahhhhâŚthereâs that percentage off again.
hat means that the reported job growth during that period â 2.9 million non-farm payroll positions amounting to 242,000 jobs per month â was likely around 30% less, or 174,000 jobs per month, according to new data gathered from state unemployment tax records.
If he governs like he has a mandate he will. There is 90 million people who didnât vote he could potentially tick off. This is still a center country going to far right or left is going to cause you to lose.
1 Like
Put a frog in a pot of cold water on the stove.
Turn-on the heat and after a prolonged period heâll tell ya âthis is a moderate temperature.â
Put a person in the USA exmapnd government like crazy and after a few decades heâll tell ya âthis is a moderate country.â
There is nothing moderate about what we are doing/have done.
Our spending levels and the resultant debt levels are crazy out-the-door far left. The greatest generation took one look at it and said âThis sucks weâd better pay it off.â
Now we look at it and say âThis is moderate. I hope we never do the crazy stupid stuff they did. They were idiots.â
2 Likes
Or energize.
2 Likes
You are still wrong just with more words 
.
At my job we calculate error rate with software code.
Number of bugs per 100 test cases⌠for example.
Last week we calculated 7 bugs per 100 test cases. Or a 7% error rate.
This week we realized we had the wrong number of errors and it was actually 10 bugs per 100 test cases. Or a 10% error rate.
We did NOT calculate error rate between the two numerators of 7 bugs and 10 bugs. Which in the case of the jobs numbers would be the 242k and 174k.
1 Like
He does have a mandate.
There are 90 million who did.
Nobody cares.
We shall see. If he does then he should have no problem gaining seats in the house.
Thatâs a silly metric, given what the House is and was intended to be.
And given the ignorance of the electorate.
1 Like
âŚmore of your BLM bull feces. 
Another way you could explain it is that our government inflated the numbers they wanted the general public to swallow by almost 40%. They are either that incompetent or they intentionally lied, to get the positive press and sell the nation on âBidenomicsâ?
Pull the jobs thread posted here at that time and Iâd wager you are spouting the same level of nonsense as right now?
2 Likes
That is not how this works. The percentage off is based on the census-based whole, which is the quarterly census of employment and wages.
But if you want to believe they faked the numbers for a year - but didnât then go ahead and fake the benchmark? OK then. Have fun with that idea.
1 Like
Hold up⌠79,000 more people are working PTFER. That is not connected to the economy adding 227K jobs. First, oneâs a count of jobs and the other of people.
More importantly, we donât know anything about the prior status of those 79K. Were they working part time for non-economic reasons last month? Employed full time? unemployed? New entrants?
Itâs simply not true to say 79,000 of the 227K jobs added were PTFER people.
1 Like
That 79,000 people is counted among the jobs total.
This months job report stated net +229,000 people working.
If those 79,000 people had worked no job at all what would the number have been?
We know there are 79,000 more people this month than last month who want a full-time job but cannot get one.
We know that all 79,000 people are counted as âhaving a jobâ and thus part of the +229,000 total.
Is the below a good economy getting better or a bad economy getting worse?
Month 1: 1 million people write code or teach college.and 100,000 flip burgers.
Month 2: Half the code writers and college profs are laid-off. Burger industry hires all of them plus 79,000 more.
We have no idea what the number would have been because one is a count of payroll jobs and the other is a measure of people in households. It matters - a lot - what those people were doing and whether it was under payroll employment.
thatâs teh beauty of statistics including every ecoomic statistic you have ever used we donât have to know the individual stories.
Economy A: Consists of a lot of employed well-paid college professors and code-writers.
Economy B: Consists of a lot of people qualified to do those jobs but no one is hiring so they are forced to work McJobs instead.
Every month that we move in the direction
from economy A ----> towards economy B is a month the economy got worse.
They arenât part of the 229,000 total. You are assuming they are a new job. There is no reason to assume that. It could be they were FT last month, it could be they were PT for non-economic reasons last month. It could be a lot of things. What it canât be is a count of new jobs added lastâŚ
Because CPS is a count of people, not jobs.
