Lol….there’s a difference in those statistics of one million jobs…
I have no idea who’s right but somebody is wrong.
1 Like
or they both could be wrong or both could be right.
who knows.
Allan
They could not both be right
1 Like
No they can’t both be right.
This administration lies about everything…
Sadly that reality is part of the equation.
1 Like
“Alternate facts”.
Gaslighting.
1 Like
When you lie as much as ole Joey from Scranton and the people around him have lied you, and in this case his entire government…loses all credibility.
He claims he’s created all these jobs…all we did really was replace the ones lost during Covid…
I don’t know it’s all way out of my pay grade but after listening to the Biden bunch hearing the “actually it was a million less” story just seems par for the clueless Joe course
1 Like
[quote=“Gaius, post:17, topic:243733, full:true”]
The link is now dead, but it worked in DEc when I posted the excerpt below.
The excerpt is copy-and-paste from teh Philly Fed.
When I click this link it downloads the pdf just fine. 
1 Like
It’s not deleted. I accessed the PDF just fine with the link I just posted.
So sad.
2 Likes
bls is not the admin. philly fed a private bank.
Allan
Uh huh…
Well, yeah.
It can also be called “quasi-governmental” or a “government sponsored enterprise” without error.
Well, this doesn’t happen very often.
When permanent job losses YoY moves above 0%
it often, (but not always) shoots straight up after that.
Oh my, what’s this?
From the article:
The durability of the labor market is key to the resilience of the US economy, and economists have been closely watching it for signs of weakness. Job gains have gradually moderated but continue to indicate robust labor demand.
Bloomberg Economics’ Stuart Paul said the QCEW data will likely validate the group’s long-held view that the labor market is weaker than the headlines suggest. But “people who have been outright saying ‘the labor market is tight’ might be in for a shock,” he said.
Standard Chartered Bank’s Steve Englander estimates the downward revision could be around 650,000, with much of that softness concentrated in recent quarters. That would indicate “a much weaker labor market profile” than what underpinned Fed tightening in recent quarters, Englander said. “This would reduce the pressure for further hikes.”
