Replies

8 - "During the month of january we gained 112,000 jobs. We also gained 217,000 people. So, while we gained in the number of jobs, we gained 105,000 unemployed people.
If you mean 217,000 people of employable age, net of those who took the celestial dirt nap, I guess I can grasp the math. Ya ain't countin' infants are ya?"

The bureau of the census says - one net new person increase every 12 seconds. Some are born, some die, some enter work force, some retire or are disabled; some immigrate other emmigrate.

But basically, while jobs are being created, they are not being created as fast as the population is growing.

I'm retired and I now tell people that I'm self-employed. My efforts haven't generated income yet, but I expect it to, in the future. In the meantime, it makes me feel better to say I'm self-employed. It's better than saying I'm simply retired.

I'd imagine that a number of people that answered that survey feel the same way.

"During the month of january we gained 112,000 jobs. We also gained 217,000 people. So, while we gained in the number of jobs, we gained 105,000 unemployed people.

The bureau of the census says - one net new person increase every 12 seconds. Some are born, some die, some enter work force, some retire or are disabled; some immigrate other emmigrate.

I don't wanna beat a dead horse, but that doesn't mean every one of those net new persons are of working age. It's not the size of the general population that's important in figuring the need for jobs...it's the size of the working age population.I will give you that the size of that population is currently increasing faster than the current increase in (BLS defined) jobs.

But the point I was originally trying to make was that the Democrats are fond of of saying jobs have been lost under the Bush Administration. It sounds pretty dramatic. But NET jobs have NOT been lost - there has, in fact, been a net gain of over 2.5 million jobs even by the BLS's questionable accounting method of not including the newly self-employed.