[socialism_stinX]

Essentially what the numbers mean is that we had a net gain of 50K workers who were employed at the end of the month. Based on the weekly unemployment claims, over 1.6 million workers stopped working during the month and over 1.6 million workers started working during the month. The number who started working was 50K more than the number who stopped working during the month. I listened to David Stockman on CNBC today and he went through the employment numbers and explained that most of the jobs created since the recession officially “ended” last year have been temporary jobs. That’s not surprising at all because employers don’t want to take on the unknown and probably large additional costs of Obamacare coverage for new permanent employees, so they’re only hiring temps and consultants and people they absolutely have to hire for permanent jobs.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate your patience and attempt to explain this.

What we are left with is an unemployment figure that grew 0.2% I don’t think your explanation gels with that. 0.2% sounds small, but it’s a very large number none the less.

Look, I’m obviously no expert, so I’m not here to say you’re wrong. I still don’t understand what justifies the claims and figures here, and that’s not focused on you at all. It’s the reporting that causes me to say this.

Take care.

[CowboyJay]

"Essentially what the numbers mean is that we had a net gain of 50K workers who were employed at the end of the month. Based on the weekly unemployment claims, over 1.6 million workers stopped working during the month and over 1.6 million workers started working during the month. The number who started working was 50K more than the number who stopped working during the month.

True. 55,000 more jobs. Temp & part-time are included in that 55,000. However, there are 132,000 more people added to the potential workforce due to coming of age, immigration, et c.,. So 82,000 net more needing a job that don't have one. Hence the rise in the UE numbers.