Comments on: Another “test”??

By: sgo

sgo — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:48:47 +0000

I called them. And it sounded like I was not the only one.

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:39:45 +0000

It’s changed now:

Modest payroll growth
In a blow to President Bush, the U.S. economy created only 96,000 new jobs in September, fewer than economists had predicted.

Did someone call them on it? Or did they just actually read the report instead of listening to the spin?

By: sgo

sgo — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:37:40 +0000

The headline is simply misleading.

If the headline was no problem at all they would have left it up -they didn’t.

It was biased, plain and simple.

By: Chaz

Chaz — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:26:28 +0000

Maybe MSNBC is just rounding those numbers up to make it look nicer and easier for Bush to understand.

By: eRobin

eRobin — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:24:46 +0000

Yeah, I saw the word quarter and still knew it was crap so the post is a good one.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:23:03 +0000

Oh shit. I guess I overlooked the word “quarter”. My bad. Of course there are still three problems with this :

1) There’s no way the last three months of job creation numbers are “a boost for President Bush”

2) The numbers were significantly below economists speculation.

3) The 300,000 figure is still wrong. If you add up the last three months, it’s only 282,000 jobs.

By: Chaz

Chaz — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:53:30 +0000

The article states that it is 300k jobs for the quarter, so it isn’t really a bogus number. If I remember correctly, I think the US needs to create 125k jobs per months just to break even, so if it said that there were 375k jobs created, we would only have broken even for that quarter. As it is, the 96k figure is anemic.