|
Title: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: Spanky on December 04, 2009, 05:32:05 AM http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091203/sc_livescience/studyrevealstheangriestamericans
Quote Time pressures had the strongest link to anger, especially low-grade versions termed "feelings of annoyance," the study found. Those who were under financial strain tended to report higher levels of anger, a connection that could be particularly important in today's flagging economy, Schieman noted. The financial influence tended to be stronger among women and younger adults. Having children was also associated with angry feelings and behaviors, such as yelling, particularly in women, the survey found. Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: birdymaker on December 04, 2009, 07:25:52 AM I'm getting pretty angry watching CNBC this morning. Why do the jobs numbers never add up? [sm_protest] [sm_bs] [sm_coffee] [sm_banghead] :yield: [sm_soapbox]
Spanky :finger: [sm_topicsucks] ;D Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: Spartan on December 04, 2009, 09:05:48 AM People yell at their kids? Who'da thunk?
Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: Aske on December 04, 2009, 09:57:28 AM I'm getting pretty angry watching CNBC this morning. Why do the jobs numbers never add up? [sm_protest] [sm_bs] [sm_coffee] [sm_banghead] :yield: [sm_soapbox] Spanky :finger: [sm_topicsucks] ;D what doesn't add up about them? Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: gleek on December 04, 2009, 10:29:49 AM Fire Mike Tomlin!
Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: birdymaker on December 04, 2009, 12:20:06 PM I'm getting pretty angry watching CNBC this morning. Why do the jobs numbers never add up? [sm_protest] [sm_bs] [sm_coffee] [sm_banghead] :yield: [sm_soapbox] Spanky :finger: [sm_topicsucks] ;D what doesn't add up about them? The Labor Department said this morning that the economy shed only 11,000 non farm payrolls in November, which was the 23rd consecutive month of job losses. But economists had expected a loss of 100,000 jobs. It was also the best reading since December 2007. The jobless rate fell to 10% from 10.2%. Economists were expecting it to stay at 10.2%. [sm_scratch] If more people lost their job how does the unemployment rate go down? Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: Aske on December 04, 2009, 01:24:28 PM I'm getting pretty angry watching CNBC this morning. Why do the jobs numbers never add up? [sm_protest] [sm_bs] [sm_coffee] [sm_banghead] :yield: [sm_soapbox] Spanky :finger: [sm_topicsucks] ;D what doesn't add up about them? The Labor Department said this morning that the economy shed only 11,000 non farm payrolls in November, which was the 23rd consecutive month of job losses. But economists had expected a loss of 100,000 jobs. It was also the best reading since December 2007. The jobless rate fell to 10% from 10.2%. Economists were expecting it to stay at 10.2%. [sm_scratch] If more people lost their job how does the unemployment rate go down? http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: birdymaker on December 04, 2009, 02:04:45 PM Well here's the problem that I see.
Quote The unemployment rate edged down to 10.0 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-11,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This is simply not true. If the job loss for November was 11,000 then it is impossible for the unemployment rate to go down in that month. The only increase in employment comes here, Quote The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from So to me the unemployment rate wasn't 10.2 in October it didn't go down in November. Or is there something I'm missing?-219,000 to -139,000, and the change for October was revised from -190,000 to -111,000. Title: Re: The fact they needed to do a study on this just makes me angry Post by: Aske on December 04, 2009, 02:23:11 PM Well here's the problem that I see. Quote The unemployment rate edged down to 10.0 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-11,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This is simply not true. If the job loss for November was 11,000 then it is impossible for the unemployment rate to go down in that month. The only increase in employment comes here, Quote The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from So to me the unemployment rate wasn't 10.2 in October it didn't go down in November. Or is there something I'm missing?-219,000 to -139,000, and the change for October was revised from -190,000 to -111,000. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm Quote Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for work? Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release. *and other accounting methods* ;) the negative delta in the total people not counted as unemployed was larger than the negative delta in the people constituting the labor force |