alt.politics.economics

Video61@ wrote:

>On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, alexy wrote:
>> Vide...@ wrote:
>>
>> > /blog1/2007/10/05/employment-numbers-weaker...
>>
>> >October 5th, 2007
>> >Employment Numbers Weaker Than Reported
>>
>> >According to Reuters, . employers added 110,000 new jobs in
>> >September and hiring in the two previous months was revised up
>> >strongly, the government said on Friday in a report showing a more
>> >resilient labor market than previously thought.
>>
>> >More resilient? That's not what the year/year growth chart is telling
>> >me.
>>
>> The statement above is that the labor market was more resilient than
>> previously thought. What does your chart tell you about what was
>> previously thought about the labor market, and how the current data
>> compares with that previous perception?
>>
>
> i did not make that statement, it was made by the person who posted
>the chart.
Right. And then you questioned "more resilient?" In the absence of any
other comparison, I thought you were questioning the statement that it
was more resilient than previously thought. But maybe you had another
comparison, unrelated to the item you quoted, in mind. (Or maybe the
distinction between "more resilient than previously thought" and
"resilient" is a bit too subtle for you.)

> but resilient means that all is well, and not stumbling. the chart
>clearly shows the labor market is not resilient, but is shrinking.
So it says that the market is not very resilient, but is silent on
whether than lack of resilience is better or worse than previously
thought?

>
>> >The job growth figures for September are certainly better than many
>> >observers had expected, but then again, people's expectations were low
>> >to begin with.
>>
>> Which is probably not shown in the chart you referred to.
>> --
>
> what part of a downward trend do you not understand?

What part of a downward trend being better or worse than expectations
do you not understand?

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.