Originally Posted by FTFA
In fact, five years ago - January to August 2003 - nonfarm payrolls fell by 444,000. Did that massive job loss in 2003 mark the start of recession? Of course not.
Um, we were in the middle of plowing through the 2002 Recession at that time. If our erstwhile author couldn't get that little fact squared up in his head, how are we suppose to believe any of the rest of his points?
Originally Posted by FTFA again
Exhibit No.3: In a March 5 report, claiming low unemployment rates are "deeply misleading," Leonhardt suggested that full-time jobs have become so scarce that hundreds of thousands were supposedly forced to work in part-time jobs. "Over the last year," he said, "employment has risen by 100,000, but . . . there are also 600,000 more people who are working part time because they could not find full-time work."
In fact, the number of full-time jobs rose by 445,000 over the last year, while the number of part-time jobs fell by 297,000.
Cato might need to check with the Green Hornet as his cyphering is a bit off. Those original 'part time worker' figures are from the BLS [yes, the OFFICIAL numbers] so if he has a calculus problem, he needs to address it with them, not play red herring.
He did bring up one interesting study from Stewart of BSL. I found his conclusions a bit odd but after some of the earlier comments, I am not surprised. The Stewart study is a very good review of the current workplace and it is good that he referenced it.