Or at least I'm sure that's how Faux News ("We distort, you believe!") will spin it :).
Others have already commented on the oddities in the April job numbers. More people employed, yet more unemployed people? But that just points out the idiotic definition of "unemployed people" that we've used in this country since Ronald Reagan managed to "disappear" so many unemployed people just in time for his 1984 re-election, through the simple expedient of defining a bunch of the unemployed as not employed, not unemployed, just... not. Personally, I believe that if you've had a job within the past five years you should be counted as part of the workforce, period, even if you might temporarily not be looking for a job for whatever reason. But that would give us an unemployment rate somewhere above 15%, so I expect cows to fly first.
-- Badtux the Employment Penguin
I'm still pissed at St. Ronnie for taxing Uemployment Benifits!!
ReplyDeleteSo pissed I have trouble with spelling!!
ReplyDelete