Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:20 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:20 am

That's the way both surveys work. And have for decades. A change in administrations doesn't change the methodologies.

Both ask respondents for status at a point in time...it is binary - you are either employed (under the definitions of each of the two surveys), or you are not.

The number is then compared with that from the previous period.

There's little statistical value in a gross number of jobs "created"...the value is in the number of people employed.

It's not "theirs"....it's BLS's.

Of course it does, you dumb ****...it is why it is "NET".

Cretin.

@Cannonpointer

Idiot. Perfect, you finally address something, and what do you do? Offer a generic textbook summary of how BLS surveys work, like that somehow refutes my point. As always, you dodge the substance of my argument while pretending to have delivered a mic drop.

​​​@Cannonpointer  , time to school this piece of **** again. 

Thanks for the Wikipedia summary, Veghead, but you’re completely missing the point, probably on purpose. Nobody’s arguing about how the BLS collects data. We all know it’s been done the same way for decades. The issue, which you conveniently sidestepped as usual, is how those net numbers are framed and weaponized politically to sell a narrative that doesn’t reflect the full reality.

 When you say there's “little statistical value” in gross jobs created or lost, you're basically admitting you don’t care about the actual labor churn—just the surface-level number. That’s fine for a lazy talking point, but useless for evaluating real economic health. Job losses in critical sectors, people exiting the workforce, and the quality or sustainability of new jobs? All conveniently erased from the picture so long as the “net” is positive.So no, Veghead, parroting the methodology doesn’t refute the criticism. It just confirms you’re more interested in regurgitating process than actually analyzing impact. Try harder.

No go impale yourself like you promised.