2 Apr 2025 9:42 am
Vegas » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 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.
This is just more ****.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.
The numbers are what they are...if you understand the methodologies, you can put the data in appropriate context.
For example, the politicized narrative is that Carter was a terrible POTUS....because "Infashun!", and people will point to the fact that U3 stood at over 7% when he left...
But under Carter, private payrolls grew more than 9%....on a nominal (headcount) basis, Carter generated more private sector jobs per year than Reagan.