U*L
发帖数: 1449 | | C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 2 呵呵，其实改成8.0要可信的多，现在这个和其他数字怎么都对不上。 | U*L
发帖数: 1449 | 3
Bingo...不懂中庸之道啊
不过美国人智商低，好骗
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，其实改成8.0要可信的多，现在这个和其他数字怎么都对不上。
| C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 4 不过本版的鳌八票蛆智商不差，都是睁着眼睛说瞎话的。有几个什么dengcore，
maocore，zing20的马甲之类，精神上还有的不正常。
【在 U*L 的大作中提到】
:
: Bingo...不懂中庸之道啊
: 不过美国人智商低，好骗
| s********t
发帖数: 4150 | 5 Well, they have to cook the number to <8% to baffle Romney's attack line.
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，其实改成8.0要可信的多，现在这个和其他数字怎么都对不上。
| s********t
发帖数: 4150 | 6 这几个都是the same pooper的马甲。
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: 不过本版的鳌八票蛆智商不差，都是睁着眼睛说瞎话的。有几个什么dengcore，
: maocore，zing20的马甲之类，精神上还有的不正常。
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 7 Dishonest Unemployment Numbers
by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
A flashback to a CNN article from just before the 2004 election era shows
just how unbelievable today's new unemployment numbers are.
In September 2004, new numbers came out, showing a drop in unemployment from
5.5% to 5.4%. At that time, with a much lower unemployment number than we
have today (around 8% today), the increase in new jobs that caused a 0.1%
decrease in unemployment was 144,000.
So, let's get this straight. With 144,000 new jobs in a smaller U.S.
population (about 295 million in 2004 vs. about 314 million today), you get
a drop in unemployment by 0.1%. But now, 8 years later, with a greater
population, you get 114,000 new jobs and, somehow, you get an even larger
drop in unemployment: from 8.1% to 7.8%?
That just makes no sense.
It's like saying that putting 1 gallon of gas into a 10-gallon gas tank
constitutes filling 10% of the gas tank in 2004. But putting 3/4 gallon of
gas into an even larger, 11-gallon gas tank in 2012 constitutes filling 12%
of the gas tank.
Really?
From that same article, John Kerry's senior economic advisor, Roger Altman,
noted his disappointment with the mere 144,000 new jobs for that month in
2004, stating "[y]ou need about 150,000 new jobs a month to keep even with
growth in population.... Taken in proper context, it's just not a very good
record."
In proper context.
Well, in proper context, 144,000 new jobs creating a 0.1% decrease in
unemployment in 2004 does not explain how 114,000 new jobs makes for an even
larger drop in unemployment with an even larger population in 2012.
If we were really seeing an authentic drop in unemployment, that would be
cause for celebration. But these new numbers and their illogical
implications represent cause for inquiry and alarm. | c****i
发帖数: 921 | |
|
