Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

[edthecynic]

That sounds about right for your level of intellect: Data Not Available.

Good job!

The perpetual dumb act again, so typical of the High Misinformation Voter.

Meister asked why I didn't give a direct link to the numbers and I posted what you get if you try to do that.

What you have to do is use the link I provided to access tables A-1 and A-8 and check off boxes for seasonally adjusted part time workers for economic reasons and non economic reasons in table A-8, and check off the box for seasonally adjusted employed on table A-1. Then you do a little subtraction to get the numbers.

Here is the master link again, you should bookmark it!

Household data series from the monthly A Tables

You do realise that the numbers we are looking at are the numbers from the Household survey, correct? These statistics are different from the establishment survey, although these statistics are all computed by the BLS. The Household survey is the data everyone looks at for the amount of part-time jobs and full-time jobs created from month to month. This is reported in Table 9, not Table 1 or 8. You're looking in the wrong section. Common mistake, but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

From June - July 2013, there were 92,000 full time jobs created and 174,000 part time jobs created for in-between these months. Meaning there was an increase in 266,000 jobs according to the household survey. Which also means that 35% of the jobs created were full-time and 65% of the jobs were part time. All one has to do is go back to all the full-time and part-time jobs created between January and this current month.

222,000 full-time jobs were created from January to this current month. During the same time period, 731,000 part-time jobs were created. Simple addition would tell you that there were 953,000 jobs created from the start of this year. You also don't need to be a math wiz to understand that 731K is a far bigger number than 222K, and also much closer to 953K.

ZeroHedge is not wrong. Your research is just very bad. If you are going to criticise one of the leading financial news post on the internet, you can at least come correct. Instead, you just came off as a bumbling fool who doesn't understand the data he is passing off.

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society.

 

[Meister]

The perpetual dumb act again, so typical of the High Misinformation Voter.

Meister asked why I didn't give a direct link to the numbers and I posted what you get if you try to do that.

What you have to do is use the link I provided to access tables A-1 and A-8 and check off boxes for seasonally adjusted part time workers for economic reasons and non economic reasons in table A-8, and check off the box for seasonally adjusted employed on table A-1. Then you do a little subtraction to get the numbers.

Here is the master link again, you should bookmark it!

Household data series from the monthly A Tables

You do realise that the numbers we are looking at are the numbers from the Household survey, correct? These statistics are different from the establishment survey, although these statistics are all computed by the BLS. The Household survey is the data everyone looks at for the amount of part-time jobs and full-time jobs created from month to month. This is reported in Table 9, not Table 1 or 8. You're looking in the wrong section. Common mistake, but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

From June - July 2013, there were 92,000 full time jobs created and 174,000 part time jobs created for in-between these months. Meaning there was an increase in 266,000 jobs according to the household survey. Which also means that 35% of the jobs created were full-time and 65% of the jobs were part time. All one has to do is go back to all the full-time and part-time jobs created between January and this current month.

222,000 full-time jobs were created from January to this current month. During the same time period, 731,000 part-time jobs were created. Simple addition would tell you that there were 953,000 jobs created from the start of this year. You also don't need to be a math wiz to understand that 731K is a far bigger number than 222K, and also much closer to 953K.

ZeroHedge is not wrong. Your research is just very bad. If you are going to criticise one of the leading financial news post on the internet, you can at least come correct. Instead, you just came off as a bumbling fool who doesn't understand the data he is passing off.

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society.

Part time jobs are part time jobs, Ed, no matter how you want to parse it.

 

[Trajan]

Knowing Zero Hedge always lies I checked the numbers myself.

There are 980,000 new jobs so far in 2013, 327,000 are part time for economic reasons, or 33%.

What Zero Hedge dishonestly did to support their lie that the US is being converted to a part time worker society was include those workers who want to only work part time, 365,000, as those converted to part time against their will.

The CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will always try to deceive you, never believe anything they say, always check for yourself.

Household data series from the monthly A Tables

you should really slow your roll on that crap ed...it looks and sounds stupid.

You don't care that Zero Hedge made a sucker out of you earlier in this thread, no, what has you chapped is a word I coined. Deliberate deception, no problem; descriptive word, intolerable.

not really, I just don't take this shit as seriously as you do, if it is so, it is so, if ZH is wrong they're wrong....and??????????.....my dick size isn't predicated by whose right or wrong on an internet chat board....


if coining a word that makes you look like a slobbering madman and a bore is something to be proud of well, you've been spending to much time on....... internet chat-boards........if I recall you were thoroughly deceived or ignorant a few times that after a marathon of posts between us you had to acknowledge, I don't use that as an excuse to use idiotic juvenile names whenever I talk to you or someone of your persuasion.

 

[boedicca]

Knowing Zero Hedge always lies I checked the numbers myself.

There are 980,000 new jobs so far in 2013, 327,000 are part time for economic reasons, or 33%.

What Zero Hedge dishonestly did to support their lie that the US is being converted to a part time worker society was include those workers who want to only work part time, 365,000, as those converted to part time against their will.

The CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will always try to deceive you, never believe anything they say, always check for yourself.

Household data series from the monthly A Tables

you should really slow your roll on that crap ed...it looks and sounds stupid.

You don't care that Zero Hedge made a sucker out of you earlier in this thread, no, what has you chapped is a word I coined. Deliberate deception, no problem; descriptive word, intolerable.

You don't care that you continue to make an ass of yourself in every thread.

 

[edthecynic]

you should really slow your roll on that crap ed...it looks and sounds stupid.

You don't care that Zero Hedge made a sucker out of you earlier in this thread, no, what has you chapped is a word I coined. Deliberate deception, no problem; descriptive word, intolerable.

not really, I just don't take this shit as seriously as you do, if it is so, it is so, if ZH is wrong they're wrong....and??????????.....my dick size isn't predicated by whose right or wrong on an internet chat board....


if coining a word that makes you look like a slobbering madman and a bore is something to be proud of well, you've been spending to much time on....... internet chat-boards........if I recall you were thoroughly deceived or ignorant a few times that after a marathon of posts between us you had to acknowledge, I don't use that as an excuse to use idiotic juvenile names whenever I talk to you or someone of your persuasion.

You are absolutely delusional!

 

[boedicca]

Real unemployment is closer to 23% - per the shadowstats analysis which includes the long term unemployed who have Given Up.

With an Employment-Population ration of only 58.7%, it is ludicrous to think that 41.3% of the adult population are happily unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

 

[edthecynic]

You do realise that the numbers we are looking at are the numbers from the Household survey, correct? These statistics are different from the establishment survey, although these statistics are all computed by the BLS. The Household survey is the data everyone looks at for the amount of part-time jobs and full-time jobs created from month to month. This is reported in Table 9, not Table 1 or 8. You're looking in the wrong section. Common mistake, but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

From June - July 2013, there were 92,000 full time jobs created and 174,000 part time jobs created for in-between these months. Meaning there was an increase in 266,000 jobs according to the household survey. Which also means that 35% of the jobs created were full-time and 65% of the jobs were part time. All one has to do is go back to all the full-time and part-time jobs created between January and this current month.

222,000 full-time jobs were created from January to this current month. During the same time period, 731,000 part-time jobs were created. Simple addition would tell you that there were 953,000 jobs created from the start of this year. You also don't need to be a math wiz to understand that 731K is a far bigger number than 222K, and also much closer to 953K.

ZeroHedge is not wrong. Your research is just very bad. If you are going to criticise one of the leading financial news post on the internet, you can at least come correct. Instead, you just came off as a bumbling fool who doesn't understand the data he is passing off.

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society.

Part time jobs are part time jobs, Ed, no matter how you want to parse it.

A part time job is a part time job, but people who only want a part time job are not "CONVERTED" to part time jobs from full time jobs, and ZH is claiming that EVERY part time worker was "CONVERTED" to that part time job, which is an absolute LIE, no matter how you want to parse it.

Come on, admit it, Zero Hedge snookered you.

 

[edthecynic]

Real unemployment is closer to 23% - per the shadowstats analysis which includes the long term unemployed who have Given Up.

With an Employment-Population ration of only 58.7%, it is ludicrous to think that 41.3% of the adult population are happily unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Shadowstats has no credibility! Real unemployment is the U-3 rate, which is 7.4%, and has been the U-3 rate for every other president. No one used the shadowstats rate for Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. No honest person uses it now!

 

[boedicca]

Real unemployment is closer to 23% - per the shadowstats analysis which includes the long term unemployed who have Given Up.

With an Employment-Population ration of only 58.7%, it is ludicrous to think that 41.3% of the adult population are happily unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Shadowstats has no credibility! Real unemployment is the U-3 rate, which is 7.4%, and has been the U-3 rate for every other president. No one used the shadowstats rate for Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. No honest person uses it now!

IOW, the Truth Really Hurts.

Too bad, so sad.

 

[Trajan]

You don't care that Zero Hedge made a sucker out of you earlier in this thread, no, what has you chapped is a word I coined. Deliberate deception, no problem; descriptive word, intolerable.

not really, I just don't take this shit as seriously as you do, if it is so, it is so, if ZH is wrong they're wrong....and??????????.....my dick size isn't predicated by whose right or wrong on an internet chat board....


if coining a word that makes you look like a slobbering madman and a bore is something to be proud of well, you've been spending to much time on....... internet chat-boards........if I recall you were thoroughly deceived or ignorant a few times that after a marathon of posts between us you had to acknowledge, I don't use that as an excuse to use idiotic juvenile names whenever I talk to you or someone of your persuasion.

You are absolutely delusional!

what you choose to focus on is amazing.....you might want to think on that.....

the 2009 budget argument and budget reconciliation argument.....

I left out the robert Kennedy thimerosal argument, but that one too......

 

[edthecynic]

not really, I just don't take this shit as seriously as you do, if it is so, it is so, if ZH is wrong they're wrong....and??????????.....my dick size isn't predicated by whose right or wrong on an internet chat board....


if coining a word that makes you look like a slobbering madman and a bore is something to be proud of well, you've been spending to much time on....... internet chat-boards........if I recall you were thoroughly deceived or ignorant a few times that after a marathon of posts between us you had to acknowledge, I don't use that as an excuse to use idiotic juvenile names whenever I talk to you or someone of your persuasion.

You are absolutely delusional!

what you choose to focus on is amazing.....you might want to think on that.....

the 2009 budget argument and budget reconciliation argument.....

I left out the robert Kennedy thimerosal argument, but that one too......

Just like before, I never posted in those threads, which is, of course, why you post no link.

 

[AmazonTania]

The perpetual dumb act again, so typical of the High Misinformation Voter.

Meister asked why I didn't give a direct link to the numbers and I posted what you get if you try to do that.

What you have to do is use the link I provided to access tables A-1 and A-8 and check off boxes for seasonally adjusted part time workers for economic reasons and non economic reasons in table A-8, and check off the box for seasonally adjusted employed on table A-1. Then you do a little subtraction to get the numbers.

Here is the master link again, you should bookmark it!

Household data series from the monthly A Tables

You do realise that the numbers we are looking at are the numbers from the Household survey, correct? These statistics are different from the establishment survey, although these statistics are all computed by the BLS. The Household survey is the data everyone looks at for the amount of part-time jobs and full-time jobs created from month to month. This is reported in Table 9, not Table 1 or 8. You're looking in the wrong section. Common mistake, but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

From June - July 2013, there were 92,000 full time jobs created and 174,000 part time jobs created for in-between these months. Meaning there was an increase in 266,000 jobs according to the household survey. Which also means that 35% of the jobs created were full-time and 65% of the jobs were part time. All one has to do is go back to all the full-time and part-time jobs created between January and this current month.

222,000 full-time jobs were created from January to this current month. During the same time period, 731,000 part-time jobs were created. Simple addition would tell you that there were 953,000 jobs created from the start of this year. You also don't need to be a math wiz to understand that 731K is a far bigger number than 222K, and also much closer to 953K.

ZeroHedge is not wrong. Your research is just very bad. If you are going to criticise one of the leading financial news post on the internet, you can at least come correct. Instead, you just came off as a bumbling fool who doesn't understand the data he is passing off.

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Guy, the amount of individuals who are part-time for economic reasons has no baring on the establishment survey or the household survey. The only time where this has any weigh is when they are conducting the U4 - U6 unemployment rate. The 'part-time for economic reasons' deals strictly with the underemployed. You know, the people who 'want' full-time work, but part-time was only available. This also deals with the overqualified, but I don't think this has any specific category.

There were a total of 28 million individuals who were classified as part-time. Using your tables, you can see that 8.2 million worked part-time for economic reasons while 19.1 individuals are working part-time for non-economic reasons simply because they want to.

Regardless, part-time is part-time. It really makes zero difference if someone is working part-time because he or she wants to, or not. In fact, you can see the net amount of individuals working part-time for economic reasons has increased by 19,000, and for non-economic reasons 84,000. This either means that employees are having their hours reduced or people are so desperate for work that they're willing to take anything, even part-time work.

You really don't understanding what you are saying, nor do you understand what you are talking about. No one 'added' anything to the household survey. The particular individuals who are part-time for whatever reason is a subset of the part-time/full-time data. It's not a different statistical category.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society.

That's just an expression. All it means is that the labour force consist of more part-time jobs being created than full-time. If you look this literaly, then this reveals more about your intelligence that you probably didn't want to reveal.

 

[edthecynic]

You do realise that the numbers we are looking at are the numbers from the Household survey, correct? These statistics are different from the establishment survey, although these statistics are all computed by the BLS. The Household survey is the data everyone looks at for the amount of part-time jobs and full-time jobs created from month to month. This is reported in Table 9, not Table 1 or 8. You're looking in the wrong section. Common mistake, but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

From June - July 2013, there were 92,000 full time jobs created and 174,000 part time jobs created for in-between these months. Meaning there was an increase in 266,000 jobs according to the household survey. Which also means that 35% of the jobs created were full-time and 65% of the jobs were part time. All one has to do is go back to all the full-time and part-time jobs created between January and this current month.

222,000 full-time jobs were created from January to this current month. During the same time period, 731,000 part-time jobs were created. Simple addition would tell you that there were 953,000 jobs created from the start of this year. You also don't need to be a math wiz to understand that 731K is a far bigger number than 222K, and also much closer to 953K.

ZeroHedge is not wrong. Your research is just very bad. If you are going to criticise one of the leading financial news post on the internet, you can at least come correct. Instead, you just came off as a bumbling fool who doesn't understand the data he is passing off.

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society.

Guy, the amount of individuals who are part-time for economic reasons has no baring on the establishment survey or the household survey. The only time where this has any weigh is when they are conducting the U4 - U6 unemployment rate. The 'part-time for economic reasons' deals strictly with the underemployed. You know, the people who 'want' full-time work, but part-time was only available. This also deals with the overqualified, but I don't think this has any specific category.

There were a total of 28 million individuals who were classified as part-time. Using your tables, you can see that 8.2 million worked part-time for economic reasons while 19.1 individuals are working part-time for non-economic reasons simply because they want to.

Regardless, part-time is part-time. It really makes zero difference if someone is working part-time because he or she wants to, or not. In fact, you can see the net amount of individuals working part-time for economic reasons has increased by 19,000, and for non-economic reasons 84,000. This either means that employees are having their hours reduced or people are so desperate for work that they're willing to take anything, even part-time work.

You really don't understanding what you are saying, nor do you understand what you are talking about. No one 'added' anything to the household survey. The particular individuals who are part-time for whatever reason is a subset of the part-time/full-time data. It's not a different statistical category.

That's right, you could legitimately say the 19,000 were "CONVERTED" to part time, but the 84,000 were not converted to part time because part time was all they wanted. But Zero Hedge, not the household survey, is counting the 84,000 who only want to work part time as "CONVERTED" to part time which is bullshit.
Get it?

 

[Trajan]

You are absolutely delusional!

what you choose to focus on is amazing.....you might want to think on that.....

the 2009 budget argument and budget reconciliation argument.....

I left out the robert Kennedy thimerosal argument, but that one too......

Just like before, I never posted in those threads, which is, of course, why you post no link.

you never posted n them? ... so what ya got right now, 6 inches? hold on tight ed......honestly, you're warped

 

[AmazonTania]

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

Guy, the amount of individuals who are part-time for economic reasons has no baring on the establishment survey or the household survey. The only time where this has any weigh is when they are conducting the U4 - U6 unemployment rate. The 'part-time for economic reasons' deals strictly with the underemployed. You know, the people who 'want' full-time work, but part-time was only available. This also deals with the overqualified, but I don't think this has any specific category.

There were a total of 28 million individuals who were classified as part-time. Using your tables, you can see that 8.2 million worked part-time for economic reasons while 19.1 individuals are working part-time for non-economic reasons simply because they want to.

Regardless, part-time is part-time. It really makes zero difference if someone is working part-time because he or she wants to, or not. In fact, you can see the net amount of individuals working part-time for economic reasons has increased by 19,000, and for non-economic reasons 84,000. This either means that employees are having their hours reduced or people are so desperate for work that they're willing to take anything, even part-time work.

You really don't understanding what you are saying, nor do you understand what you are talking about. No one 'added' anything to the household survey. The particular individuals who are part-time for whatever reason is a subset of the part-time/full-time data. It's not a different statistical category.

That's right, you could legitimately say the 19,000 were "CONVERTED" to part time, but the 84,000 were not converted to part time because part time was all they wanted. But Zero Hedge, not the household survey, is counting the 84,000 who only want to work part time as "CONVERTED" to part time which is bullshit.
Get it?

No, you can't legitimately say anything, because you really don't have a clue of what is going on. Zero Hedge counts TOTAL part-time employment. This include BOTH workers in part-time employment for both economic and non economic reasons. You still confused yourself into believing that this data is completely different from the number of part-time employment. It's not.

If you can't understand this, then I can't help you.

 

[edthecynic]

Guy, the amount of individuals who are part-time for economic reasons has no baring on the establishment survey or the household survey. The only time where this has any weigh is when they are conducting the U4 - U6 unemployment rate. The 'part-time for economic reasons' deals strictly with the underemployed. You know, the people who 'want' full-time work, but part-time was only available. This also deals with the overqualified, but I don't think this has any specific category.

There were a total of 28 million individuals who were classified as part-time. Using your tables, you can see that 8.2 million worked part-time for economic reasons while 19.1 individuals are working part-time for non-economic reasons simply because they want to.

Regardless, part-time is part-time. It really makes zero difference if someone is working part-time because he or she wants to, or not. In fact, you can see the net amount of individuals working part-time for economic reasons has increased by 19,000, and for non-economic reasons 84,000. This either means that employees are having their hours reduced or people are so desperate for work that they're willing to take anything, even part-time work.

You really don't understanding what you are saying, nor do you understand what you are talking about. No one 'added' anything to the household survey. The particular individuals who are part-time for whatever reason is a subset of the part-time/full-time data. It's not a different statistical category.

That's right, you could legitimately say the 19,000 were "CONVERTED" to part time, but the 84,000 were not converted to part time because part time was all they wanted. But Zero Hedge, not the household survey, is counting the 84,000 who only want to work part time as "CONVERTED" to part time which is bullshit.
Get it?

No, you can't legitimately say anything, because you really don't have a clue of what is going on. Zero Hedge counts TOTAL part-time employment. This include BOTH workers in part-time employment for both economic and non economic reasons. You still confused yourself into believing that this data is completely different from the number of part-time employment. It's not.

If you can't understand this, then I can't help you.

That is what I have been saying and that is exactly why their numbers are dishonest!!!!!! Talk about not having a clue, you are milking the dumb act too much!

Zero Hedge is claiming that full time workers are being "CONVERTED" to part time workers, but people who do not want to work full time and choose to work part time are not being "CONVERTED" and should not be included in an HONEST calculation.

You are a perfect example of why there will always be High Misinformation Voters!

 

[edthecynic]

what you choose to focus on is amazing.....you might want to think on that.....

the 2009 budget argument and budget reconciliation argument.....

I left out the robert Kennedy thimerosal argument, but that one too......

Just like before, I never posted in those threads, which is, of course, why you post no link.

you never posted n them? ... so what ya got right now, 6 inches? hold on tight ed......honestly, you're warped

Yeah, I never posted in them, and YOU know it, which is why you post no link. And why are you obsessed with how many inches I have, you sick pervert?

Here I found one for you, show me where I posted anything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pany-scored-1-4-billion-taxpayer-bailout.html

 

[Jroc]

This is an example of just how thoroughly the Right can be deceived! Even after I point out that Zero Hedge added the people who only want to work part time to the number they used for people who were converted from full time to part time and even told you the correct table to use, A-8, you are so blinded by your belief that your source is an honest player that you refuse to use the table that separated the part timers into those who want only part time work and those working part time for economic reasons.

People who only want to work part time, like students, housewives, retirees, etc. have not been "converted" to part time and should not have been included in the calculation by Zero Hedge if they were an honest player.

Let me remind you of what Zero Hedge was using that stat to PROVE:

Part time jobs are part time jobs, Ed, no matter how you want to parse it.

A part time job is a part time job, but people who only want a part time job are not "CONVERTED" to part time jobs from full time jobs, and ZH is claiming that EVERY part time worker was "CONVERTED" to that part time job, which is an absolute LIE, no matter how you want to parse it.

Come on, admit it, Zero Hedge snookered you.

They are claiming Obamas jobs number is bullshit, and it is. The jobs market is not really improving like Obama and his cronies want to make believe it is

 

[edthecynic]

Part time jobs are part time jobs, Ed, no matter how you want to parse it.

A part time job is a part time job, but people who only want a part time job are not "CONVERTED" to part time jobs from full time jobs, and ZH is claiming that EVERY part time worker was "CONVERTED" to that part time job, which is an absolute LIE, no matter how you want to parse it.

Come on, admit it, Zero Hedge snookered you.

They are claiming Obamas jobs number is bullshit, and it is. The jobs market is not really improving like Obama and his cronies want to make believe it is

But if that were actually true then Zero Hedge would not need to cook the numbers, now would they!!! Cooking the numbers betrays the fact that Zero Hedge knows they are lying and the job market is improving better than you say it is.

 

[Doubletap]

Obama,a vile socialist, is incapable of creating jobs, which is a function of capitalism. It would be similar to asking a bunch of plumbers to wire up Yankee Stadium.