A surprise decline in jobs? Actually, the numbers aren't too bad. Full-time work was up alot, but part-time work down even more, which can be interpreted to mean that temps are being added to the payrolls permanently, ie. the quality of work is improving. In any case, the gov. will probably emphasize the full-time work figure and a small decline in the unemployment rate; the opposition will lean on the straight job loss number. Whichever way you slice it, the
professionals were expecting a much stronger performance.
Check this out: Bill Lilley!? SunMedia can't even get the names of their columnists right.
ReplyDeleteThat's twice:
ReplyDeletehttp://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/06/fox-north-update-off-to-bad-start.html
This twitter post I received today might give you a laugh..
ReplyDeleteFrom Vince Greco (@vgriccio)
"@Rob_Harvie I just realized u were 'big city lib' on liblogs. I was A View or Two back in 06. Good to know your still around."
Didn't I delete that faux-BCL page? Hmmmm....
Oh.. and while job projections were disappointed, as you say, all in all, exchanging 90,600 part-time jobs for full-time jobs seems like not such a bad thing for those impacted.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's fair to say that a the "stimulus" money is starting to give way to private capital investment creating jobs, which, again, is a good thing.
Not a bad report, no, but not what anyone was expecting.
ReplyDelete