Nasdaq vaults to 11-year high on jobs report, but…

“A surge in hiring in the world’s largest economy last month drove the Nasdaq to an 11-year high on Friday as optimism grew that the labor market is on a steady path to recovery,” Edward Krudy reports for Reuters.

“The broad-based gains on solid trading volume also sent the Dow Jones industrial average near a four-year high. The S&P 500 extended its 2012 advance to about 7 percent and was at its highest level in more than six months,” Krudy reports. “The U.S. economy created jobs at the fastest pace in nine months in January and the unemployment rate dropped to nearly a three-year low of 8.3 percent, the government said… Nonfarm payrolls jumped 243,000, the Labor Department said, as factory jobs grew by the most in a year. The jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent – the lowest since February 2009 – from 8.5 percent in December.”

“More than 450 stocks across all sectors hit 52-week highs, including Apple (AAPL), United Parcel Service (UPS), Yum Brands (YUM) and MasterCard (MA),” Krudy reports. “The number of NYSE stocks making new 52-week highs was at it highest since July.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Gee, this sounds great! But, oh shit, read on…

Tyler Durden reports for ZeroHedge, “A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS [U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics] heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

“So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million,” Durden reports. “Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

Read more in the full article here.

Floyd Norris reports for The New York Times, “How many jobs did the American economy add in January? The Labor Department estimated on Friday that the economy gained 243,000 jobs. The department also estimated that the economy lost 2,689,000 jobs in the month.”

“The difference in the two numbers is in seasonal adjustment. Employment always falls in January, as temporary Christmas jobs end. So the government applies seasonal adjustment factors in an effort to discern the real trend of the economy apart from seasonal fluctuations,” Norris reports. “The actual survey showed the big loss in jobs. The seasonal adjustments produced the reported gain of 243,000 jobs.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

87 Comments

  1. It’s truly scary how willing some people are to completely overlook integrally pertinent facts and to swallow the government’s totally massaged statistics.

    Reuters is once again guilty of disinformation.

    1. it’s even funnier how people on both sides having been fervently doing it for years only to blinders on the years their party was in office. Even better- blame the other party’s problems on the previous party.

      both sides do it. pathetic.

        1. But only one party doesn’t “care about the very poor” “loves to fire people” believes that corporations are people and that only billionaires should pay no taxes.

          1. According to law, Corporations ARE people. And for good reason. You can’t sue an inanimate object. By making the corporation an animate object (a person), corporations, just tlike the rest of us, are subject to lawsuits should they cause harm/injury to someone.

            Do a little research next time before making such an ill informed comment.

    2. As far as I can tell, the unemployment rate calculations have not changed substantially in recent years. There have not been any material changes or “massages” to change the results.

      In a more general sense, any statistics can be misinterpreted, misapplied, or misquoted. In a number of cases, people just seem to make up their own numbers.

      The biggest concern that I have is the increase in the average duration of unemployment. This may be due in part to the housing crisis, which tended to reduce mobility in job searches. Another likely contributor is the extension of unemployment support to 99 weeks. Nearly two years of unemployment is too long, in my opinion.

      1. If the methodology hasn’t changed, then you must agree that it is damning to the Obama administration that the percentage of the working age population currently employed just hit a 30 year low.

          1. I can’t help it if you don’t understand the meaning of “working age population.”

            Retired folks are no longer in the “working age population.”

            Think before you jump to Obama’s defense.

        1. Your rhetorical techniques are coercive. I do not *have* to agree to anything, much less your political agenda. The job losses hit full stride under the *Bush* administration – losses reaching 750,000 per month at the end of his term. This is fact, not conjecture. In addition, the U.S was engaged in two lengthy wars, deficits were already quite large and interest rates were near historical lows at that time.

          We can debate whether or not more could have been done over the past few years to improve job growth in the U.S. But I am not going to feed your skewed viewpoint on reality.

      2. Does this help?
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/explaining-yesterdays-seasonally-adjusted-nonfarm-payroll-beat

        And I agree with you about the unemployment extensions.

        Here is something else that I don’t see discussed.
        In the past, when an area became economically distressed, people eventually had to move to other parts of the country (or another country) to find work.

        Nowadays, once an area like Detroit loses much of its manufacturing base, people are paid to stay around via unemployment, food stamps, rent subsidies and AFDC. This only adds to the percentage of poor in an area (I believe that any area, no matter how prosperous, will always have a certain percent of people capable of work, but who prefer to feed on the govt. teat. This is not to be confused with handicapped, elderly, retired).

        To me, this actually adds to the inability of a place turning around because of the increase in crime and desperate living conditions.

        I’m not claiming there is an easy fix for this, but giving incentives to stay in a place that most likely will not regain its past glory has got to be changed.

        1. You and I seldom agree on things. In this case, however, we have found a bit of common ground, however shaky. I do believe that extended unemployment benefits can have negative consequences. However, as you stated, there is no easy fix for this situation, contrary to the claims of many politicians and political pundits.

        2. The population of Detroit was 1.8 million in 1950 and is now 700 thousand. I am not sure that supports your argument. It seems most people left to seek opportunity elsewhere. Perhaps for a larger teat?
          Fortunately, for those who remain in Michigan, the auto companies are providing many new work opportunities for those who still reside in Michigan.
          http://www.milmi.org/
          As the Governor of Michigan is a Republican, perhaps you can rest easier about the quality of the information. I am glad both he and the population of Michigan can benefit by the decisions that insured the viability of the car companies when the future was so uncertain.

          1. I’m glad to hear something is being done, but I was only using Detroit as an example.

            In looking at the area, it would make more sense to look at the metropolitan area rather than just the city limits, but still, look at this chart to see how bad parts are

  2. I thought we were done with slick Willie. I guess we are now into sleight of hand. Tim geitner last of the economic council member may be right in insisting he will no longer be in the second Obama Dministration although he was sure Obama will win a second term.

  3. Oh – this is JUST the beginning of the push to convince “the 99%” that we are just fine, in fact doing better then ever AND that mama government will be there to provide for ALL of their needs (if only they keep voting us – Democrats/Progressives/Statists in power.

    Stay poor, stay dependent – the Democrats Dream Plan…

        1. LOL!

          Guess what republitard Superior Being? Your article has nothing to do with the documentary I linked to. The documentary has nothing to do with the false statistics your grandstanding on.. it has actual (no statistics involved) time lapse videos of how our glaciers are receding at a terrifying rate. Go watch it, prick! It’s not a lie.

          BTW… I’m not a liberal.. I’m reality-based. 😉

          Check it out for yourself:

          http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899/

            1. Hi TowerTone 😀

              Why, no they didn’t TowerTone! You obviously didn’t see the video either now, did you?

              It’s the outright lies and vain attempts to mask reality that undermine the right’s position on climate change… why can’t you watch the documentary and be honest to yourself?

              If the “left position” can ACTUALLY WATCH A VIDEO AND SEE FACTS FOR WHAT THEY ARE without being blinded by ulterior motives, then kudos to them 😉

              It’s disgusting how big business, out of greed, pay off politicians (apparently republican politicians, given the hilarious crazy antics that ensued above) to actively ignore the issue of global warming.

              BTW… sorry for repeating that last sentence. I felt it was worth it because of all of the above bullshit by TowerTone and SuperiorBeing. Please guys.. try not to dilute the facts. What’s the next attempt to rationalize the facts away? Go ahead and drivel on… grandstanding on things that have nothing to do with the facts I have presented.

            2. My point, which seemed to go over your head, is that ANY data can be construed to one’s advantage.

              When I asked ‘…from the likes of this?’, the point is that once false data, no matter how small, is put out, other ‘facts’ are built on that like a house of cards. That map is just an example, but gone unchecked, could have been the basis of who knows how many studies taking that as fact, much like the Himalaya crap that came out a few years ago.
              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Some-Himalayan-glaciers-are-advancing-rather-than-melting-study-finds.html

              But let’s get back to the documentary. Visuals are a powerful medium. Just look at how fast those glaciers are marching to the sea, like lemmings over a cliff (see what I did there?). Obviously it is time lapsed, and people know this, but it is the effect it has on the message they are delivering and causes weak minds to become alarmed.

              I mean, did you have no feeling whatsoever about climate change before seeing this documentary, and then decided ‘My Gore, that is all the proof I need!!!’? And if there is no more evidence needed, why are there more studies conducted all the time? And who funds some of these studies? Could they possibly also underwrite PBS?
              http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/issue

              If you are a ‘reality-based’ person, why would you call SB a ‘republitard’ and say “big business, out of greed, pay off politicians to actively ignore the issue of global warming.”? Wouldn’t you rather just look at raw data rather than a glamorized documentary?
              http://www.drroyspencer.com/

              It’s not that people on the right are too stupid to get it, or place all their faith in baby Geeze-Us, it is that the left has thrown so much crap on the wall for 50 years just to see what sticks that they have lost waaay too much credibility.

            3. Wow, Towertone, it looks like MDN finally approved the moderation on this comment – I just got notice you posted this! 🙂

              I think you’re right about proponents (on both sides, though!) throwing out all kinds of arguments. I try to ignore the showy bullshit and look at the serious, evidence-backed arguments. I think the anthropgenic climate-change folks win in that category.
              Hard to say which side is better at the bullshit, though. They’re both pretty good at that.

            4. BTW, I made a reply 45 minutes ago that is waiting for moderation.

              It had three links in it, so that might be the holdup.
              (I thought 3 was the max)

            5. To help you out TowerTone, this article discredits the link you provided:

              http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/11/function-of-real-climate-in-climate.html

              From the article:

              “What RC seeks to do is to appear to derive a conclusion to these issues by giving them a fair hearing on their web site. A few commenters that are climate skeptics are always allowed to post a few comments that disagree with the RC position and with the AGW orthodoxy. But those comments from the skeptical side are very carefully filtered – not on issues of civility or relevance to the topic, but rather on the ability of the RC staff and the pro AGW/RC commenters to deal with the comments.”

              In other words, the article you linked to came from a site that’s known to spread FUD.

            6. What I am saying, TowerTone, is be careful of where you get your “news”. That RealClimate website you get your news from is known to spread FUD (that supports the position you are desperately trying to stand on.) And this new link you posted in no way discredits the documentary I linked to which has actual time lapse video of the rapid melting of glaciers currently in progress. The documentary that I linked to is from PBS’s NOVA. You know, the NOVA, don’t you? Yeah sure you do.. they make science documentaries and they have integrity. You should check out the doc I posted so you can stop this embarrassment you are dishing yourself.

              It’s little details like posting links from FUD sites that really undermines your position Tower.

            7. OK, I will break down the post that is been on hold for over an hour, because you still can’t put together the points I have made.

              pt 1

              My point, which seemed to go over your head, is that ANY data can be construed to one’s advantage.

              When I asked ‘…from the likes of this?’, the point is that once false data, no matter how small, is put out, other ‘facts’ are built on that like a house of cards. That map is just an example, but gone unchecked, could have been the basis of who knows how many studies taking that as fact, much like the Himalaya crap that came out a few years ago.
              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Some-Himalayan-glaciers-are-advancing-rather-than-melting-study-finds.html

            8. pt 2

              But let’s get back to the documentary. Visuals are a powerful medium. Just look at how fast those glaciers are marching to the sea, like lemmings over a cliff (see what I did there?). Obviously it is time lapsed, and people know this, but it is the effect it has on the message they are delivering and causes weak minds to become alarmed.

              I mean, did you have no feeling whatsoever about climate change before seeing this documentary, and then decided ‘My Gore, that is all the proof I need!!!’? And if there is no more evidence needed, why are there more studies conducted all the time? And who funds some of these studies? Could they possibly also underwrite PBS?
              http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/issue

            9. pt 3

              If you are a ‘reality-based’ person, why would you call SB a ‘republitard’ and say “big business, out of greed, pay off politicians to actively ignore the issue of global warming.”? Wouldn’t you rather just look at raw data rather than a glamorized documentary?
              http://www.drroyspencer.com/

              It’s not that people on the right are too stupid to get it, or place all their faith in baby Geeze-Us, it is that the left has thrown so much crap on the wall for 50 years just to see what sticks that they have lost waaay too much credibility.

            10. Now, let me get something clear, which is kind of humous to me….

              You say that a web site that disagrees with a site I sent you to claims they restrict comments (even though it is the same start as the NYT)….and you instantly believe them to prove your point?

              And then you claim that the site I linked to is FUD?
              FUD is all that the AGW people have!!!!!
              You do know that it stands for
              Fear
              Uncertainty
              Deception….don’t you?

              I hope you see why I find it so comical that you used that term.

              Is the earth warming up?
              Yes.
              Is man the cause?
              There eis no incontrovertible evidence, but I am open to more study.

              The über-left is not open to any data except that which proves their point, which is the root of junk science.

            11. OK Tower:

              Part 1:

              In the link you provided, it states ” This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking.”

              So, that means that the glaciers are in fact shrinking. The article YOU posted states that.

              Part 2:

              “But let’s get back to the documentary. Visuals are a powerful medium.”

              Agreed.. the visuals in the documentary I posted don’t lie. It’s in-your-face fact that you can’t deny no matter who is paying for it 😉

              Part 3:

              “Wouldn’t you rather just look at raw data rather than a glamorized documentary?”

              I don’t see how you can criticize the documentary because it was well made. The documentary I posted does have raw data in VISUAL FORM! You can see it with your own two eyes. A graph chart doesn’t give you that. A graph chart like your link provides can be created by anyone and doesn’t give you the information necessary to make a wise argument. The visuals that the documentary I posted has cannot lie 😉

              Part 4 (untitled):

              “You say that a web site that disagrees with a site I sent you to claims they restrict comments (even though it is the same start as the NYT)….and you instantly believe them to prove your point?”

              No.. What I’m saying (as stated above) is don’t use a site that is known for (not FUD, but) LIES for news sources. It’s a glaring error on your part.

              “And then you claim that the site I linked to is FUD? FUD is all that the AGW people have!!!!! You do know that it stands for Fear Uncertainty Deception….don’t you?”

              Yes I do understand.. as well as you understood my point. My calling something FUD when there is a better term (such as LIES) doesn’t change anything. It just shows how shaky your position is if you’re frivolously clinging to a use of wording on my part. I wouldn’t base your whole opinion on my using the term FUD instead of LIES.

              “I hope you see why I find it so comical that you used that term.”

              I busted a gut (lol) /sarcasm

              “Is the earth warming up? Yes.
              Is man the cause? There eis no incontrovertible evidence, but I am open to more study.”

              I think there is plenty of evidence that supports that man is part of the cause. The documentary I posted gives much credence to that.

              “The über-left is not open to any data except that which proves their point, which is the root of junk science.”

              Sorry to say for you, but the left in this case have right on their side. To say that NOVA is junk science is laughable and shows you have no credibility. The glaciers aren’t the lemmings in this discussion. You are. When you can’t/won’t believe what you are seeing with your own eyes, you are in serious trouble.

            12. *slaps face*
              apparently you have made up your mind, no matter the data presented.
              That’s the scary part.

              You rejected two stories that are known to have been debunked by several studies. Google them.
              1) The glacier maps of Greenland
              2) The UN Himalayan Glacier study

              You prefer to pick at words and sites rather than the truth, which leads me to believe you are simply interested in winning an argument and not finding the truth. How you jumped to the conclusion that I said NOVA was junk science is beyond me, and shows it is pointless for me to discuss this with you further.

              Believe what you want. Be swayed by a documentary. Close your mind to other evidence.

              My point in the first post on this subject was that too much crap is built on a house of cards when some of the underlying studies are false.

              Take the ball and run in any direction you want, that doesn’t change my point.

            1. Do you have any documented proof of what you’re saying?… calling me a “lib loser” isn’t what I’d call documented proof like I have personally exhibited with the link I posted above.. I’d consider your term “lib loser” more of an insult used to discredit me. Why not try a new approach with facts instead? I think I know my answer to that: you don’t have any facts to support your case. Better try reading the republican guidelines on how to BS the general public again because it’s not working here.

            2. The science behind climate change is valid. The question is not whether or not human activities are impacting global climate. The question is to what extent humans are impacting global climate. Human induced climate change could be a fairly minor factor, or it could be a major one. Our existing climate models contain substantial uncertainty, and that uncertainty is, unfortunately, being used as the basis for complete refutation of the concept by people with a social, political, and/or business agendas.

              The political ideology against climate change science reminds me of the attacks by the Roman Catholic church against Galileo Galilei in the 1600s – a desperate desire to suppress valid science because it conflicts with the objectives of a particular group. If you doubt that, then why was a perfectly good climate science satellite (DSCVR/Triana) grounded by the Bush administration in the early 2000s? That satellite would have provided a critical piece of missing data – a view of the entire Earth that would help to refine the global energy balance. Satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) can only view portions of the Earth, and scientists are forced to attempt to piece together the energy balance from inadequate data.

              If you are so certain of your claims regarding climate change, then join the call to launch DSCVR/Triana!

              Climate change should be addressed as a likelihood/consequence argument. Consider this…if you are wrong and a preponderance of scientists are right, then taking reasonable steps now could help to head off a disaster down the road. If you are right and the scientists are wrong, then you can say “I told you so.” But the precautions made sense at the time, given the uncertainty and the potentially disastrous consequences.

              What is so irritating to me and many others is the willingness of some people/groups to completely reject evidence to the contrary while making statements of certitude based primarily upon ideology and wishful thinking.

            3. The pseudo science behind the global warming hoax is fraudulent.

              The climate models all require a positive feedback mechanism where a small increase in CO2 leads to a large increase in H2O that in turns causes a large increase in temperature.

              This positive feedback mechanism is unproven, and the data available suggests, if anything, the feedback is negative.

              So, the “science” of global warming is just flat wrong.

            4. Gary, the vast majority of the climate change science is real and valid – not “pseudo science.” And I do not understand your claim that a “positive feedback mechanism” is required for climate change. In my experience, a positive feedback mechanism leads to an unstable system. The Earth’s environment clearly contains substantial damping mechanisms, or else the climate would not have stabilized over the long term within a zone conducive to life despite variations in solar inputs as well as wide variations in atmospheric conditions and surface characteristics (e.g., extreme glaciation). However, a well-damped system will still exhibit a response to stimulus. If that stimulus is maintained, then the system will exhibit a larger variance from its prior equilibrium state. The point is that these variations, even if relatively small in the cosmic sense, could be highly detrimental to other components of the system. Since the Earth’s ecosystem is an intertwined chain, it may not take much climate change to seriously disrupt it. That could be disastrous in an ecosystem already highly stressed from human overpopulation.

              Your logic is highly flawed, as are your conclusions. It is not worthwhile to discuss these issues with you any further.

  4. “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” – Mark Twain

    Obama will do anything to get the “unemployment rate” down as low as possible by election day. Even if it means outright lying.

    1. Yeah, I’ll bet Obama is burning the midnight oil massaging those numbers… Are you kidding, nutcase? Do a little research and you will see that this recovery is similar to others in the U.S. starting from the Great Depression. It amazes me that you are so desperate to defeat Obama that you cannot accept the recent unemployment data. Yet, this data comes from the same source as the data from 2008-2011 that you have repeatedly referenced to disparage Obama. Total hypocrisy.

      The GOP is so desperate that it would not surprise me if their ideological Congressional obstruction over the past three years was calculated to sabotage Obama’s chances for reelection by intentionally slowing the economic recovery. If only you could have held it back about eight more months…

      1. No, Obama is burning the midnight oil putting on the carpet in preparation for his next round. He’s trying to set the presidential record not just for futility, but for most golf played by a one-termer.

        1. the real problem is that we are now at the point where we only gave a very small portion of the populace that is educated enough in math to actually understand and interpret statistical information in any way. THAT is the reason why the politicians and media can lie to promote a certain agenda.

          I will also add that science education is also lacking, which is why it is possible for people to believe that 95% of the scientific community must be wrong on a certain other issue.

          I, personally, would not mind that so much if those weren’t the same people who believe that a book written 2000 years ago has all the answers, and they do so without asking for a shred of proof on that side. Instead thy have Faith. (and of course, it is their variety of faith that is the right one. Everyone else’s is wrong, no matter who you ask.)

  5. … anyone watching the SuperPAC ads associated with the Republican Presidential Primary? At least Scott and Elizabeth have agreed to avoid that minefield.
    MDN … other than that this news has helped boost my AAPL for me, what does this have to do with Apple?

    1. Apple Inc. shares (AAPL) are publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange.

      In fact, AAPL is the #1 most valuable stock on the NASDAQ exchange.

      Anything regarding the NASDAQ is germane to Apple and vice versa.

      Not to mention that the horrible Reuters disinformation piece directly mentions Apple.

      1. Nice try Broker, but I think that’s bit of a a tenuous link and as such it wont wash with us here learn’d folk

        The reality of it all this, as me Papa uses’t ta say, is as simple story for simple people, it’s as simple as hogpoop.

        NASDAQ is a big bunch of capital letters, that used to stand for -National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations”.

        AAPL is smaller bunch of capital letters that stands for- All Apple products are legendary.

        You will notice that they be both contain a capital A followed directly / indirectly by another big ol’ capital A, this actual factual fact, this undeniable truth lies at the core of the kinship between the two.

        Here we see and understand the hidden truth of the foundation that connects the two entities, Double A’s tightly coiled like entwined lovers embracing each other.


        Another thing to notice and one that is often forgotten a lot, this is MDN MAC-Daily-News not ADN as in APPLE-Daily-News, but I never see people bitch’n about the preponderance of iPhone or iPad stories ; )

  6. @ kingmel

    You’re trying to have a logical argument with people who have traded logic for ideology. Don’t bother. “It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig.” I wasn’t meaning to denigrate pigs with the comparison… 🙂

  7. Boy, MDN, tallk about deception to advance your own agenda. Zero Hedge, a right wing conspiracy focused financial blog has nothing to do with the original article. You just grafted their bullshit into the end of the other article and made it look like “the rest of the story,” setting off your rabid fellow Obama haters into their typical cretinism driven fits of right wing spew. You know, I love your Apple coverage, but your hatred of Obama and science is probably something you should keep to yourselves. I find the irony of your idol worship of Steve Jobs (a liberal) and Apple a company built upon science, while believing in this anti-intellectual, conspiratorial crap, absolutely stunning!

    1. Michael, ZeroHedge is “a right-wing conspiracy focused financial blog.” Really? Do you ever read it? You could say it displays a libertarian flavor and be correct or you could say it is a contrarian financial website and probably be pretty accurate. But right-wing, hardly.

      BTW, please don’t insult libertarians by calling them right-wingers. If you don’t know the difference watch the Republican debates and notice the old guy who doesn’t agree with any of the other candidates. He’s the libertarian and the other guys are the right-wingers.

      Finally, for all those who are interested in the other side of the government’s financial statistics you might check out:

      http://www.shadowstats.com

      1. Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to vault the libertarian adolescence to the level of the Republican party. Smaller government while sucking up every program you can get your hands on. I am so tired of seeing “Liberterians gladly use police, fire, public education, government employment and Medicare, cry about their taxes and the ig government. Please, STFU. An by the way I have read the conspiratorial ZeroHedge. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The first part of the article was the article summarized. I’ve been reading MDN a long time and they never put in their comment then leave the undiscerning (re moronic) reader) to believe that the second part of the article reflects the first. This is just the spew I called it and doesn’t belong in a Mac Centric site. It would do better on a suitable sister site, like Right Wing Daily News.

  8. Please don’t add the political commentary to otherwise fine website. The methodology of calculating the actual jobless percentage changes seasonally and is ALWAYS being adjusted to find the most correct figures. If Obama wanted to make things look better, the past year and half would have looked very different (i.e. calculated upward) and this past week’s figures would have been goosed even higher.

    Please stick to the subject at hand: Apple.

    Thanks!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.