6 ms·
>> Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy You mean like the horrific jobs numbers that came out that nobody is covering either? Like bad like that??
by burningChrome 2y ago
>> Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy
You mean like the horrific jobs numbers that came out that nobody is covering either? Like bad like that??
- bottom999mottob 2y agoNobody is a a bit of an exaggeration. Anyone who has been following finance noticed many major US news outlets covering when the job numbers dropped [0]. Yes it was really only covered for a day because the election hype is a bigger story. Why did nobody talk about the floods in Nepal or mass suicides in Sudan? Clearly we should all be talking about jobs and the US economy! [0] https://news.google.com/search?q=job%20numbers&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=job%20numbers&hl=en-US&gl=U...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- djbusby 2y agoBLS numbers look pretty boring; Oct was +12000; nothing extreme either way. Am I missing something?
- NewJazz 2y agoUsually it is 10x that in a month. AIUI there were strikes and other factors affecting the numbers, but not necessarily indicating significant harm to the economy/jobs long term.
- HDThoreaun 2y agothere was nothing horrific about the jobs report. It was bad news, but we get bad news everyday.
- jonas21 2y agoIt wasn't even bad news, or at least the markets didn't think so -- they were up slightly. It was basically the expected effect of the two hurricanes on October and Boeing strike.
- EasyMark 2y agoI saw it in several business sections. Is that the the "nobody covering it" part? The numbers a likely due to several one-off occurrences that aren't like to hit semi-perfect status again for a while. No reason given the numbers that it's not a fluke with the history of the previous months.
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoIt's ok, inflation is only going to be transitory.