PDiddie wrote:As we all know, there was nearly no change in unemployment figures in December. The manufacturing and retail sectors are still shedding jobs, and those people who had jobs worked fewer hours.
As we all know December is a month with a couple of things going on that make it not like other months of the year. It's a holiday month for most Americans AND it's the end of the calendar year. Both of these facts have an impact on jobs numbers and have an impact EVERY YEAR, good economy or bad.
PD tells us in part that
as we all know "those people who had jobs worked fewer hours". Like lots of people, I worked fewer hours in December BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO HOLIDAYS AND I ALSO TOOK TIME OFF TO TRAVEL TO VISIT FAMILY OUT OF STATE. Now, you might argue that I am an exception, but "as we all know" that would be silly.
Of course workers worked fewer hours in December, but does that mean what PD seems to think it means? (He doesn't actually tell us what he thinks it means, though it's clear he thinks it is bad news.)
The problem is that as we all know there can be many reasons for flat job growth. Flat job growth at the end of the year is not unusual, neither is it odd for workers to work fewer hours around our major holidays. I doubt that many people would take this information as a sign of trouble in the economy, unless those people want to make the case that the economy is not improving. (But who on Earth would want that, right?)
