- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

WSJ is a shite rag
Posted on 6/6/25 at 7:42 am
Posted on 6/6/25 at 7:42 am
Headline...
Hiring slows in May with 139k jobs added.
In the body of the article, number beat the 125k estimate.
Hiring slows in May with 139k jobs added.
In the body of the article, number beat the 125k estimate.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 7:44 am to udtiger
They revised the previous two months lower by 95k
Earnings up tho
Earnings up tho
quote:
The BLS Jobs report showed that there was an increase of 139,000 jobs in the month of May, which was a little above market expectations of 130,000. Employment gains in March and April were revised lower by a combined 95,000. The unemployment rate remained at 4.2%, matching estimates. Average weekly earnings were up 0.4% for the month and up 3.9% year over year.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 7:44 am to udtiger
"framing"
Even uppity WSJ readers that still subscribe to the physical paper are susceptible to it.
Even uppity WSJ readers that still subscribe to the physical paper are susceptible to it.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 7:53 am to udtiger
quote:
In the body of the article, number beat the 125k estimate.
Until they change it
Posted on 6/6/25 at 8:26 am to udtiger
Well technically hiring did slow when compared to the 147k jobs added in April. Also, all someone has to do is get past the headline and read the actual article to see that the economy is fine and at least holding steady.
Fifth paragraph even states that Federal government employment shrank by 22k jobs...which is more than the total decline in added payroll jobs.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the headline or article. That's just me, though.
Fifth paragraph even states that Federal government employment shrank by 22k jobs...which is more than the total decline in added payroll jobs.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the headline or article. That's just me, though.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 8:39 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Until they change it
so like always
Whoever puts the numbers out needs to fix their seasonal adjustments
Posted on 6/6/25 at 8:47 am to udtiger
If they didn't report that a massive amount of the phony job "gains" under Biden were in government (which is disgusting), then I do not want to hear from them.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 8:49 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/6/25 at 9:00 am to prplngldtigr
The reality is that it will have been under the 125k estimate once it is revised down in two or three months.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 9:07 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the headline or article. That's just me, though.
Me neither. But some people expect the media to fellate their chosen candidates.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 9:43 am to udtiger
Yay we are over estimated number and after the last 4 years of Biden on top of that first year of covid collapse we are fortunate not to be in a hastened free fall. That said if a minimum of a 250k jobs report isn’t met then it’s not good. During last administration numbers were false positives and false in general as many of the jobs created were government, those can be considered as a negative result any time a government job is created. This 250k is probably not close either as being a minimum as that is a number derived 20 plus years ago as a bottom line one. Yes 22k government jobs are supposedly reduced, not nearly enough but it’s a start.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:34 pm to udtiger
quote:
WSJ is a shite rag
It’s far and away the best mainstream paper in the US
Popular
Back to top

10









