Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from a Single Employer — McDonald's

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent. However, this report from MarketWatch suggests the data is much worse than that:

McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 — after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted — in which 62,000 jobs were added. That’s not a net number, of course, and seasonal adjustment will reduce the Hamburglar impact on payrolls. (In simpler terms — restaurants always staff up for the summer; the Labor Department makes allowance for this effect.) Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.

If Morgan Stanley is correct, about half of last month's job growth came from the venerable fast-food chain. That is hardly the sign of a healthy economy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/half-last-months-jobs-came-single-employer-mcdonalds_573220.html

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

new ad campaign "eat a big mac and help the recovery!"

[thongd4me 69]

We won't have to worry about China as competition; they are slowly taking over...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs,...

That's actually false. The Weekly Standard ought to know better. The economy - as in private businesses - added some 83,000 jobs. The government - at various levels - meanwhile slashed 29,000. That leaves a net gain of 54,000 jobs for the country. But the Weekly Standard cannot make the point that private sector employment is growing and government payrolls are shrinking. That would be an accurate assessment but it would clearly go against everything they want to preach - that being that the only jobs created are government jobs. Well, what to expect from Kristol and Co?

Edited June 5, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

That's actually false. The Weekly Standard ought to know better. The economy - as in private businesses - added some 83,000 jobs. The government - at various levels - meanwhile slashed 29,000. That leaves a net gain of 54,000 jobs for the country.

So then they created half of the net jobs created last month (private - public) or if just looking at private then 32.5%. Sad either way.

Why did the gov't lay off 29k people? I thought their jobs were very secure.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why did the gov't lay off 29k people? I thought their jobs were very secure.

The gov't has been slashing payrolls for all of 2010 and all the way thus far this year. Each employment report for the past 15-18 months has the same story - private sector adds, government slashes. You wouldn't know that listening to the reality divorced crowd over at the GOP propaganda organ FNC.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So then they created half of the net jobs created last month (private - public) or if just looking at private then 32.5%. Sad either way.

Why did the gov't lay off 29k people? I thought their jobs were very secure.

Those are all those "jobs" that the Stimulus Package created. Hate to say we told you so, but as soon as the 'Bama bucks dried up, so did those "jobs".

[웃 910]

The gov't has been slashing payrolls for all of 2010 and all the way thus far this year. Each employment report for the past 15-18 months has the same story - private sector adds, government slashes. You wouldn't know that listening to the reality divorced crowd over at the GOP propaganda organ FNC.

You wouldn't know that listening to the reality divorced crowd over at the GOP propaganda organ FNC.

How can you confirm if you don't watch it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How can you confirm if you don't watch it?

He just says whatever he heard on MS-NBC. No thought process there at all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How can you confirm if you don't watch it?

Because they have a site on the interwebz which I peruse.

He just says whatever he heard on MS-NBC. No thought process there at all.

That would be a neat trick watching MSNBC w/o cable or dish. Do they broadcast where you live? They don't here.

[웃 910]

Because they have a site on the interwebz which I peruse.

You read and examine foxnews.com with great care? Really?

pe·ruse (p-rz)tr.v. pe·rused, pe·rus·ing, pe·rus·es

To read or examine, typically with great care.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That would be a neat trick watching MSNBC w/o cable or dish. Do they broadcast where you live? They don't here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You read and examine foxnews.com with great care? Really?

Yes, I read up on news on their site with the same care with which I read up on other sites - CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC and Der Spiegel - my favorite news magazine - and a few local and national German newspapers - Die Welt, Die Zeit, FAZ, Berliner Morgenpost and Der Tagesspiegel. I guess I could have just pulled a Palin here and said I read "any of them, all of them" but I wanted to be a bit more specific.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

I don't watch TV on my computer. You get better information reading than watching any sensationalist somewhat news oriented entertainment program in this country.

[웃 910]

Yes, I read up on news on their site with the same care with which I read up on other sites - CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC and Der Spiegel - my favorite news magazine - and a few local and national German newspapers - Die Welt, Die Zeit, FAZ, Berliner Morgenpost and Der Tagesspiegel. I guess I could have just pulled a Palin here and said I read "any of them, all of them" but I wanted to be a bit more specific.

I am good with just P&R

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am good with just P&R

To each his own. I like to dig a little on issues that I interest me.