It's interesting to me that they chose to emphasize the 2nd derivative of jobs (we're looking at the slope of the job loss/month).
It's not good, it's not getting better, it's just getting worse slower, with hope of getting better soon.
It's not good, it's not getting better, it's just getting worse slower, with hope of getting better soon.
What's wonky about it (from a mathematical perspective) is that it's labeled 'job loss,' yet a negative number implies that jobs were lost in the month. One would expect that a net loss of jobs in a month on a graph labeled 'loss' would result in a positive number.
This is the actual raw data. All of the other statistics (unemployment rate, etc) are derived from these numbers.
It's highly massaged data, always has been, always will be.
And there's no guarantee whatsoever that it's massaged in the same way month to month. None at all.