Say, how about that jobs report for October, eh?

If you follow U.S. economics (spoiler: you don't) you know that historically employers need to add about 235,000 jobs every month to keep up with immigration (and a much smaller number of Americans entering the workforce every month.)

But for some bizarre reason the consensus estimate of economists polled by the WSJ was that just 110,000 jobs would likely be added in October.

SO...This morning the harris regime released the monthly jobs report for October (and revised the numbers for August and September).

So how many of you know how many jobs the Labor Department claims were added in October?  Try doing a net search.  What you'll get will be how totally, absolutely FAAABULOUS the number was for September.  "Wait, I asked for October.  WTF?"

"Umm...uhh...Wait, dis can't be right.  It say 12,000.  Dat mus' be a typo, right?  Dey musta left off a zero, an duh real number iz 120,000!  Yeh, dat it!  An' okay, dat only about half the number of jobs needed to keep up, but WAY bettah den dat silly typo "12,000," eh?"  

"Wow, dat a huge relief, eh?  Cuz for a second dere we wuz worried dat it wuz a disaster!"

"Wait...whut?"

"Y'say 12,000 is the real number?  Nah, bro, dat can't be right, cuz duh Media been tellin' us bidenomics haz made duh economy BOOM, citizen!  Every time ouah faaabulous Dem nominee say economy faaabulous, Media cheer an' agree.  Nevah say she wrong, eh?  So economy mus' be faaabulous!  Yep yep yep"

Here's how duh NY (Dem-fellating) Times spun this disaster:

The number was significantly lower than economists had expected, suggesting either that disruptions took a larger toll than they had forecast, or that the underlying pace of job growth might be slowing.

Dear Democrat-fellating Times propagandists: The phrase "significantly lower than economists expected" would be appropriate if the number of new jobs is 25% below the number needed.  
   Thanks to your lying, stupid, corrupt, incompetent "leaderz" killing the economy, a mere 12,000 jobs were created when the forecast was for 110,000, and when historically 235,000 are needed to keep unemployment level.
   For the math-challenged, the number of jobs actually created in the month just ended was only 5 percent of what's needed to keep unemployment level, and only 11% of the awful forecast.  

Calling this horrible performance merely "significantly lower than expected" is insane--as if the Times reported 9/11/2001 by writing "Traffic in lower Manhattan was significantly slower than usual this afternoon."

Yet in the top paragraph of every story is the soothing, Democrat-fellating lie "Unemployment remained steady at 4.1%."

Do a google (shit) search for "revised job numbers for September."  Not "job numbers" but "revised job numbers."  You only get the original number for September, which the ENTIRE Dem-fellating Media reported was absolutely faaabulous--"exceeded all expectations!"  

Of course today--a month after the glorious, vote-grabbing headlines bragging about the great news--the September job number was revised downward by 31,000, to less than needed to keep unemployment level.

Worse, the August number was also revised--again downward--this time by 81,000 jobs.  That is, the original jobs report for August--a woeful 159,000--was cut by MORE THAN HALF, to 78,000.

Oh, I see my Dem friends think this is fake newz.  Here's the quote from the BLS jobs report this morning:

The change in total nonfarm employment for August was revised down by 81,000, from 159,000 to 78,000, and the change for September was revised down by 31,000, from 254,000 to 223,000.  With these revisions, employment in August and September combined is 112,000 lower than previously reported.

When Trump was president, monthly jobs report were almost always *lower* than the revised figures.  That is, revisions were up instead of down.  But with Obozo or bidumb, revisions are almost always down.  Hmmm...must be a coincidence.

Y'know, we seem to be seeing a lot of coincidences with the dem regime, eh?

So if it has always taken 235,000 new jobs per month to keep unemployment level, how can the regime claim unemployment is still the exact same 4.1% that it was before, eh?  Easy: "magic wif numberz."

Here's the BLS report again: 

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent in October, and the number of unemployed people was little changed at 7.0 million.
   These measures are higher than a year earlier, when the jobless rate was 3.8 percent, and the number of unemployed people was 6.4 million."

For those of you who didn't like maff (cuz maff beez raaaaaacis'!): 7 million unemployed versus 6.4 million--the regime's own numbers!--is an increase of 9.38 percent.  So by their own admission, 9.38 percent more people are unemployed.  So how the hell can the "official" unemployment rate not change by even a tenth of a percent, eh?

Easy: if the population of the U.S. increased by the same percentage, then the "official" U/E rate would stay unchanged, right?  So who thinks the U.S. population increased 9.38% in a single year?

Even after the harris/bidumb regime allowed 5 million illegal aliens into the U.S. in the last 12 months, that only increases the population by about 1.5%--not remotely close to 9.38%, eh?  And yet through the magic of Deep-State maff, dey say U/E din' change by even a tenth of a percent!

The way the regime's BLS pulls that off is to claim that fewer and fewer people every month are even looking for work.  The BLS calls 'em "discouraged job-seekers."  See, if duh regime can get pipo to say dey aren't "looking for work," it wouldn't be fair to count 'em as unemployed, right?

Wow, nice.

What's really funny is that the Lying Media are falling all over themselves blaming the record-low job creation on the hurricanes and the Boeing strike.  But what percentage of all U.S. companies were affected by either?  Maybe one percent?

How does that affect hiring by companies in, say, Texas?

Nah, the absolutely awful number of jobs added in October is because the economy has slowly turned to crap from the moment Porridgebrain and Cackles set foot in the White House.

Part of it, of course, is due to the gargantuan cost of the interest on our staggering national debt--a TRILLION dollars a year, and guaranteed to increase. No country can survive that hit for long.

And certainly both parties have helped amass the huge debt, not just the Dems.  But business owners--or execs of major companies--have seen the handwriting on the wall: demand is down, so no reason to hire.  Which reduces household income, which reduces demand further.

That's called a "vicious circle," and it's hard to break it.

This will end one of two ways: either default, or hyperinflation.  Either way, life will be terribly grim for most Americans.

Source: federal government