Employment

What Skills are Needed to Become a Plumber?

August 29, 2013 by Guest Contributor

To become a plumber you may not need any previous experience or academic qualifications, but there will be certain skills you need to demonstrate.

Some courses and apprenticeships may require a number of GCSEs, whereas others are open to everyone. Despite the lack of need for formal qualifications, plumbing isn’t for everyone so you need to evaluate your suitability based on your own individual skill-set.

Note: The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification awarded in a specified subject, generally taken in a number of subjects by students aged 14–16 in secondary education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Physical

It may not seem like a particularly physically demanding job at first, but plumbers need to have some dexterity and flexibility. Small confined spaces underneath sinks and round the back of appliances means that you might end up stuck in an uncomfortable position for some length of time.

While it may be awkward, you will still need to be able to do the job in hand. It’s also likely that you’ll need to climb ladders or steps and lift heavy items, so a reasonable level of fitness is essential.

Academic

It may not be necessary to have 10 GCSEs and 4 A Levels to become a plumber, but there are some basic skills you will need, particularly in mathematics.

You’ll probably have to do some arithmetic and use statistics for certain projects but it’s also possible that physics will come into play with fluid movements and pressure. But often tables and standard sizes are available so you probably won’t need to do the calculations yourself.

If you left school without any qualifications in these areas, you may get the chance to show your natural abilities and develop your knowledge on plumbing courses.

Personal

As a plumber, most of your work will be [Read more…] about What Skills are Needed to Become a Plumber?

How Safe is Your Business from Media Sabotage?

August 27, 2013 by Guest Contributor

Every year at least one politician or businessman has their career torpedoed by an interview nightmare. Just last week Labour immigration spokesman Chris Bryant ducked out of several interviews after fearing the repercussions from his ‘botched immigration speech’.

Jeremy Paxman is an English journalist, broadcaster and author. He has worked for the BBC since 1977, and is known for his forthright and abrasive interviewing style, particularly when interrogating (ahem, I mean interviewing) politicians. Unfortunately for them, multitudes of politicians and businessmen have had their careers sabotaged by one of Paxman’s now infamous tirades. I mean, doesn’t everyone in England remember this Michael Howard clip?

That clip is now 6 years old, and people are still talking about it! This just goes to show the importance of media management and media training, whatever your business.

The simple fact of the matter is that every year at least one politician or businessman has their career torpedoed by an interview nightmare. Just last week Labour immigration spokesman Chris Bryant ducked out of several interviews after fearing the repercussions from his ‘botched immigration speech’.

Media training and management are undoubtedly vital if you’re dealing with the media and it is incredibly important that you know how to respond calmly under pressure; especially in a crisis situation. [Read more…] about How Safe is Your Business from Media Sabotage?

The Claptrap Behind the Minimum Wage Debate

August 10, 2013 by Guest Contributor

By Bill Bonner

Can Money Buy You Happiness?

Not that we care especially about money. We are more interested in what it represents… and how it helps us understand the world we live in.

Money establishes a relationship between people. One owes. One is owed. One can buy. One must sell. One employs. Another is employed. [Editor’s Note: Money also makes people more efficient. Imagine how wasteful and polluted the world would be if everyone had unlimited amounts of money.]

You don’t really need much to live. Food, clothing, shelter, a WiFi connection. After you have the basics everything else is no longer about survival. It’s about status: the relationship between you and your fellow men.

It takes more than money to live well. You could live much better than most people live… on little money. Just get a quaint cottage in West Virginia. Plant a nice garden. And learn to cook!

But most people figure they need more money. They want large suburban houses, sleek automobiles, mobile phones and big-screen TVs… not to mention health insurance.

Poverty-Level Pay

You can buy that sort of stuff by getting a job that pays well. But why do so many jobs pay so poorly? [Read more…] about The Claptrap Behind the Minimum Wage Debate

Dressing for Success at Job Interviews for Men

July 19, 2013 by Guest Contributor

According to psychological studies, when someone gets up to speak to a room full of people, an incredible 75% of the interest they generate in the first few minutes is entirely dependent on whether they look like they are worth listening to.

Put that into an interview situation and your chance of landing that job is well on the way to being decided before you utter a word.

The message is simple, you need to dress for success.

Dress for the Part

One of the best pieces of advice when it comes to deciding what to wear to an interview is to remember to dress for the job that you want not the job you currently have. According to recruitment specialist Essential Personnel, many applicants do not pay enough attention to this simple and maybe sometimes overworked but essentially true, cliché.

Turning up in a pair of jeans for an office job is the quickest way to fail the interview process before you even start. The one exception to this rule might be in the creative arts field where if you wear a suit you might not be considered “artsy” enough.

Here’s a simple test:

Put yourself in the hiring manager’s position. Which of these three guys would you hire?

If you have nothing but looks to go on but which one would you pick?

Think carefully, Why would you pick him? Here are a few things to consider. [Read more…] about Dressing for Success at Job Interviews for Men

Teaching Assistants: The Next Best Thing to Being a Teacher

June 28, 2013 by Guest Contributor

Teaching Assistants often lead rewarding careers in education. People who enjoy being around children and helping them learn find that TA jobs can be enriching experiences. Such positions are also a great way to determine if working in an academic setting is the right life-long career choice. While entry-level Teaching Assistants can become valuable supports for classrooms and schools, Teaching Assistants (TA) with advanced experience and training may even garner greater levels of responsibility.

What Do Teaching Assistants Do?

A teaching assistant is seldom bored. Each day may require various tasks that may involve helping the teacher prep for an activity, one-on-one tutoring, supervising children at a task, or any other number of things that come up during the school day. Both teacher and TA may operate as a team most days; though, TAs rarely must lead lessons and are often subject to the teacher’s direction. However, this arrangement is often what TAs love so much about their work. They aren’t responsible for [Read more…] about Teaching Assistants: The Next Best Thing to Being a Teacher

New Unemployment Law and Lawsuits in New York

June 28, 2013 by Guest Contributor

New York City has enacted legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against unemployed job applicants effective June 11, 2013. This legislation has been met with dismay since many believe that it will lead to disruption in the hiring process.

Furthermore, a large number of lawsuits can also be expected under this new law. While the New York City Council which formed the legislation tried to protect the interests of employees, like most legislation it just ends up making the process more complex.

Effects of the New Law

The new law that is in place is definitely going to make hiring a mess. The reason is that unemployed people who get rejected can target the business in expensive lawsuits. No business owner likes being vulnerable to lawsuits especially in the case of employment scenarios.

The main target of the legislation is to prevent and ban employers from discriminating in the case there are unemployed job applicants. The New York City Council had brought forth the law based on [Read more…] about New Unemployment Law and Lawsuits in New York

Valuable Tax Tips for Job Seekers

May 31, 2013 by Tim McMahon

Deduction Limitations

Job-hunting expenses are only deductible when a person is looking for work in the same employment field where he or she is currently working or has most recently worked. For example, someone who is working as a nurse can deduct expenses looking for another nursing position. However, he or she could not deduct expenses looking for a job as a chef.

The amount of the deduction that a taxpayer can claim for job hunting is limited. The IRS only allows you to deduct expenses that are in excess of two percent of your annual income for expenses related to job hunting. So if you are making $30,000/yr. the first $600 in expenses is not deductible. For this reason, it is important to keep meticulous records of every job-hunting expenses in order to get above the threshold.

Unfortunately, you can’t [Read more…] about Valuable Tax Tips for Job Seekers

How Receiving an Inheritance Can Boost Your Job Prospects

May 24, 2013 by Guest Contributor

The vast majority of unemployed people are desperate to get back in the job market and get their career on track. However, depending on the opportunities and services available in your area, this can be easier said than done.

There are a few things that can really help to kick-start your career, and receiving an inheritance is one of them. According to a recent Gallop poll 8% of current retirees rely on an inheritance for a major portion of their retirement income. So if you’ve recently become a beneficiary in someone’s will, but aren’t ready to retire yet, here are four ways that it can help you to get back into the job market and improve your career prospects.

Taking the strain off your finances

The first and most obvious benefit is that, depending on the amount that you receive, it can really take the strain off of your finances, allowing you to breathe a little easier.

Removing the day-to-day emphasis on income should help you to see the bigger picture, put your finances in order and make yourself ready for employment.

Opening up new career options

Inheritance can come in a lot of different forms, and sometimes this can mean you’re exposed to new career options.

For example, if you inherit part of a business, you can step straight into a role in that company. Alternatively, if you’ve inherited a property you could renovate it, and then rent it out or sell it on. This can give you a leg up on to the property ladder and a potential new career in property development.

Learning new skills

If you were fed up with your previous career, [Read more…] about How Receiving an Inheritance Can Boost Your Job Prospects

Make a Difference: 3 Most Rewarding Careers

April 22, 2013 by Guest Contributor

A rewarding career allows a person to enjoy both professional and personal benefits. The following outlines three rewarding careers that allow a person to be of service to others while making a real difference in their lives.

A Special Education Teacher

The work of a special education teacher is rewarding because this type of teacher instructs students with a variety of learning delays and challenges. Special education teachers can instruct students from elementary school through high school. The person has to find creative and effective ways to guide his or her students in understanding various topics. For instance, a special education teacher may have to rework a traditional science lesson on photosynthesis in order to give his or her students a clear understanding of the topic. A special education teacher has the opportunity to be a positive, encouraging influence on students during an especially important time in their lives. In short, a student’s level of confidence can be raised or lowered depending on the skills and approach of a special education teacher. A special education teacher with dedication to the profession can be proud of his or her influence on students.

A Traveling Nurse

Unlike a nurse who works in a hospital or a clinic, a traveling nurse visits a variety of patients in their homes each day. These patients aren’t able to travel, but need regular medical attention from a professional. The work of a traveling nurse is rewarding in that he or she provides necessary care to people of all ages and income levels. The nurse is using his or her training to dress a patient’s wounds, check vital signs, and even to instruct the person on taking medications at the proper time. Aside from these practical services, a traveling nurse can provide encouragement to a person who may feel isolated in his or her home. A traveling nurse has the opportunity to let his or her patients know that they are important and deserve proper care. There are also different jobs within the travel nurse community such as a pediatric icu nurse or a geriatric nurse.

An Interpreter for the Deaf

Finally, the work of an interpreter for the deaf is very rewarding in that the person provides a basic service to a deaf person. He or she helps the person to communicate with others in a fundamental way. Whether the interpreter works in a hospital, a courtroom, a social services agency or a school, he or she is providing an invaluable service to both the deaf person and the public.

See Also:

Image courtesy of [image creator name] / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

BLS Changes Employment Numbers

April 5, 2013 by Tim McMahon

For a few months now I’ve been ranting about how there is no way that the Unemployment numbers are right because they don’t match up with the employment numbers. A while back, I got an angry email from a subscriber saying that he “worked for the Treasury Department for 35 years and there was no way the BLS fudged any numbers.” So I responded and said I’d be happy to post his rebuttal if he could explain how those numbers could possibly match up… I’m still waiting for his response.

In February, I got an answer, not directly mind you, but when I looked at the January Employment numbers they have magically changed all the way back to July of 1991. Yes, “unadjusted” employment numbers have been adjusted, changed, fudged, manipulated whatever you want to call it.

In July 1991 and preceding, the numbers are the same. In August 1991, the difference is minuscule only 1000 mysterious jobs have been added. But the difference continues to grow. And by December of 2012 the old number was 134.822 million and the new number is 135.545 million so somehow magically the BLS has created 723,000 jobs out of thin air.

Who do they think they are to create Jobs out of thin air, the FED?

We know the FED can create money out of thin air, so maybe the BLS can do the same with jobs?

By the way the BLS does say that the numbers are “Preliminary” for 2 months so theoretically they could legitimately adjust the November and December numbers… but going all the way back to 1991 is a bit much! But, if I were to fudge numbers that is exactly what I would do …gradually adjust them from way back so there isn’t a sharp disconnect between the old series and the new.

Here is a chart of the old employment vs. new fudged numbers since 2000.

Note where the 738,000 jobs difference occurs.

Click for larger image

I contacted the Bureau of Labor Statistics and asked why the numbers were changed. I received a curt reply pointing me to the “answer” on their website. It starts out with all this mumbo-jumbo about this minor change from April 2010 – March 2011 and goes on for a couple of paragraphs about it and then they slide in one key sentence with no fanfare “oh by the way we changed all the employment numbers back to 1991 too.”

Here is the BLS Response:

Reconstructed data

In order to provide a continuous and comparable employment time series, CES decided to reconstruct the history for one CES series, 55-524126 Direct property and casualty insurers, impacted by the changes to noncovered employment incorporated with the 2011 benchmark (see www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmart11.pdf). CES determined that the history of this series did not capture a significant amount of noncovered employment and instead showed a level shift in the series from April 2010 to March 2011, where the noncovered employment, calculated from County Business Patterns (CBP) data, was first included. CES uses CBP data to calculate the majority of noncovered employment. The CBP — which draws from Social Security filings and other records which do include those employees not covered by UI tax laws — is lagged in its publication by approximately two years (e.g. in 2012 the 2010 CBP data was published). For more information about calculating noncovered employment, see bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#NCE

CBP data was used to reconstruct AE data for CES series 55-524126 back to 1991 in order to incorporate the noncovered employment in the history. From the reconstructed AE data, the remaining published data types were produced using the previously published sample ratios.

This reconstruction also resulted in revisions back to 1991 for the associated aggregate series, including but not limited to Total nonfarm, in the associated data types.

So even though according to the BLS they survey employers to find out how many people are employed they somehow figure they aren’t counting everyone, so they need to fudge the numbers except they call it “reconstructing” because they somehow aren’t counting all the “Property and Casualty insurers”. So back in 1991 this was 1000 and now they are missing 3/4 of a million of them. Sounds like the Property and Casualty business must be booming to go from 1,000 to 738,000 since 1991. (Emphasis mine- the BLS did not bold the statement.)

The following table includes all the original numbers and the new changed employment numbers from July 1991 through the current data. Note that in July 1991 and prior the numbers are identical. This data series is called “Not Seasonally Adjusted Numbers” Series CEU0000000001 but it seems a bit hypocritical to call them unadjusted at this point.

Date	New Data In Millions	Original Data In Millions	Difference
Jul-1991	107.982	107.982	0
Aug-1991	108.074	108.073	1,000
Sep-1991	108.791	108.785	6,000
Oct-1991	109.160	109.153	7,000
Nov-1991	109.175	109.166	9,000
Dec-1991	109.058	109.047	11,000
Jan-1992	106.671	106.659	12,000
Feb-1992	106.921	106.906	15,000
Mar-1992	107.440	107.424	16,000
Apr-1992	108.276	108.259	17,000
May-1992	109.083	109.065	18,000
Jun-1992	109.571	109.554	17,000
Jul-1992	108.554	108.537	17,000
Aug-1992	108.610	108.591	19,000
Sep-1992	109.394	109.372	22,000
Oct-1992	109.981	109.959	22,000
Nov-1992	110.223	110.200	23,000
Dec-1992	110.212	110.188	24,000
Jan-1993	108.047	108.021	26,000
Feb-1993	108.650	108.625	25,000
Mar-1993	109.083	109.057	26,000
Apr-1993	110.087	110.060	27,000
May-1993	111.050	111.021	29,000
Jun-1993	111.640	111.611	29,000
Jul-1993	110.771	110.742	29,000
Aug-1993	110.880	110.847	33,000
Sep-1993	111.868	111.831	37,000
Oct-1993	112.530	112.493	37,000
Nov-1993	112.878	112.837	41,000
Dec-1993	113.025	112.980	45,000
Jan-1994	110.777	110.730	47,000
Feb-1994	111.357	111.308	49,000
Mar-1994	112.332	112.283	49,000
Apr-1994	113.412	113.363	49,000
May-1994	114.423	114.376	47,000
Jun-1994	115.211	115.170	41,000
Jul-1994	114.265	114.226	39,000
Aug-1994	114.573	114.535	38,000
Sep-1994	115.631	115.591	40,000
Oct-1994	116.256	116.217	39,000
Nov-1994	116.863	116.826	37,000
Dec-1994	116.900	116.861	39,000
Jan-1995	114.591	114.552	39,000
Feb-1995	115.249	115.212	37,000
Mar-1995	116.005	115.971	34,000
Apr-1995	116.838	116.802	36,000
May-1995	117.562	117.524	38,000
Jun-1995	118.277	118.242	35,000
Jul-1995	117.044	117.008	36,000
Aug-1995	117.307	117.269	38,000
Sep-1995	118.221	118.180	41,000
Oct-1995	118.822	118.780	42,000
Nov-1995	119.060	119.016	44,000
Dec-1995	119.058	119.015	43,000
Jan-1996	116.358	116.315	43,000
Feb-1996	117.296	117.252	44,000
Mar-1996	118.099	118.055	44,000
Apr-1996	118.936	118.890	46,000
May-1996	120.063	120.016	47,000
Jun-1996	120.726	120.681	45,000
Jul-1996	119.689	119.643	46,000
Aug-1996	119.981	119.932	49,000
Sep-1996	120.724	120.672	52,000
Oct-1996	121.441	121.384	57,000
Nov-1996	121.899	121.841	58,000
Dec-1996	121.875	121.815	60,000
Jan-1997	119.331	119.269	62,000
Feb-1997	120.191	120.126	65,000
Mar-1997	121.073	121.007	66,000
Apr-1997	122.047	121.979	68,000
May-1997	123.125	123.053	72,000
Jun-1997	123.772	123.700	72,000
Jul-1997	122.786	122.710	76,000
Aug-1997	122.853	122.772	81,000
Sep-1997	123.857	123.770	87,000
Oct-1997	124.760	124.673	87,000
Nov-1997	125.153	125.063	90,000
Dec-1997	125.289	125.195	94,000
Jan-1998	122.736	122.636	100,000
Feb-1998	123.508	123.405	103,000
Mar-1998	124.227	124.122	105,000
Apr-1998	125.265	125.160	105,000
May-1998	126.345	126.240	105,000
Jun-1998	127.005	126.902	103,000
Jul-1998	125.931	125.832	99,000
Aug-1998	126.170	126.069	101,000
Sep-1998	126.977	126.874	103,000
Oct-1998	127.754	127.650	104,000
Nov-1998	128.155	128.051	104,000
Dec-1998	128.322	128.215	107,000
Jan-1999	125.570	125.460	110,000
Feb-1999	126.557	126.445	112,000
Mar-1999	127.269	127.158	111,000
Apr-1999	128.415	128.305	110,000
May-1999	129.284	129.176	108,000
Jun-1999	130.010	129.906	104,000
Jul-1999	129.140	129.039	101,000
Aug-1999	129.194	129.093	101,000
Sep-1999	129.970	129.866	104,000
Oct-1999	130.904	130.803	101,000
Nov-1999	131.364	131.263	101,000
Dec-1999	131.501	131.402	99,000
Jan-2000	128.862	128.763	99,000
Feb-2000	129.525	129.427	98,000
Mar-2000	130.624	130.526	98,000
Apr-2000	131.622	131.526	96,000
May-2000	132.577	132.481	96,000
Jun-2000	133.089	132.998	91,000
Jul-2000	131.869	131.776	93,000
Aug-2000	131.880	131.786	94,000
Sep-2000	132.547	132.449	98,000
Oct-2000	133.104	133.007	97,000
Nov-2000	133.467	133.371	96,000
Dec-2000	133.405	133.308	97,000
Jan-2001	130.527	130.433	94,000
Feb-2001	131.190	131.097	93,000
Mar-2001	131.780	131.689	91,000
Apr-2001	132.185	132.094	91,000
May-2001	132.890	132.800	90,000
Jun-2001	133.267	133.179	88,000
Jul-2001	131.776	131.687	89,000
Aug-2001	131.704	131.614	90,000
Sep-2001	131.968	131.872	96,000
Oct-2001	132.168	132.072	96,000
Nov-2001	131.976	131.880	96,000
Dec-2001	131.591	131.491	100,000
Jan-2002	128.706	128.602	104,000
Feb-2002	129.174	129.069	105,000
Mar-2002	129.778	129.672	106,000
Apr-2002	130.364	130.257	107,000
May-2002	131.131	131.023	108,000
Jun-2002	131.511	131.404	107,000
Jul-2002	130.068	129.960	108,000
Aug-2002	130.153	130.044	109,000
Sep-2002	130.670	130.557	113,000
Oct-2002	131.339	131.227	112,000
Nov-2002	131.458	131.345	113,000
Dec-2002	131.045	130.932	113,000
Jan-2003	128.358	128.248	110,000
Feb-2003	128.769	128.660	109,000
Mar-2003	129.258	129.148	110,000
Apr-2003	129.908	129.801	107,000
May-2003	130.663	130.559	104,000
Jun-2003	130.989	130.890	99,000
Jul-2003	129.646	129.550	96,000
Aug-2003	129.697	129.601	96,000
Sep-2003	130.351	130.253	98,000
Oct-2003	131.142	131.045	97,000
Nov-2003	131.302	131.208	94,000
Dec-2003	131.120	131.026	94,000
Jan-2004	128.458	128.365	93,000
Feb-2004	129.067	128.976	91,000
Mar-2004	130.107	130.019	88,000
Apr-2004	131.224	131.139	85,000
May-2004	132.127	132.047	80,000
Jun-2004	132.569	132.495	74,000
Jul-2004	131.405	131.334	71,000
Aug-2004	131.421	131.351	70,000
Sep-2004	132.133	132.068	65,000
Oct-2004	133.111	133.050	61,000
Nov-2004	133.360	133.301	59,000
Dec-2004	133.129	133.074	55,000
Jan-2005	130.423	130.369	54,000
Feb-2005	131.245	131.195	50,000
Mar-2005	132.083	132.038	45,000
Apr-2005	133.294	133.247	47,000
May-2005	134.104	134.058	46,000
Jun-2005	134.769	134.728	41,000
Jul-2005	133.705	133.665	40,000
Aug-2005	133.951	133.910	41,000
Sep-2005	134.576	134.533	43,000
Oct-2005	135.302	135.260	42,000
Nov-2005	135.857	135.817	40,000
Dec-2005	135.655	135.614	41,000
Jan-2006	133.000	132.961	39,000
Feb-2006	133.924	133.887	37,000
Mar-2006	134.903	134.868	35,000
Apr-2006	135.816	135.780	36,000
May-2006	136.621	136.584	37,000
Jun-2006	137.121	137.083	38,000
Jul-2006	135.945	135.908	37,000
Aug-2006	136.149	136.110	39,000
Sep-2006	136.817	136.777	40,000
Oct-2006	137.516	137.475	41,000
Nov-2006	137.898	137.857	41,000
Dec-2006	137.786	137.747	39,000
Jan-2007	134.994	134.952	42,000
Feb-2007	135.683	135.641	42,000
Mar-2007	136.576	136.533	43,000
Apr-2007	137.381	137.335	46,000
May-2007	138.323	138.277	46,000
Jun-2007	138.825	138.779	46,000
Jul-2007	137.425	137.379	46,000
Aug-2007	137.534	137.488	46,000
Sep-2007	138.096	138.046	50,000
Oct-2007	138.835	138.786	49,000
Nov-2007	139.143	139.090	53,000
Dec-2007	138.929	138.875	54,000
Jan-2008	135.896	135.840	56,000
Feb-2008	136.414	136.356	58,000
Mar-2008	137.003	136.944	59,000
Apr-2008	137.535	137.475	60,000
May-2008	138.105	138.045	60,000
Jun-2008	138.296	138.237	59,000
Jul-2008	136.811	136.751	60,000
Aug-2008	136.697	136.635	62,000
Sep-2008	136.748	136.686	62,000
Oct-2008	137.038	136.973	65,000
Nov-2008	136.355	136.288	67,000
Dec-2008	135.321	135.254	67,000
Jan-2009	131.627	131.555	72,000
Feb-2009	131.387	131.314	73,000
Mar-2009	131.249	131.175	74,000
Apr-2009	131.429	131.357	72,000
May-2009	131.697	131.626	71,000
Jun-2009	131.510	131.442	68,000
Jul-2009	129.910	129.844	66,000
Aug-2009	129.786	129.719	67,000
Sep-2009	130.144	130.077	67,000
Oct-2009	130.741	130.673	68,000
Nov-2009	130.787	130.720	67,000
Dec-2009	130.242	130.178	64,000
Jan-2010	127.374	127.309	65,000
Feb-2010	127.811	127.746	65,000
Mar-2010	128.646	128.584	62,000
Apr-2010	129.770	129.698	72,000
May-2010	130.886	130.801	85,000
Jun-2010	131.004	130.908	96,000
Jul-2010	129.664	129.569	95,000
Aug-2010	129.728	129.624	104,000
Sep-2010	130.221	130.090	131,000
Oct-2010	131.195	131.071	124,000
Nov-2010	131.502	131.371	131,000
Dec-2010	131.199	131.050	149,000
Jan-2011	128.338	128.183	155,000
Feb-2011	129.154	128.994	160,000
Mar-2011	130.061	129.899	162,000
Apr-2011	131.279	131.072	207,000
May-2011	131.963	131.707	256,000
Jun-2011	132.453	132.144	309,000
Jul-2011	131.181	130.821	360,000
Aug-2011	131.457	131.058	399,000
Sep-2011	132.204	131.746	458,000
Oct-2011	133.125	132.870	255,000
Nov-2011	133.456	133.172	284,000
Dec-2011	133.292	132.965	327,000
Jan-2012	130.657	130.297	360,000
Feb-2012	131.604	131.210	394,000
Mar-2012	132.505	132.081	424,000
Apr-2012	133.400	132.945	455,000
May-2012	134.213	133.723	490,000
Jun-2012	134.556	134.072	484,000
Jul-2012	133.368	132.868	500,000
Aug-2012	133.753	133.092	661,000
Sep-2012	134.374	133.797	577,000
Oct-2012	135.241	134.792	449,000
Nov-2012	135.636	135.069	567,000
Dec-2012	135.560	134.822	738,000

So there you have it, the BLS decided to “reconstruct” the employment numbers. Gives you lots of confidence in their reporting doesn’t it? Plus this new fudge factor is now “baked in the cake” so all new numbers after January will have it already fudged in so we will never know what the real numbers are.

Webmasters: Feel free to repost this article, all we ask is that you link back to this original article on UnemploymentData.com.

Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net