Bookmark & share: 
Welcome to reader comments forum, which is offered as
a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers'
section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings.
We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community
discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal
attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or
offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report
abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff.
Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely
because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while
the comment is being reviewed.
Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
sage
of wherever, ME
THANK YOU, SAM.
Every time I see the unemployment rate and the hurrahs! that it's dropped, I wanted to retch. When the bennies run out, you drop off the radar screen and are no longer in the stats. That rate isn't an accurate accounting of how many people are unemployed, employed p/t, or underemployed and holding down 2-3 jobs since they lost their main source of employment.
What a crock.report abuse
Mar 26, 2008 7:28 PM
"The unemployment rate went down because people's BENEFITS RAN OUT and they are no longer receiving unemployment."
THANK YOU, SAM.
Every time I see the unemployment rate and the hurrahs! that it's dropped, I wanted to retch. When the bennies run out, you drop off the radar screen and are no longer in the stats. That rate isn't an accurate accounting of how many people are unemployed, employed p/t, or underemployed and holding down 2-3 jobs since they lost their main source of employment.
What a crock.report abuse
Sam Spade
of Allover, ME
Mar 26, 2008 6:52 PM
Why bother to staff an office to report this drivel? The unemployment rate went down because people's BENEFITS RAN OUT and they are no longer receiving unemployment. They don't bother to tell you that, though, so it looks like an improvement to the unwary and uninformed. Same with the national reporting. They are reporting on the number of claims being paid. Period.report abuseGary Veill
of Waterville, ME
I can't make any sense of this unless a whole lot of people have moved away or are no longer being counted as unemployed (but still are).
It looks like we're getting just selected bits of information that someone wants us to see. I wonder who the spin doctor is?report abuse
Mar 26, 2008 5:52 PM
I don't understand this article. It says that 1,700 non-farm jobs were lost. That means we would have gained at about three times that many (5,000?) farm jobs to end up with a net gain of 1/10 percent? Highly unlikely.
I can't make any sense of this unless a whole lot of people have moved away or are no longer being counted as unemployed (but still are).
It looks like we're getting just selected bits of information that someone wants us to see. I wonder who the spin doctor is?report abuse
T Eman
of Augusta, ME
Mar 26, 2008 4:09 PM
Is that before or after Bath Iron Works lays off 63 workers?report abuseYou must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.
