1 - 3
Nope, the "133%" refers to the amount of jobs added. Look at the line for those not covered. It starts with 12.2 million & goes to 18.7 million. The difference is 133% of 5 million (jobs added). It has nothing to do with the coverage for the people who found a job.
The jobs added, 4,951,000, are not since 1-2009, but from 10-2009. From my own data downloads, I looked for 139,088,000 (the graph # for 1-2009) & found the month. I got them from http://research.stlouisfed.org, which got them from the BLS. The lowest amount employed was 136,809,000,1-2010. The amount employed 1-2009 was 140,436,000. From the graph, it is unknown which month the figures are from. Usually when only one number for a year, it's the average, unless otherwise noted. Where did those graphs come from? I tried to go to the base part of the URL, but "error." The maker is neither fully aware of using Excel for graph refinement, nor of explanatory notations, including labeling.
The jobs added, 4,951,000, are not since 1-2009, but from 10-2009. From my own data downloads, I looked for 139,088,000 (the graph # for 1-2009) & found the month. I got them from http://research.stlouisfed.org, which got them from the BLS. The lowest amount employed was 136,809,000,1-2010. The amount employed 1-2009 was 140,436,000. From the graph, it is unknown which month the figures are from. Usually when only one number for a year, it's the average, unless otherwise noted. Where did those graphs come from? I tried to go to the base part of the URL, but "error." The maker is neither fully aware of using Excel for graph refinement, nor of explanatory notations, including labeling.
1 - 3