Again we have the state jobs report that, to any reader with a high school math credit, represents an accumulation of bureaucratic gobbledygook ("Job Outlook Improves," May 18).
First, the reader is confused with what is a no-no in journalism -- the excessive use of double negatives as in the "unemployment rate dropped" and a "decline in the number of people who were unemployed."
Now we turn to the positive in the report, which showed a yearly gain of 21,800 jobs, supported by the following:
Job gains -- 11,300 in professional jobs, 12,500 in education and health and 5,700 in leisure, for a total of 29,500;
Job losses -- 1,400 in mining and logging, 1,200 in construction, 600 in manufacturing and 8,400 in government, for a total of 11,600.
If we can assume the main function of a Department of Labor, both state and federal, is to determine and predict the present and future of our economic health, then the jobs gained in education and health, a definite consumer of wealth, is not good news.
When the full impact of the federal health care overhaul kicks in, requiring an enormous growth of government employees, and that is viewed as an improvement in jobs outlook, should we rejoice or worry?
EDWARD F. BROWN