The U.S. job market turned weaker last month, dashing hopes for an economic rebound.
A report from the Labor Department on Friday shows employers cut 92,000 jobs in February, when economists had expected the U.S. would continue adding jobs, albeit at a sluggish pace. The unemployment rate inched up to 4.4%.
Job gains for December and January were also revised downward, with December now showing a net loss 17,000 jobs.
The weaker than expected jobs report comes as Americans are already anxious about the high cost of living. Those affordability concerns will likely be amplified as the war in Iran has triggered a sharp rise in energy prices. AAA reports the average price of gasoline jumped another 7 cents overnight, to $3.32 a gallon. That's 21 cents higher than this time last year.
So, in order for the unexpected number to be caused by a Black Swan event, the event has to be unaccounted for in modelling. If the number has a 0.1% chance of happening but is caused by variables that were accounted for, it doesn't count. Is this correct?
And a number that had 50% chance of happening can also be caused by a BS event. Basically the status of BS event is unrelated to the probabilty of the resulting numbers.
And now I'm not sure of what I should do with that concept
I see how it could get used as a variant of "the future can never be determined with full certainty and therefore I can't be blamed for anything"