|
In response to
"if you actually look at the report, it details "at least" 31,000 jobs that would be lost but acknowledges the losses could well be higher...."
by
x
|
hm, that formatted it badly. also, it's kind of appalling that i could look at the report itself for ten minutes and find that.....
Posted by
x (aka dmuck)
Jan 12 '17, 12:30
|
the headline of the original article totally misses what the report concludes.
|