Job increase only 146,000 in June

[papau]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Friday, July 8, 2005.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2005

Nonfarm employment increased by 146,000 in June, and the unemployment rate
continued to trend down, reaching 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, payroll em-
ployment continued to grow in several industries, notably professional and
business services and health care.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The jobless rate in June was 5.0 percent, seasonally adjusted. It has
trended downward since February 2005 and is now 1.3 percentage points lower
than its most recent high in June 2003. The number of unemployed persons was
little changed over the month at 7.5 million, but is down by 1.7 million since
June 2003.

The jobless rates for most major worker groups--adult men (4.3 percent),
adult women (4.6 percent), whites (4.3 percent), blacks (10.3 percent), and
Hispanics or Latinos (5.8 percent)--showed little or no change in June. The
unemployment rate for teenagers edged down to 16.4 percent over the month.
The unemployment rate for Asians was 4.0 percent, not seasonally adjusted.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed persons--those unemployed 27 weeks or
longer--fell to 1.3 million in June. This group accounted for 17.8 percent
of total unemployment, down from 20.1 percent in May. (See table A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In June, total employment (141.6 million) and the civilian labor force
(149.1 million) were essentially unchanged. The employment-population ra-
tio held at 62.7 percent, and the labor force participation rate was little
changed over the month at 66.0 percent. (See table A-1.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In June, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
compared with 1.5 million a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were
available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively
search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 476,000
discouraged workers in June, essentially the same as a year earlier. Dis-

[displacedtexan]

1. Kids with new summer jobs...

always beef up the June numbers.

They're probably counting babysitters, too.

Sad.

[Massacure]

9. I'm 16 and no one I know that wants a job has found one.

Probably because they are all taken by people who were laid off in better-paying jobs.

[ET Awful]

2. Now let's balance that 146,000 against the 110,996 layoffs announced

in June and we have a total of 35,004 net new jobs.

[Egalitariat]

16. The 146K number is net jobs added***

nm

[ET Awful]

17. No, it's net jobs added with layoffs that actually took place, NOT

layoffs that were announced to take place over the next months or years.

[Egalitariat]

21. You're right. But for that to be meaningful, you'd have to

compare the layoffs "to take place over the next months or years" to the added jobs "to take place over the next months or years".

[OneBlueSky]

3. guess WalMart and McDs are hiring for the summer . . . n/t

.

[Roland99]

4. 5.0% unemployment, eh? How can it go down?

146,000/month isn't even enough to keep up with people entering the workforce!

The unemployment rate has become obsolete and meaningless.

[acmejack]

5. I agree, it is unreal!

There is a huge number who have completely given up finding work, it simply isn't there. Unless of course, you are willing to compete with the swarms of "guest workers", which is merely an euphemism for illegals, here. I am willing to bet that fully 50% of the building trades her are comprised of illegals. It is not uncommon to find entire crews without a single english speaker among them.

Good for the business owners, tough on the residents who might like to work once in a while but not for $4 an hour. I understand the people that are taking those jobs and appreciate their motivations, I fear my only recourse is to go back to a blue state. I don't think it is much better there, though...

[papau]

6. 23066000 jobs in 8 yrs years, 1053000 jobs under Bush - but 2689000 are

pretend! Looks like Bush is still negative as to job growth - and people wonder why the folks are discouraged and leaving the work force.

Of the 23066000 jobs under Clinton, 273000 were the pretend work at home not paying payroll taxes yet jobs.

Of the 1053000 jobs increase under Bush, 2689000 were the pretend jobs at home not paying payroll tax yet jobs (THE BIRTH DEATH adjustment that is never checked or bench-marked to anything other than a curve fitting of "expectations") , meaning BUSH HAS LOST 1,646,000 JOBS SINCE JAN 1 2001.

Seasonally Adjusted Total nonfarmIndustry: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1992 108313 108242 108301 108457 108584 108640 108714 108851 108888 109061 109205 109418
1993 109725 109962 109916 110223 110496 110660 110960 111119 111359 111638 111901 112203
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130781 130901 131377 131662 131882 131839 132015 132004 132122 132110 132326 132484
2001 132454 132546 132511 132214 132187 132029 131941 131803 131549 131172 130879 130705
2002 130581 130478 130441 130335 130326 130377 130277 130295 130250 130309 130315 130161
2003 130247 130125 129907 129853 129827 129854 129857 129859 129953 130076 130172 130255
2004 130372 130466 130786 131123 131373 131479 131562 131750 131880 132162 132294 132449
2005 132573 132873 132995 133287 133391(p) 133537(p)
p : preliminary

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total
225 204 181 -80 123 44 55 9 66

http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbdhst.htm

2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total -280 100 179 257 207 184

January 2004 – December 2004 Preliminary Estimates
Total -321 115 153 270 195 182 -91 120 39 42 54 78 836

April 2003 – December 2003 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (Jan Feb Mar)
Total 128 192 164 -83 124 33 45 30 62 695

April 2002 – March 2003 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 45 176 156 -61 106 23 68 25 53 -391 119 151 470

April 2001 – March 2002 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 75 112 106 -13 53 10 -31 -23 3 -239 -4 42 91

April 2000 – March 2001 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 53 72 48 11 37 23 10 -5 -6 -133 31 52 193

April 1999 – March 2000 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 1 9 5 -6 9 4 4 6 9 -23 6 6 30

[AX10]

11. Thanks. Bush's job "creation" is a myth.

[NewJeffCT]

18. good data, but please use commas in your numbers!

it's almost unreadable... Bush has created a net of 1,053,000 jobs? egads, that is pathetic.

[zanne]

7. Competing headlines.

I guess it's all in the way you look at it. There's another thread in this forum right now that reads; "U.S. jobless rate dips to 5 percent, lowest in nearly 4 years". It all depends on the way you want it to be.

[papau]

8. People giving up on finding a job is good news? - per the media?

I guess the media wants to never be critical of Bush.

[nolabels]

13. American Pravda does whatever the Nazi's want

It's does look like they are getting the news somewhere else though, otherwise how could approval ratings be like they are?

I hope the CONs (corporate owned news) keeps it up, it's backfiring quite well for them :evilgrin:

[RDANGELO]

10. This is like zero.

This may be barely enough to keep up with new job seekers coming into the market.

[napi21]

14. Actually, I bet it's not keeping up with those entering the market.

This the time of the year when most college graduations take place! Something tells me that there were more than 146,000 graduates across the US!

[NewJeffCT]

19. it is less than that

Most surveys I have read indicate that the working population grows by 150,000 to 175,000 per month.

So, Bush should be creating 1,800,000 to 2,100,000 per year. For 4 years, that should be 7.2 million to 8.4 million to break even.

[MaineDem]

12. Analysts were expecting 195,000 new jobs being added

Whoops.

[Yavin4]

15. The UE Rate Is Low Because of Temp Jobs

The UE rate is based on HouseHold surveys wherein they ask individuals about their employment status. So, if you work a temp job that lasted for a week, then you're counted as employed by the household survey. Concurrently, the number of new jobs created is based on payroll records. However, if a company uses temps, those temps are not going to be on their payroll records. Now, because overall long-term employment is not very good, more people are willing to work temp jobs than ever before.

Hence, you have a situation where the metrics that the politicians and the media uses to look at employment are completely out of synch with the actual employment picture.

[leesa]

20. Must be because everybody has a job.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

22. Corporate media blasting, "Happy days are here again."

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.