Job Growth in January Disappoints

Note, 112k va, 150k-350k expectation. Economy needs 150k just to keep up with new people in the work force!

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040206/economy_2.html

Reuters
Job Growth in January Disappoints
Friday February 6, 9:11 am ET
By Anna Willard

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy created just 112,000 new jobs in January, far fewer than expected, government data showed on Friday in a disappointing report that will likely weigh on President Bush's re-election campaign.

[phillybri]

1. You watch, he'll talk about all the jobs he's created on MTP...

:puke:

[RegenerationMan]

5. Actually it's 300,000 a month to keep up with mere population growth

3.6 million Millennial Generation people need new jobs every year

IMAGINE PRESIDENT KERRY!

[DK666]

20. Any Paticular Reason

Your photo is hosted by the drudge report ?

[salin]

14. and Russert - would ask this to a dem - but will not ask this to W...

"How does that number compare to the total jobs lost over the past two years?" Or "What is the plan to increase this number to the level needed (insert the monthly needed number) to replace all of the jobs lost over the past two years, and reverse the title "first president since the Great Depression to preside over net job losses"?

[JPace]

2. I hope he does talk about all his job creation....

because people hear what he says yet
look around and internally know that
something is fishy here. He is a liar
and the sheep are catching on.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. I believe the official goal was 250,000

But you know, getting halfway there isn't bad... :puke: :thumbsdown:

[The_Gopher]

4. How many jobs were LOST in january? Is this a net gain of 112,000?

[RegenerationMan]

6. No there were over 300,000 new jobless claims

Net loss of over 200,000 jobs it looks like...

[The_Gopher]

7. that's what i though...of course, they'll spin this as "robust growth"

8. According to Frodo

He says it was good news.

See discussion in Economics folder.

Is Frodo a Rove operative? Me thinks.

HAVE AT HIM. He is such a bother, and belongs on RU, not DU.

[area51]

23. Yes, Fro-ho is pretty transparent.

If it walks like a republinazi, talks like a republinazi...

[Cheesehead]

18. A number

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., said post-holiday job cuts reached 117,556 in January surpassing the 100,000 threshold for the first time since last October.

9. And it was mostly low-paying retail jobs!

Can't sent THOSE to the Phillipines, yet

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040206/photos_bs/payrolls_012004_detail_graphic

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

10. just 1,000 in Dec. and over 100,000 in Jan?

I would have thought the opposite.

[underpants]

11. Graphic breakdown

[salin]

15. interesting (and bothersome) chart

if one considers the types of salary levels of the categories of jobs that increased vs. jobs that decreased.

[xchrom]

12. front page on earthlink

called it good news.
while i am more disgusted with this president and the issue of jobs, the media for years hasn't reported unemployment accurately.

[stewert]

13. Net Loss of 5,000 Jobs !

Fact #1 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy created 112,000 new jobs
in January.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040206/economy_2.html

Fact #2 - NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. businesses announced 117,556 job cuts in
January.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/03/news/economy/challenger/index.htm?cnn=yes

Unless my math skills suck, that's a net loss of 5,000 jobs for January.

The Bush economic team said that when his tax cuts kick in in July of 2003 the
economy will create 228,000 new jobs a month until the end of 2004. And they
said the economy would create 200,000 jobs a month without the Bush tax cuts.

They were dead wrong on both predictions.

[salin]

16. I thought that the "new" category was net gains - am I wrong?

[treepig]

17. the numbers are from different surveys/sources

and therefore can't be directly compared.

basically, there are 112,000 net "new" jobs.

clearly, many job cuts are not "announced" - so the number of jobs lost was probably much higher, let's say at least 340,000 (i believe that's how many new jobless claims there were). therefore, 452,000 "new" jobs have been created.

[salin]

19. that is how I read these numbers

the last report included both... a larger number and then the 'net' number of 1,000. This report compares the 112,000 to the 1,000 - leading me to presume it is also the net number.

[teryang]

21. Some observations

This report appears to be relying heavily on the household survey which reflects the so called "self employed."

With low interest rates and increased homeowner equity, the chronically unemployed are borrowing money (against their homes) to set up small retail operations. Many if not most of these operations will not succeed because they are not competitive.

I've noticed in observing the local retail and commercial real estate markets that real estate is way overpriced for the income or revenue level it is capable of sustaining. Many of the smallest businesses have been for sale for months and don't move because they are marginal or losing money. Nevertheless, empty retail spaces that have been vacant for months where previous businesses failed are now filling up again. These ostensibly represent an opportunity for income as start ups. Yet the ongoing businesses in these locations failed just within the last twelve months or so. I have no doubt that this represents "growth" in jobs and "growth" in the economy. These new "businesses" have to buy fixtures and stock. They may even hire some people at low wages.

I recently sat in a new franchise business which probably cost its owner $300,000 or more to start up, not including any overhead or operating costs. I was the only customer until another customer came in to pick up her order. The OWNER argued with this customer for 20 minutes as the customer to tried to use a discount coupon improperly while three employees looked on. (A similar franchise next to a home depot in another busy center, no less, has been for sale (at a loss) for over a year.)

There used to be two food service businesses in this well located and heavily trafficked shopping center. There are now five. I know how one of the original restaurants operates in this center. By ripping off its employees and regularly failing to pay taxes, state and federal. Of course they have no insurance of any kind. They even steal their employees fica witholdings. In a year three out of the five of these businesses will be for sale or gone.

In a year or so, the fifteen or twenty start up businesses that I have observed in my imediate neighborhood in previously vacant real estate will be gone and vacancy rates will be on their way up again.

I could go on on how tight retail business is my area in contrast to the reports of january's booming retail sales but why bother. These are my subjective observations and may not apply to your area, particularly if you live outside Fort Stewart or some other booming area directly involved in government military spending.

[NickB79]

22. I was just watching Fox News

And they were spinning this as "the best job growth in the past 3 yrs". All that shows is just how shitty our economy has been the past three years, when you have to say coming up short by "only" 50,000 jobs is an accomplishment.