US economy adds 42,000 jobs in July: ADP

[ProSense]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US economy created more private jobs than expected in July but hiring has not been rapid enough to ease a severe jobless rate, payrolls firm ADP said Wednesday.

Some 42,000 private-sector jobs were created following a revised June number of 19,000, ADP said ahead of a key government report Friday that is expected to show unemployment already at 9.5 percent ticking up.

Most economists had expected 25,000 private jobs to be established in July, the sixth consecutive monthly increase in hirings.

But ADP warned that the private job increases so far this year had averaged a modest 37,000, "with no evidence of acceleration" as economic growth from a brutal recession threatens to stall.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100804/pl_afp/useconomyunemploymentadp_20100804133254

[RBInMaine]

1. Not enough, BUT it is still PROGRESS in the right direction.

[ProSense]

5. It is, especially when you consider the previous months

ADP:

January -22,000
February -20,000
March -23,000
April +32,000
May +55,000
June +13,000
July +42,000

June was the weakest since the numbers climbed into positive territory. July is positive, but the overall numbers definitely show weakness.

[RBInMaine]

10. Businesses and banks continue to be cautious. We need the small business loan bill NOW !

[jpak]

11. Don't count on Olympia or Suzie for help - they obey The Mitch and don't care about Maine anymore

nope

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. This is certainly better news than job losses. Rec (nt)

[DrDan]

3. only 100,000 short . . .

[ProSense]

4. This is ADP, not BLS. n/t

[DrDan]

6. the difference being government jobs?

[FBaggins]

9. In theory, yes.

In reality, ADP doesn't have a particularly strong track record of matching the BLS private-sector number.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. The money line from this article --

"with no evidence of acceleration".

You can put try to put lipstick all over this pig as much as you want....

[superconnected]

8. At least it's positive instead of negative.

[Javaman]

13. I really don't think it's a positive. A positive would be an amount above what is needed.

If we need 150,000 jobs a month and only create 49,000, that is a deficit of 101,000 jobs.

A positive would be 151,000 jobs. 1000 jobs over what is required.

49k jobs is anemic at best. The body is still bleeding out.

[superconnected]

14. It's a positive gain. I don't expect we'll get 151k in one month for a gain.

However +49k jobs is better than -49k jobs for the month.

[Javaman]

15. Well, you got me there. nt

[hugo_from_TN]

12. Pathetic

[ProSense]

16. This is a reversal process and

a long way from the -742,000 job losses ADP reported in March 2009.

Digging out, when so many aspect of the economy are in crises, is going to take more stimulus.

[scheming daemons]

17. March 2009: -740,000 jobs.... July 2010: +42,000 jobs..... progress is there

Not as high as it needs to be.... but 800K better than 16 months ago.

[prolesunited]

18. That's a start

But definitely keep this figure in mind when the GOP talks about cutting unemployment benefits. Maybe we can have cage matches for the MILLIONS of unemployed to fight for these 42,000 new jobs.

They all seem to have a real problem with math, just like how tax cuts don't really add to the deficit even though the numbers show that this is the case.