Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The good news: Employers added 243,000 jobs in February

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Acebass Donating Member (926 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:29 AM
Original message
The good news: Employers added 243,000 jobs in February
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 11:40 AM by Acebass
The good news: Employers added 243,000 jobs in February , the most in three months .


and bad news: how the hell does people going out looking for work effect our unemployment figures? That doesn't make sense?...


Associated Press
Employers Add 243,000 to Payrolls in Feb.
By JEANNINE AVERSA , 03.10.2006, 08:42 AM


Hiring gained ground in February with employers adding 243,000 jobs, the most in three months. Brighter job prospects sent people streaming into the labor force, however, pushing the unemployment rate up marginally to 4.8 percent.

The employment report issued Friday by the Labor Department showed that job gains were fairly broad based. Construction companies, retailers, financial services all other industries posted payroll increases. That blunted job losses in manufacturing.

The unemployment rate inched up to 4.8 percent from a 4 1/2 year low of 4.7 percent in January. The bump-up in the jobless rate came as people - feeling better about job prospects - applied for work in droves.

The 243,000 gain in jobs in February marked a pickup from the 170,000 positions added in January. January's payroll gain turned out to be slightly lower than the 193,000 new jobs first reported. But December's showing was a bit stronger.

The performance in payrolls in February exceeded analysts' expectations. Before the report was released they were forecasting jobs to grow by 210,000. But they were expecting the unemployment rate to hold steady.

The fresh snapshot of the labor market comes as President Bush continues to cope with sagging job-approval ratings. Just 37 percent approve of his overall performance, the lowest level of his presidency, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

The report also showed that employees' average hourly earnings rose to $16.47 in February, a 0.3 percent increase from January. That was in line with economists' expectations.

However, compared with February of last year, average hourly earnings increased by 3.5 percent - the most since September 2001.

While wage growth is good for workers, a big pickup in wages - if sustained - can stir fears about inflation among economists and at the Federal Reserve.

To fend off inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are expected to boost short-term interest rates on March 28. That meeting will be Bernanke's first as Fed chief. The central bank under former chairman Alan Greenspan has been tightening credit since June 2004.

Friday's report showed that despite blizzards in the Northeast, construction companies added 41,000 jobs in February. That followed a gain of 55,000 in January - as mild weather helped employment.

Retailers added more than 6,000 jobs in February, after cutting more than 13,000 position in January.

Financial companies expanded payrolls by 22,000 in February, following a gain of 21,000 in January.

Manufacturers, however, shed 1,000 jobs after adding 7,000 in the previous month.

Separately, consumer confidence dropped in early March as people fretted about the economy's performance and their own financial fates in the months ahead.

The RBC CASH Index, based on results from the international polling firm Ipsos, showed confidence at 86.2 in early March. That was down considerably from February's reading of 96.1 - a 16-month high.

http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=8471&view=findpost&p=48291
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. in America or overseas?
Heck the Bush administration has added millions of jobs this year - in India and China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Put them all into a concert hall and they can croon out in glorious unison
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 11:41 AM by HypnoToad
"Want some fries with thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?"

Also noted that Qwest's 411 service is initially handled by a voice operated computer; sent over to people only if the person or store cannot be found.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. People looking increases the #'s because those people were no
longer being counted. Once you exhaust unemployment or stop filing unemployment and give up--you no longer are counted. If you start looking again, then you get counted again.

My mom was unemployed for 9 months. The last 3 of those, she was not counted as unemplyed, because she exhausted her benefits and could not file as "unemployed" with the state
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Whether or not a person collect unemployment ...
... has NOTHING to do with whether they're counted as 'unemployed' other than the fact the qualifications are very similar. The unemployment rate is NOT based on whether people receive unemployment benefits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. Read this >>>>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. How long did those "jobs" last?



The way BushCo manipulates the stats, those "jobs" could have been temp labor for only a few days. Heck, some workers could have been counted more than once on different temp jobs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
6. Notice that the gains in at least some areas
do not offset earlier losses. What might be a whole lot more useful would be a rolling total of jobs in the economy, broken down by sector. In other words, for any given month, how many total jobs are there in manufacturing, retail, farming, banking, and so on. The numbers also need to be coupled with a rolling number of high school, college, and trade school graduates. Or even simply the number of people who turn 18 each year and the number of people who turn 62, to give very rough estimates as to how many enter the work force and how many leave the workforce.

Numbers of jobs added don't say much in isolation without knowing how many jobs were lost and how large the work force actually is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. To be counted as 'unemployed' ...
... people must not have worked at all in the prior weeks AND they must be seeking employment. People not seeking employment ('discouraged' and others) are NOT, I repeat NOT counted as 'unemployed.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wonder how many of those new jobs were CEO jobs?
In 2004, average worker salary -- 27 grand.
Average CEO salary -- 9.5 million.

Average worker's hourly wage: $16.47
Average CEO's hourly wage (at 40 hrs per week, with no vacation): $4,567.30


(ratio of CEO pay to average hourly worker)

Source: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/

Do they work that much harder than their hourly employees? Are they that much more valuable? They seem to be replaced readily enough. Or is this just the going rate for expertise in cooking books and looting retirement funds?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Acebass Donating Member (926 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. The real bad news
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 12:15 PM by Acebass
March 10, 2006
Unexpected Rise in Jobless Claims
By REUTERS
WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) — The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week, to 303,000, the highest level this year, a government report showed on Thursday.

The increase of 8,000 took the number of initial claims above 300,000 for the first time since the week of Jan. 7, the Labor Department said. Economists had expected claims to dip to 290,000 from the 294,000 initially reported for the week that ended Feb. 25.

The increase pushed the four-week moving average of claims, which smoothes weekly volatility to provide a better picture of underlying trends, up by 6,250, to 293,500 — a level economists still associate with a healthy job market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10jobs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Acebass
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Acebass Donating Member (926 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Not a problem thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. See Bureau of Labor Statistics -- Feb Net Job Loss = 40,000
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 01:31 PM by pat_k
We need to add 2.5 Million Jobs per year (approx 250,000 per month)
to keep up with population growth/growth in actual labor force
calculated based on average growth in the actual labor force for past three years

Where
Actual Labor Force = (Employed + Currently Looking + Not Currently Looking)

"Not Currently Looking" (i.e., "Not in Labor Force") must be included
because fluxuations in that number indicate people who are dropping
in or out of "Currently Looking" category.

Historical Data available here:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

=====================================================
March 10th Report
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

======================
3rd to 4th Quarter 2005
=======================

Actual Labor Force
3rd Q Avg
149,827 Employed+Looking for Employment
76,595 Total Not Looking
--------
226,422,000

150,126 Employed+Looking for Employment
77,070,000 Total Not Looking
---------
227,196,

774,000/3 month = 258,000 increase per month
This is in line with expectations based on
average monthy increase for past three years

============================
Decempber 2005 to February 2006
=============================

The Actual Labor Force in January 2006
150,153 Employed+Looking for Employment
77,271 Total Not Looking
-----------
227,424,000

The Actual Labor Force in January 2006
150,114,000 Employed+Looking for Employment
77,439,000 Total Not Looking
-----------
227,553,000

The Actual Labor Force in February 2006
153,449,000 Total Employed+Looking for Employment
77,314,000 Total Not Looking
------------
227,763,000

250 needed per month
210,000 added relative to Jan
------------
40,000 net loss last month

500,000 needed past two months
340,000 added since Dec
---------
160,000 net loss last two months


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truly depressing number is the average weekly earnings
550 x 52 weeks = $28,600
The apparently do not report the mean.
Probably because few earning more/more earning less drives down the mean relative to the average
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. from post four....obvious to most?
Real unemployment right now—figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression—is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction. I venture that if you talked about those numbers now with the average person, they would say that they seem reasonable. If you tell them that people are playing with the official numbers, they say, “Yep, I figured that. There are no great surprises there.” I guess what I am saying is that my work shows that the economic perceptions of non-professionals actually have some real validity; there are in fact reasons for the disconnect between official statistics and what the populace is feeling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that the employees' average
hourly earnings is $16.47.... Probably fire me for being a trouble maker..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. I can believe this
All of those new billionaires needed cooks, maids, chauffers, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bad news is that they're all minimun wage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. Whatever happened to the inconvenient fact that the first 250,000
new jobs are just to keep up with population? So, if we added 243,000 that's another shortfall of 7,000...
Did I forget something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Acebass Donating Member (926 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. No, I think everyone else did...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC