More Economic GOOD NEWS: Employers add most jobs in 3 years in March

[Toro]

And it's amazing to me how the number stays at 9.7.......Must be Obamath.

Not really. It is common at the end of a recession for the unemployment rate to stay high as the economy starts producing jobs. The reason for this is because more people re-enter the workforce. You can see the data here.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

The number of employed rose by 264,000. The number of unemployed rose by 134,000. They both went up because more people re-entered the workforce as the civilian labor force rose 398,000.

This is typical end of recession behavior. The unemployment rate does not come down even though jobs are being created because more people enter the workforce as the economy improves.

In Reagan's first term, unemployment never fell below 7%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

And the number of Part Time employees rose by 263,000.

That 264,000 you are citing is almost entirely Part Time jobs.

U6 unemployment is still 17%.

Part-time jobs lead full-time jobs.

And U3 unemployment is still 9.7%.

That's how this works.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 164,000 last month, the largest number in years. About 45,000 were census workers. Large private companies added over 100,000 jobs.

 

[Toro]

Finally,...... I didn't think anyone would bring op the hiring of census workers as very temporary workers.

The market was expecting over 100,000 new jobs to be created by the census. The rate of hiring for the census coming out of the recession is slower than in past recessions.

 

[elvis]

Finally,...... I didn't think anyone would bring op the hiring of census workers as very temporary workers.

The market was expecting over 100,000 new jobs to be created by the census. The rate of hiring for the census coming out of the recession is slower than in past recessions.

are you anticipating the boom and then the bust?

 

[Toro]

Finally,...... I didn't think anyone would bring op the hiring of census workers as very temporary workers.

The market was expecting over 100,000 new jobs to be created by the census. The rate of hiring for the census coming out of the recession is slower than in past recessions.

are you anticipating the boom and then the bust?

I don't think we will have a boom. I think we will have a very tepid recovery. Then we will have a bust in a few years once again.

 

[elvis]

The market was expecting over 100,000 new jobs to be created by the census. The rate of hiring for the census coming out of the recession is slower than in past recessions.

are you anticipating the boom and then the bust?

I don't think we will have a boom. I think we will have a very tepid recovery. Then we will have a bust in a few years once again.

ouch. that sounds like the austrian school view of stimulus with nothing positive in the short run.

 

[pinqy]

439,000 new unemployment claims
minus
162,000 new jobs.
equals
277,000 more people unemployed.

How is that a gain?

New claims is just that....UI claims....not the total number of people who left (voluntarily or involuntarily). And that's for the week.

"New jobs" is the NET DIFFERENCE between people gaining work and people losing work. There were 162,000 more jobs in March, which means that between Feb and March the number of people hired minus the number of people getting laid off, quitting, and retiring equalled 162,000.

What part of that is hard for you to understand?

 

[SFC Ollie]

439,000 new unemployment claims
minus
162,000 new jobs.
equals
277,000 more people unemployed.

How is that a gain?

New claims is just that....UI claims....not the total number of people who left (voluntarily or involuntarily). And that's for the week.

"New jobs" is the NET DIFFERENCE between people gaining work and people losing work. There were 162,000 more jobs in March, which means that between Feb and March the number of people hired minus the number of people getting laid off, quitting, and retiring equalled 162,000.

What part of that is hard for you to understand?

So half a million people went back to work?

 

[saveliberty]

Unemployment figures, brought to you by your US Census Bureau. Where accuracy counts, so we revise data and revise until it fits the political environment. Count on us to learn anything and everything with the 2010 census. Remember, if you are a minority resident, send your form in early and often.

 

[pinqy]

439,000 new unemployment claims
minus
162,000 new jobs.
equals
277,000 more people unemployed.

How is that a gain?

New claims is just that....UI claims....not the total number of people who left (voluntarily or involuntarily). And that's for the week.

"New jobs" is the NET DIFFERENCE between people gaining work and people losing work. There were 162,000 more jobs in March, which means that between Feb and March the number of people hired minus the number of people getting laid off, quitting, and retiring equalled 162,000.

What part of that is hard for you to understand?

So half a million people went back to work?

No idea. Remember, you cannot compare UI claims with the Employment data. How many of the people making new unemployment claims lost their jobs between Feb and March? I don't know...there's no way of knowing, so it's not clear how many people went back to work, or how many just entered the workforce or reentered.

Now, we can look at the Unemployment data (yet another survey and not directly comparable to UI claims or the official Employment number). From that, we can tell that there are more unemployed, a large part from people reentering the labor force (and who wouldn't show up in UI claims).

 

[Foxfyre]

According to the news this morning, there are 15 million Americans out of work who want work right now, and about 11 million of those are receiving some sort of government subsidy (unemployment etc.) while they look for work. An erosion in wages and the number of hours in the work week has been occuring steadly month after month.

Almost all states and municipalities are planning layoffs, but many of these are facing certain bankruptcy unless the unions back down on contracts negotiated before the recession when things still looked really good. The Obama administration continues to support and undergird the unions and is providing no help in urging unions to renegotiate those contracts in order to save jobs.

The USA is in serious danger of losing its AAA credit rating.

I simply don't see too many positives out there, yet the Obama administration goes lumbering headlong into more recession deepening and extending policies such as raising taxes and pushing cap and trade.

It's nuts.

 

[saveliberty]

Remember those kids you made fun of teachers, saying they'll just be fliping burgers? Looks like it might be on YOUR job possibilities list huh?

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama can take credit for only a third of the jobs.

58,000 of them are temporary census jobs. Add another 15,000 new IRS jobs to enforce the new health care tax increases.

Take out the temp jobs and the IRS jobs you only get a about 80,000 new jobs, most of them seasonal.

But as the Dems said when Bush was gaining hundreds of thousands of new jobs per month...."These are all low paying entry level jobs."

Plus...I wanna know what Obama did exactly to cause the increase. Could it be the delay in implementing his fucked up policies?

They say that our economy is so strong that if you just leave it alone it will recover. The minute the government starts screwing with it dammit things start going to shit.

This is just another example of Obama's chest beating.

The last time was when he announced agreeing to cut back from 2200 nuke warhead to 1500.

Bush cut back from over 6000 to 2200 and dared the Russians to do the same. So which is more? The 3800 nukes Bush got rid of or the 700 Obama is wanting to get rid of but hasn't yet?

Obama is constantly breaking his arm patting himself on the back.

 

[boedicca]

New claims is just that....UI claims....not the total number of people who left (voluntarily or involuntarily). And that's for the week.

"New jobs" is the NET DIFFERENCE between people gaining work and people losing work. There were 162,000 more jobs in March, which means that between Feb and March the number of people hired minus the number of people getting laid off, quitting, and retiring equalled 162,000.

What part of that is hard for you to understand?

The total number of UNEMPLOYED people increased by 134,000

Of the 162,000 jobs that were created, 88,000 were temporary (including the census ones that end in July).

Full time jobs created = 74,000

People out of work full time = 134,000

When more people are add to the unemployed roles than are added to the full time employed ones, we are not creating enough jobs.

The Obama Administration is doing everything it can to spin this mess into something positive - but the basic question remains: How many jobs have actually been created with the Stimulus money that was supposed to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%?

The real answer is despite spending approximately $250B or so, we've lost over 3M jobs since it was past. IOW, we've spent over $800K to lose each one of those jobs.

 

[pinqy]

True...that comes from the Household Survey.

Of the 162,000 jobs that were created, 88,000 were temporary (including the census ones that end in July).

True. This is from the Establishment Survey.

Full time jobs created = 74,000

People out of work full time = 134,000

False. First, temp jobs and part time jobs are completely different things. Second, these are two different surveys and you can't compare them. If you look at the Household survey: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators you'll see that employed went up 264,000. Read the technical note Employment Situation Technical Note
for the differences in the 2 surveys.

Part time workers actually went down: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

 

[Foxfyre]

The real answer is despite spending approximately $250B or so, we've lost over 3M jobs since it was past. IOW, we've spent over $800K to lose each one of those jobs.

That's the really galling part. If the government had simply provided tax incentive to businesses to expand and hire, reduced unnecessary regulation to make it more possible for them to do so, and extended unemployment benefits to the unemployed in the interim rather than the unconscionable stimulus package(s) passed, we could have saved many hundreds of billions of dollars. And, if history is a reliable guide, we would be seeing real recovery by now.

 

[Neubarth]

In one week there was over 400,000 new unemployed, nearly where does this figure into your equation?

Net out new unemployed with new employed.

Bullshit.

 

[boedicca]

True...that comes from the Household Survey.

Of the 162,000 jobs that were created, 88,000 were temporary (including the census ones that end in July).

True. This is from the Establishment Survey.

Full time jobs created = 74,000

People out of work full time = 134,000

False. First, temp jobs and part time jobs are completely different things. Second, these are two different surveys and you can't compare them. If you look at the Household survey: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators you'll see that employed went up 264,000. Read the technical note Employment Situation Technical Note
for the differences in the 2 surveys.

Part time workers actually went down: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I got all of my figures right off of Table A

Read it:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

 

[pinqy]

True...that comes from the Household Survey.

True. This is from the Establishment Survey.

Full time jobs created = 74,000

People out of work full time = 134,000

False. First, temp jobs and part time jobs are completely different things. Second, these are two different surveys and you can't compare them. If you look at the Household survey: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators you'll see that employed went up 264,000. Read the technical note Employment Situation Technical Note
for the differences in the 2 surveys.

Part time workers actually went down: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I got all of my figures right off of Table A

Read it:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

I have...and you certainly did NOT get "Of the 162,000 jobs that were created, 88,000 were temporary (including the census ones that end in July)." from Table A because that number comes from Table B. So no you did not get all your figures off of Table A.

You're mixing the 2 surveys...look at Table A again: Employed, +264,000 Unemployed, +134,000. Both can go up, and it's easy to see when you look at how much Not in the Labor Force went down, and how much the population went up.

 

[saveliberty]

True...that comes from the Household Survey.

True. This is from the Establishment Survey.


False. First, temp jobs and part time jobs are completely different things. Second, these are two different surveys and you can't compare them. If you look at the Household survey: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators you'll see that employed went up 264,000. Read the technical note Employment Situation Technical Note
for the differences in the 2 surveys.

Part time workers actually went down: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I got all of my figures right off of Table A

Read it:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

I have...and you certainly did NOT get "Of the 162,000 jobs that were created, 88,000 were temporary (including the census ones that end in July)." from Table A because that number comes from Table B. So no you did not get all your figures off of Table A.

You're mixing the 2 surveys...look at Table A again: Employed, +264,000 Unemployed, +134,000. Both can go up, and it's easy to see when you look at how much Not in the Labor Force went down, and how much the population went up.

pinqy has a habit of reading these charts pretty well, I'd give the benefit of the doubt until you check it out. I'm sure some hiring is taking place. I am also quite certain that this spring and summer schools and municipal governments will layoff in large numbers. Compound that with the Census jobs ending in the fall and you have a sizable bubble coming.

Gas prices are on the rise too, much like 2008. This tends to further make consumers less likely to spend. I call it the weekly wallet crunch. When the weekly part of our paycheck doesn't cover your normal spending habits, you feel poor. That influences your perception of how well your doing.

 

[Neubarth]

The only problem with pinko reading his charts is that the information in the charts is totally bogus. It is imaginary and not to be believed. Just like the survey is imaginary. I have never met a single person who has been interviewed in that so called survey. They just make that shit up to try to keep the sheeple docile.

Rumor has it that they throw darts at a dartboard to come up with those outrageous numbers that have no correlation to reality.