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

[Modbert]

Unemployment increased by about 400,000 people in March. We do not have any stats on April yet. You need to read some articles about the American Economy.

Manufacturing is about ten percent of the overall economy. In a manufacturing economy, unemployment is a lagging indicator because factories hire permanent skilled line employees last in a recovery.

In a service sector economy the level of skill for the vast majority of jobs is minor. Thus quickly fired and quickly hired. This kind of employee is hired at the beginning of a recovery.

I'd like some links to what you are saying, but all I'm getting is you spewing.

 

[Maple]

That's the same problem with Capitalism too. But kerry on.

You need to take econ 101 and get an education- Capitalism and Socialism are 180 oppostites.

Definition of Socialism- Social system based on GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the production and distribution of goods and services.

1. This penalizes hard work and success, by robbing the people who work very hard to get ahead only to give the sofa slug more of the hard working person's money. It decentivizes whole populations.


Definition of CAPITALISM- Economic system of private ownership of Capital.
1. It rewards hard work and success and INCENTIVIZES Populations.A. That's earning and keeping more of your own money.
B. Owning Property.
C. Owning your own investments and retirement funds.
D. It allows PRIVATE SECTORS to grow and expand to hire new employees so that they too can enjoy the rewards of hard work, keep more of their hard earned dollar to spend, invest, save and give.

Who is going to support this obese government when the PRIVATE SECTOR ceases to exist, Who is going to pay for all those entitlement programs???

That precisely is why socialist governments will always bog down sooner or later. No combination of people in any government are qualified to manage or administer an economy as effectively or efficiently as it can do on its own. Walter Williams once wrote a wonderful essay using a U.S. supermarket as an illustration. How many different decisions, processes, products, and actions go into putting a can of tuna on the grocery store shelf? But in capitalism utilizing laizzez-faire economics, that can appears there with reliable efficiency. It is people looking to their own interests that makes it happen. When the government short circuits that in any way, it becomes government interest and the people no longer have power to look to their own interests. And pretty soon, the reliability of that can of tuna appearing on the shelf becomes much more untenable because somebody in the chain is no longer able to look to his or her own interests.

Very good analogy. Yesterday, I saw three government workers doing some sidewalk work, 1 had a shovel and the other two just stood there and watched.

In the PRIVATE SECTOR, that doesn't happen, if you have time to stand around and watch someone else doing the work, then the work doesn't need you and you are fired.

 

[Neubarth]

Well damn, you apparrently don't listen to your own advice.

U.S. Service Sector Grows for 2nd Straight Month | EmploymentSpectator | Employment News

This is the THIRD straight month then, that the service sector has grown. According to you, this should mean eminent recovery.

Unfortunately for us, your very primordial economics doesn't work like that, and there are more factors than what you would like to attribute to this situation. Suffice to say, historically he is correct, even in America, the employement sector is generally last to recover. This isn't to say this is an absolute truth, but one which history supports and I won't cite because if you lack the knowledge of history in this area you shouldn't be arguing it for no reason.

I understand some, but not all of our economic models, as I believe many things are subjective besides the basics of our capitalistic society. I do however, know that it takes more than looking at the dow and job reports to understand recovery. We should really look at this as adding 127,000 jobs as they did, which is still a positive thing, and much of the growth is in the service sector, which is our largest sector (something like 80-85% actually).

Regardless, the more important news in this is that the SERVICE sector has recovered jobs for the third straight month, which is a more favorable sign of recovery than simply adding temporary or part time jobs.

The Service sector is not growing jobs. If you look at the Unemployment Insurance Claims you would know that we are shedding two million jobs a month from the data from last month. Those two million people are coming from somewhere, and it is not the factories that are adding a few jobs as production has increased about four percent in the past few months.

If you want to believe the Government lies, you can, but you would have to believe that two million people were laid off and accepted Unemployment Insurance while almost all the job sectors were hiring, but only 162,000 jobs were created. Mathematically that is totally impossible. Of course all of the unemployment numbers bandied forth by government do not add up and are obviously totally false.

Actual unemployment is way above 27 percent and growing.

 

[Neubarth]

Unemployment increased by about 400,000 people in March. We do not have any stats on April yet. You need to read some articles about the American Economy.

Manufacturing is about ten percent of the overall economy. In a manufacturing economy, unemployment is a lagging indicator because factories hire permanent skilled line employees last in a recovery.

In a service sector economy the level of skill for the vast majority of jobs is minor. Thus quickly fired and quickly hired. This kind of employee is hired at the beginning of a recovery.

I'd like some links to what you are saying, but all I'm getting is you spewing.

What you are getting is that you are horribly uneducated. Hell, go to Wiki is you want a link to the economy breakdown. Everybody but you has known for years now that we are a Service Sector economy. Damn. You really make yourself look foolish. Learn to show thyself approved. Stay ignorant and you will always look the fool.


Here, I googled 70% and this is what popped up.

U.S. Service Sector Expands In January
Feb 3, 2010 ... The service sector relies more on U.S. consumers, whose spending powers about 70 percent of the economy but "who are broke," said Ian ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100203/us-economy/

 

[Modbert]

What you are getting is that you are horribly uneducated. Hell, go to Wiki is you want a link to the economy breakdown. Everybody but you has known for years now that we are a Service Sector economy. Damn. You really make yourself look foolish. Learn to show thyself approved. Stay ignorant and you will always look the fool.

If you are going to make a statement, you should back it up with evidence. Only one of us who is acting ignorant is you for not posting any links to prove what you're saying.

PolitiFact | Obama says job growth always lags behind economic growth

"He's right about that," said William Beach, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's center for data analysis.

In the post-World War II era, there have been 10 recessions and after most of them, employment lagged a few months behind other improving economic indicators. But after the last two, in 1991 and 2001, unemployment rates continued to climb for more than a year.

The latest jobless recovery came as little surprise to economists who study such trends.

"Employers are hesitant to hire people back to the work force (after a recession) because they don't know if the economy is going to continue to grow, which is understandable," Beach said.

But more importantly, he said, the American economy has become increasingly reliant on service jobs, such as information and financial jobs. "Those jobs come back very slowly," Beach said.

Get the egg off your face.

But even without government meddling, Beach believes employment was destined to lag.

The San Francisco Chronicle , relying on numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in August charted the lag between recessions' end and the peak of unemployment rates. In the eight recessions between 1949 and 1991, unemployment rates lagged by an average of about three months. After the last two, however, it took 15 months and 19 months, respectively, before unemployment rates peaked.

 

[Modbert]

Here, I googled 70% and this is what popped up.

U.S. Service Sector Expands In January
Feb 3, 2010 ... The service sector relies more on U.S. consumers, whose spending powers about 70 percent of the economy but "who are broke," said Ian ...
U.S. Service Sector Expands In January

I wasn't questioning the fact we rely more on the service sector. I'm questioning your statement that they're the first to hire so quickly.

 

[Xenophon]

There wasn't a gain, it was a net loss again, just not as many as last month.

Stop trying to paint bad news as good news, its not working.

Didn't read the article AGAIN, huh..........

I guess you think if you keep saying it, it will make it so. Fraid not!!

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

 

[American Horse]

Whoosh. My point goes flying over your head.

FYI: It wasn't Socialism that got us in this recent economic mess.

No not Socialism, but a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSI), which is a first cousin to Socialism. This particular GSE, Fanny Mae (Freddy Mac) were, under a government appointed CEO, making it a political plum, along with members of congress with the power to limit oversight of its activities which created the sub-prime mess that the WSJ had been warning about since 2001 and before. That got us into the recent economic mess, more than anything else.

" WIKIPEDIA - GSEs are a hybrid form of a corporation designed to use privately provided capital in pursuit of publicly developed missions. The GSEs do not use any taxpayer money nor do they state anywhere in legal disclosures the government guarantees their securities. [ They do not, but it is "implicit" because Fanny and Freddy were too big to fail, and in the end the government could not and DID NOT allow them to fail] The current regulatory format, [SUPPOSEDLY] imposes rigorous capital and stress testing by their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, or OFHEO. Some have viewed the GSEs' abilities to raise private capital in pursuit of public goals [LOANS TO uncrediworthy borrowers to expand home ownership to the greatest number of people] a model example of government at its best. Some have questioned this assertion, and there have been questions regarding the rigor of the capital and stress testing by OFHEO. "

 

[pinqy]

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The data has its bad points.

The U.S. economy saw the biggest job gains in three years in March, the Labor Department reported Friday. Is that cause for celebration? Maybe.

Certainly, it's not hard to find bad news within the report. For one thing, 162,000 new jobs is not even a drop in the bucket of the more than 8 million jobs lost since the recession began (and don't forget the number of new jobs that need to be created simply to keep up with new entrants into the labor force).

Also, a chunk of the new jobs last month were temporary U.S. Census positions. While temp hiring among private employers often is considered a leading indicator of future permanent jobs, that's not the case for census work.

And, ominously, long-term unemployment got even worse in March. A record 6.5 million people have been out of work for longer than six months.

Plus, there's bad news regarding wages: Average hourly earnings fell by 2 cents, the first drop since 2006.

Jobs data has plenty of bad news to mar the good Personal Finance Daily - MarketWatch

 

[SFC Ollie]

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

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

How is that a gain?

 

[Foxfyre]

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

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

How is that a gain?

When it is a lapdog media supporting the current administration, it is an 162,000 gain.

The same media reported numbers like that in the Bush administration as a loss. In other words, if this was 2008, a 277,000 job loss would have been reported.

Apparently different terminology is used depending on who is in office.

 

[Neubarth]

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

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

How is that a gain?

When it is a lapdog media supporting the current administration, it is an 162,000 gain.

The same media reported numbers like that in the Bush administration as a loss. In other words, if this was 2008, a 277,000 job loss would have been reported.

Apparently different terminology is used depending on who is in office.

Actually the 439,000 number was a weekly number and the 162 was for the month..

Apples and oranges even though both are fruit.

I am convinced that the Government employment numbers are totally bogus. Pinky thinks that they are divinely accurate. The only ones that come from government that I pay attention to are the Weekly Unemployment Claims Numbers FROM THE STATES. The states have no reason to lie about them, but the Federal government does have a reason because politics is allowed to determine who runs the Department of Labor (Hilda Solis - who owes her appointment to Obama and will do anything to keep his favor.)

The weekly UI Claims numbers as they come from the state were running about two million a month in March. We will see what April will bring in the coming few months. We need to get the Weekly UI claims to under 350,000 to be able to say that the economy is not collapsing any more. So far, we are still collapsing. We are not now collapsing as fast as we were a year ago, but we are still collapsing.

 

[Neubarth]

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

Pinko, I know you know enough to know that that 162 number is not even enough to keep up with the number of people who are added to the workforce every month. (i.e. dude, we are still losing ground.) Don't pretend that it is a gain when it is still a loss.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You really are a pera brain, they released the unemployment figures already, MORE peope, are out of work, there was no 'gain' you simp.

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

Pinko, I know you know enough to know that that 162 number is not even enough to keep up with the number of people who are added to the workforce every month. (i.e. dude, we are still losing ground.) Don't pretend that it is a gain when it is still a loss.

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

 

[Toro]

No, the unemployment numbers came out today. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 9.7% as both employment and unemployment went up. The unemployment level went up from more people reentering the labor force. Note that: unemployment went up NOT from people losing their jobs, but from people who hadn't been working starting to look for work.

Non-farm payroll employment went up 162,000 jobs, with 123,000 of that private sector.

That's a gain.

Unless you're prepared to offer your alternative data? Thought not.

Pinko, I know you know enough to know that that 162 number is not even enough to keep up with the number of people who are added to the workforce every month. (i.e. dude, we are still losing ground.) Don't pretend that it is a gain when it is still a loss.

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

 

[boedicca]

Pinko, I know you know enough to know that that 162 number is not even enough to keep up with the number of people who are added to the workforce every month. (i.e. dude, we are still losing ground.) Don't pretend that it is a gain when it is still a loss.

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%.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Pinko, I know you know enough to know that that 162 number is not even enough to keep up with the number of people who are added to the workforce every month. (i.e. dude, we are still losing ground.) Don't pretend that it is a gain when it is still a loss.

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

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

 

[sitarro]

Good news for the USA.

Some on here dont like this news very much though.

Need a new calculator?

Typical of the lefts small mindedness of the matter of employment. You guys never know how to see a big picture

If you all would just read this and actually calculate the numbers and what type of jobs have increased, you would see that the government is taking over the whole of capitalism, many jobs gained are temporary and part time census takers, governmental, healthcare related and otherwise bureaucratic

Employment Situation Summary
Temporary help services added 40,000 jobs in March. Since September 2009, tempor
ary help services employment has risen by 313,000
Employment in federal government was up over the month, reflecting the hiring of
48,000 temporary workers for the decennial census.

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

 

[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

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.