jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (13 posts)

U.S. Economy Added 216,000 Jobs in March; Rate at 8.8%

  1. OLYHOOCH profile image61
    OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago

    I thought you all said we need jobs. Funny thing. Every month I see a figure like this and I say to my self, this JOB ISSUE, is like, THE OBAMA BC ISSUE. ( Here they are, you just cant see or find them.) We say one thing, they say another. Well, anyway here is there version.

    The United States economy showed signs of kicking into gear in March, as the Labor Department reported Friday that it added 216,000 jobs and knocked the unemployment rate down another jot, to 8.8 percent.


    Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Economix Blog: Inflation? Not in Wages (April 1, 2011)
    Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs (April 1
    Turmoil is found in many corners of the global economy, and oil prices have been rising, so economists waited to see if these storms would affect hiring. The answer, so far, appears to be no. The gain in jobs slightly exceeded economists’ expectations.

    Manufacturing continued what a few years ago would have been considered an unlikely — if still modest — revival, adding 17,000 jobs. Health care added 37,000 jobs, and professional and business services added another 78,000, although about 40 percent of that came from increases in temporary help. It was the 13th straight month of private-sector job growth.

    March’s numbers, however, also offered cautionary signs that the nation’s economic ills are not entirely behind it. The number of long-term unemployed — that is, those jobless for 27 weeks or more — remained painfully high, at more than six million. That is the highest number in a generation.

    The small size of the national labor force remains a pressing concern, reflecting discouragement with the prospects for employment. It has shrunk steadily over the past few years, to a point that just 64.2 percent of adults are either in the work force or looking for a job. That is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century. Many economists had forecast that as Americans grew emboldened by signs of new hiring, they would re-enter the work force in greater numbers. That did not happen in March, as the participation rate was unchanged.

    The average workweek was also unchanged, at 34.3 hours, and average hourly earnings remained the same. Both are signs of an economy with much slack demand and little upward pressure on wages. In other words, it is the sign of an economy not yet firing on all cylinders. “With excess supply of labor at very high levels, it is unlikely that we are going to see any meaningful acceleration in wage rates anytime soon,” Joshua Shapiro, an economist at MFR Inc., said Friday morning.

    State and local governments offer their own slough of despond. Local government has lost 416,000 jobs since an employment peak in September 2008, and shed another 15,000 jobs in March.

    As well, the unemployment rate for blacks and Latinos remained high, at 15.5 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.

    Quite a few signs, of late, have pointed to a touch of momentum in the economic recovery. Weekly unemployment claims have declined steadily, from the mid-400,000s to the neighborhood of 388,000 last week. In most historical contexts, the latter would be a grim number so many months after the official end of the recession. But in this slowest and most sluggish of recoveries, it points to fewer layoffs, and more hiring.

    Economists are looking for more Americans, like those who have given up looking or who have taken part-time jobs for lack of full-time employment, to find signs of hope.

    “I suspect that the workers on the sideline will start coming back in,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

    The larger question is what the medium-term future augurs, and this month’s report appears to offer less than a definitive answer. Will jobs continue to expand through the spring, and with enough vigor — 300,000 a month, say — to substantially reduce the unemployment rate?

    As Ms. Shierholz notes, if the economy adds 200,000 jobs a month, it will be 2019 before it reaches the employment rate that preceded the Great Recession. (Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has shed more than seven million jobs).

    For President Obama, any uptick in employment numbers will offer a welcome ray of sunshine. The Democrats’ big losses in last November’s election were in large part because of the weak economy, and as eyes now turn to 2012, the economy again figures to sit at center stage. And his economists are certain to lay claims to the green shoots spotted in the March report.

      Many economists speak optimistically of the spring, but the outlook grows uncertain after that. The international storm clouds are many — spectacular debt problems in Europe, uprisings sweeping the oil-rich Middle East, and Japan and its many maladies. And then there is the possibility of a government shutdown in Washington, as the Republican-controlled House challenges the White House.

    Some of the problems arising from these storms, such as higher oil prices, could take a while to work through the economy and, possibly, to erode consumer confidence.

    “The first half of this year will be the best job market that we’ll see in this whole expansion,” said David Levy of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center. “We’re riding the crest of earnings. But after that, and looking toward 2012, the situation is very questionable.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/busin … r=1&hp

    1. DonDWest profile image91
      DonDWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Broken window fallacy, of course jobs are created this month, Obama declared war on Libya.

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image61
        OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, gosh, never thought if it that way. Good point.


      2. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Except that no jobs were added due to the Libyan bombings, but rather sending 2 aircraft carriers with servicemen already working.

        Again - you have to misrepresent to force your point, which is a lie. Try again little one.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Oly, I saw that news as well and am glad you posted this. Thought it might be helpful to see where we were when Obama came into office. I am also going to post a comment that I read below this article. It is very, very interesting.... MM

    http://perotcharts.com/2009/02/unemploy … uary-2009/

    Washington – Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 6, 2009

    Nonfarm payroll employment declined sharply in January, and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2% to 7.6% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Payroll employment fell by 598,000 over the month. In January, job losses were large and widespread across most major industry sectors. The number of unemployed persons increased to 11.6 million in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 4.1 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    http://perotcharts.com/2009/02/unemploy … uary-2009/

    From same perotcharts.com article 2009.
    Those of you who are economists might take issue with this position. Or you might agree with it....

    Posted by Mulp.

    Employment won’t increase until taxes are increased, and only after employment increases will unemployment fall.

    Keep in mind that taxes were highest when unemployment was lowest, and taxes lowest when the unemployment has been higher. And the lowest tax rates are when the unemployment is the highest.

    But this is old news, isn’t it. When Reagan cut taxes, the growth in employment ended and employment fell sharply, and employment didn’t increase until he finally agreed to sign the first of his eight tax hikes.

    And the increase in employment during the Clinton years started when read-my-lips-Bush signed his several tax hikes and then Clinton hiked taxes even more. It was the high taxes that increased employment and increased tax revenue nearly eliminating the deficit, because government spending increased rapidly while Clinton was president. Just not quite as fast as the economy grew, but government spending increased almost as fast as it did while Reagan was president.

    The Republicans lost the House and Senate and then the Whitehouse because the Bush tax cuts have just kept cutting employment so that by the time Bush left office, the number of people employed was the same as when he took office, even tho millions of people had been added to the labor force, and many older workers wanted or needed to work longer adding a few million people to the labor force.

    And the Bush tax cuts more than any others produced a frenzy of ponzi scheme stock and real estate bubble creation because if you can get money for nothing – selling the same thing for a higher price without doing anything to earn it – then you get taxed at lower rates than actually working for a living. The Bush tax cuts punish working for a living and reward speculative gambling because you taxed far more if you earn money though labor.

    As they say, if you want to get less of something, tax it more than things you want more of, so we have had less labor and more gambling over the past eight years. Let’s at least tax gambling, capital gains, at least as much as working for a living and actually doing something useful.

    1. lady_love158 profile image62
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So your premise is taxing more increases employment? Oh good! Let's tax at 100% and we'll have full employment and a booming economy! Then we wouldn't need all the stimulus from unemployment benefits which will really add to the treasury!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is not my premise. I don't have a premise.
        What this poster says is counterintuitive, but interesting, I thought....
        Can't argue with the ponzi scheme, however.

      2. kerryg profile image89
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Um, the top marginal income tax rate was 91% or 92% throughout the 1950's and the economy boomed.

        1. 0
          Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          FACT! The income gaps began with the idea of supply/side-trickle down economics...which LALO is a proponent of, and isn't real.

  4. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Has anyone seen the reported tax rates on corporations? GE comes to mind first ,14.5 billion in profits this year and paid next to nothing in federal taxes.There are many other corporations doing the exact same thing.The corporations want to be able to lobby and contribute to candidates just the same as a citizen but pay no taxes? You can spin it as you like but this practice is what is killing the rest of the country and is driven out of pure greed. God bless the corporation,Too Big Too Fail and so on.The middle class is being destroyed and our reps are bought and sold.Look at us,the condition of this country is pitiful.A debauched currency and runaway unemployment.Don't report how many new unemployment claims there are that is pure B.S. report how many active claims there are. Why can't they do this,because it would shoot the"reported" number right out of the water.Let's not include the "99er's" either. That wouldn't be good.Trickle down only works for the wealthy,wake up.Until you can prove this just stop,my proof? The current state of this country,need I say more.

  5. tritrain profile image77
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    It's important to understand which of the 6 or 7 employment statistics these articles are using.

    As I understand it, our real unemployment rate, includes  those that are underemployed and/or have stopped looking.  It is around 18% or so.

    How many people are dropped back to less than full time employment, just so they could keep their job?  I know several that have had to do this.

  6. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Profits are up as well as bonuses so we can take comfort in that. Cake anyone?