U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

[Helix]

The economy added 195,000 jobs in June, the Labor Department reported Friday morning, slightly more than analysts had been expecting and suggesting steady growth. Wall Street has been feverishly awaiting the June employment report. Not only does it provide another indicator of overall economic strength, it also affects the timing of the Federal Reserve’s decision to start tapering a major part of its stimulus efforts.

A strong report increases the likelihood the central bank will start pulling back on its bond purchases as early as September, a prospect that has made some investors more cautious in recent weeks. On the other hand, signs of weakness in the labor market would likely prolong the Fed’s program of purchasing $85 billion in bonds per month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/b...as-unemployment-rate-remains-at-7-6.html?_r=0

not a horrible month. i agree that the money printing should stop.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

not a horrible month. i agree that the money printing should stop.

While on the surface the figure appears about average, the number of involuntary part-time workers increased by 322K in June resulting in a net loss of 127K full-time positions that are wanted by those workers...

 

[a351]

Surely a stronger report than many anticipated. The increase in construction related employment continues to point at an improving housing market, while the manufacturing sector and the federal government continue to shed jobs. Also important to note is the sizable increase in (involuntary) part time employment and the positive revisions for both April and May's figures.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised
from +149,000 to +199,000, and the change for May was revised from
+175,000 to +195,000. With these revisions, employment gains in April
and May combined were 70,000 higher than previously reported.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

195,000 jobs to this economy is like 195 hairs to the top of my head, too little too late.:lol:

 

[DaveFagan]

195,000 jobs to this economy is like 195 hairs to the top of my head, too little too late.:lol:

Bogus gov't propaganda. There are as many unemployed now as in 2008 and I think the actual number one side or the other of 27 million. Just change who counts in the total and fudge up some nice numbers to generate "Confidence." It's that "Confidence" that supports our Fiat Money. You know, "full faith and credit." Like a blessing from the Pope. Great stuff if you can generate "Confidence." The monies the US Treasury has given "Too big to fail" banks has had a multiplier effect of .1 to .3 and that is abysmal failure. OTOH, it gives "Confidence" to banks and who prints that Federal Reserve "Fiat Money?" Federal Reserve Bank Corporation. We're screwed!

 

[joko104]

Converting 600,000 full time jobs with benefits to 29 hour-a-week jobs without benefits would create over 200,0ng 00 new jobs.

And then the White House brags about it? Truly disgusting and a fundamental lie. If everyone was reduced to 20 hours a week and no benefits the White House would boast of creating 10,000,000 new jobs.

 

[Helix]

While on the surface the figure appears about average, the number of involuntary part-time workers increased by 322K in June resulting in a net loss of 127K full-time positions that are wanted by those workers...

unfortunately, this is going to continue to happen, because workers have lost almost all of their bargaining power. it's probably going to be a situation of unionize or work two ****ty part time jobs. i know a lot of people who are forced to do this.

still, i don't believe that this report is only bad news. it could be and has been worse.

 

[humbolt]

195,000 jobs to this economy is like 195 hairs to the top of my head, too little too late.:lol:

I have the opposite problem, but the result is the same. The number is just too small to be meaningful except to those who wish to make a hollow political point.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Good Job everybody.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'll be interested, going forward, to see if the White House announcement that they won't implement the Obamacare mandate on business affects small business hiring going forward, at least in the short term. If small business employment spikes, not just by these seasonal numbers, then it would indicate that Obamacare is, indeed, a damper on employment, as many people including myself believe.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

unfortunately, this is going to continue to happen, because workers have lost almost all of their bargaining power. it's probably going to be a situation of unionize or work two ****ty part time jobs. i know a lot of people who are forced to do this.

still, i don't believe that this report is only bad news. it could be and has been worse.

The government is incentivizing businesses to move to a part-time workforce where feasible due to its intrusion into the market...

 

[humbolt]

I'll be interested, going forward, to see if the White House announcement that they won't implement the Obamacare mandate on business affects small business hiring going forward, at least in the short term. If small business employment spikes, not just by these seasonal numbers, then it would indicate that Obamacare is, indeed, a damper on employment, as many people including myself believe.

I'm just waiting for the sound of the government cheese trucks firing up. You know it's going to happen soon. 2014 is right around the corner.

 

[pinqy]

Bogus gov't propaganda.

Feel free to present your own data...backing it up with your methodology, of course.

There are as many unemployed now as in 2008

No, there are a lot more unemployed now than in 2008. Average unemployment in 2008 was 8.9 million and current unemployment is about 12.2 million (not seasonally adjusted). Of course, the average in 2009 was 14.3 million, 2010 was 14.8 million, 2011 was 13.7 million, and 2012 was 12.5 million.

and I think the actual number one side or the other of 27 million.

And what bizarre definition are you using? 12,248,000 people looking for work, and 7,152,000 people not trying to work but who say they would like one.

Just change who counts in the total

There was one minor change in the definition in 1994, but no real changes since 1967. So what are you talking about?

 

[DaveFagan]

Feel free to present your own data...backing it up with your methodology, of course.


No, there are a lot more unemployed now than in 2008. Average unemployment in 2008 was 8.9 million and current unemployment is about 12.2 million (not seasonally adjusted). Of course, the average in 2009 was 14.3 million, 2010 was 14.8 million, 2011 was 13.7 million, and 2012 was 12.5 million.

And what bizarre definition are you using? 12,248,000 people looking for work, and 7,152,000 people not trying to work but who say they would like one.

There was one minor change in the definition in 1994, but no real changes since 1967. So what are you talking about?

Read your own post and see if it supports the gov't numbers. Even you acknowledge unemployment of 20 million. Just keep pushing the unemployed numbers into the not looking for work group and unemployment goes down. Doesn't work for me, but that is the gov't methodology. My money is better than ever because I can buy hamburger or red slime instead of steak and it is considered the same. Bogus gov't numbers in all areas to present the illusion of "Confidence" to support the fiat money. Some very tricky paper. Don't you think?

 

[Slyfox696]

While on the surface the figure appears about average, the number of involuntary part-time workers increased by 322K in June resulting in a net loss of 127K full-time positions that are wanted by those workers...

195,000 jobs to this economy is like 195 hairs to the top of my head, too little too late.:lol:

I have the opposite problem, but the result is the same. The number is just too small to be meaningful except to those who wish to make a hollow political point.

You can always count on the Republicans/conservatives to hate good news under Obama.

 

[pinqy]

Read your own post and see if it supports the gov't numbers.

I'm using the government numbers.

Even you acknowledge unemployment of 20 million.

No I didn't. I acknowledged unemployment of 12,248,000. Removing normal seasonal fluctuations, it's 11,777,000.

People not looking for work are not unemployed.

Just keep pushing the unemployed numbers into the not looking for work group and unemployment goes down.

How do you think that's done? Are you claiming that people who are actually looking for work are falsely recorded as not looking? What's your evidence?

My money is better than ever because I can buy hamburger or red slime instead of steak and it is considered the same.

No it's not. Steak and hamburger are seperate item categories, and that's not in any way how the index is calculated.

Just because you don't understand the data, doesn't mean the data is wrong.

 

[humbolt]

You can always count on the Republicans/conservatives to hate good news under Obama.

Good news would be the unchaining of the energy market. 195,000 jobs doesn't count as "good news". It's just better than the grim performance of late.

 

[Fisher]

Housing is picking back up a lot in my area. The lending requirements are slowly creeping down as far as down payments and the red tape in loan processing is flapping in the wind in that processing is at least starting to speed up a little.

 

[Kushinator]

Good news would be the unchaining of the energy market. 195,000 jobs doesn't count as "good news". It's just better than the grim performance of late.

Keep in mind that an estimated 195,000 jobs are seasonally adjusted. There have been an estimated 422,000 jobs created in June 2013.

 

[DA60]

While on the surface the figure appears about average, the number of involuntary part-time workers increased by 322K in June resulting in a net loss of 127K full-time positions that are wanted by those workers...

Well spotted.

Plus the U-6 (which I consider a better overall employment indicator then U-3) jumped from 13.8 to 14.3.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

And manufacturing is down...again.

Only the housing market and the auto market are growing...but they are both doing so (imo) on the back of artificially low interest rates/government/Fed assistance/stimuli.


Most reporters/the masses will probably look at the 195K number and say it's a pretty good report.

But anyone that calls this a good report simply does not know what they are talking about.

It's not terrible...but it's (IMO) far from good.


The recent labor reports are showing a trend...the Fed/government directly/indirectly stimulates auto sales/housing/stock markets.

Job growth is primarily part time, leisure or minimum wage, full time (Walmart-style retail) jobs.

People are starting to give up looking for full time, well paying jobs and taking part time/lower paying full time jobs (which is why the Participation rate decline has slowed/stopped).

Just look at the education-level numbers over the last three months:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

The U-3 rate for those 3 categories with a high school diploma or up has either risen or not budged.

But the 'less then high school diploma' U-3 rate has plunged from 11.6% to 10.7%...in only three months.

The conclusion is obvious...unskilled job numbers are growing, skilled job numbers are stagnant.

 

[Erod]

So we lose 240,000 full-time jobs, and replace them with a buch of part-time jobs, and Democrats call this progress?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...ge-all-time-high-full-time-jobs-plunge-240000

 

[Erod]

You can always count on the Republicans/conservatives to hate good news under Obama.

And you can also count on liberals to twist and contort the numbers every which way possible to try to make chicken salad out of chicken excrement.

Exchanging full-time work for part-time work is not progress.

 

[iguanaman]

I'll be interested, going forward, to see if the White House announcement that they won't implement the Obamacare mandate on business affects small business hiring going forward, at least in the short term. If small business employment spikes, not just by these seasonal numbers, then it would indicate that Obamacare is, indeed, a damper on employment, as many people including myself believe.

Is universal healthcare damaging Canada's employment too? If not, why not implement a Canadian type system here? I'm sure you would not give your HC up, would you?

 

[Slyfox696]

And you can also count on liberals to twist and contort the numbers every which way possible

Amusing. I saw nothing in the OP which twisted anything. The only people I've seen twist are the ones like...well...

Exchanging full-time work for part-time work is not progress.

...yes, you.

Thank you for further proving me right. Republicans/conservatives HATE when there's good news. Quite frankly, I think it's rather un-American of you.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Is universal healthcare damaging Canada's employment too? If not, why not implement a Canadian type system here? I'm sure you would not give your HC up, would you?

You'd have my agreement.

It's not as easy as you think to do and it's not as comprehensive as you may think it is but I far more support it than being forced into either purchasing a plan from a third party or paying a penalty for not doing so.

Our healthcare plan only provides for the basics and catastrophic care and services are not readily available in multiple choices with little or no delay. In addition, for drugs, dental care, eyecare, physiotherapy, chiropractic, medical devices, etc., the user pays for all in most instances or for a portion if on some form of government assistance. And additional services and coverages are being removed every year as our population ages and the costs of serving an aging and growing public skyrockets. It's why most people purchase additional insurance coverage or contract for their employer to provide a plan of coverage.

We pay much higher person income taxes than you do and far more people pay those taxes than in your country. Our basic exemption from payment of federal income taxes is around $11,000 and in my Province, Ontario, we also pay an additional healthcare premium on top of regular taxes based on income.

We don't have anywhere near your tax exemptions either - we don't get mortgage interest deductions, as an example, and yet our homes for the most part cost more to own and service.

What are you prepared to give up both in independence and higher cost to have a less comprehensive healthcare system but one that's there when you really need it.