For the 30th straight month, the United States economy added jobs in March, albeit still at a pace too sluggish to put a big dent in the backlog of 11.7 million idle workers. The nation’s employers increased their payrolls by 88,000 last month, compared with 268,000 in February, according to a Labor Department report released Friday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/business/economy/us-adds-only-88000-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-to-7-6.html?_r=0
not terribly surprising. didn't look to be a good month with the sequester, uncertainty, and all of the global BS. i was frankly stunned when they predicted 200,000. we need some new economists, because it's always "unexpected."
Oh, did I say good news? Whoops, my bad."Having such a disappointing figure in March will have a volcanic negative impact on sentiment in critical economic areas, such as housing," said Todd Schoenberger, managing partner at LandColt Capital."
At least 80,000 is better than zero. At least, I think it is, I've never been particularly gifted at math.
Better than the depression, too. If we're going to set the bar low, let's set it really low.i agree completely. at one point, we were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. to top it off, i was unemployed then. this beats the hell out of 2009.
not terribly surprising. didn't look to be a good month with the sequester, uncertainty, and all of the global BS. i was frankly stunned when they predicted 200,000. we need some new economists, because it's always "unexpected."
No problem! PPACA will add about 140,000 very well paying "navigator" (broker?) jobs ($40K to $100K per year?) just to help the folks figure out how to play the Obamacare exchange game - but, we are told, that they will not make PPACA "recomendations" thus need no state "licensing". How much do you want to bet that they will also be glad to assist with voter registration?
HHS: States can license navigators | LifeHealthPro
Feds: Brokers can be HHS exchange navigators | LifeHealthPro
HHS proposes broker compensation rules for health insurance exchanges | Insurance & Financial Advisor I IFAwebnews.com
Better than the depression, too. If we're going to set the bar low, let's set it really low.
i agree completely. at one point, we were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. to top it off, i was unemployed then. this beats the hell out of 2009.
No problem! PPACA will add about 140,000 very well paying "navigator" (broker?) jobs ($40K to $100K per year?) just to help the folks figure out how to play the Obamacare exchange game - but, we are told, that they will not make PPACA "recomendations" thus need no state "licensing". How much do you want to bet that they will also be glad to assist with voter registration?
HHS: States can license navigators | LifeHealthPro
Feds: Brokers can be HHS exchange navigators | LifeHealthPro
HHS proposes broker compensation rules for health insurance exchanges | Insurance & Financial Advisor I IFAwebnews.com
What we are shedding now are people leaving the labor force by stop looking for jobs. Obama will soon have the unemployment rate under 7% if he continues with his economic policies that punish job creators and adds red tape to the hiring process along with higher taxes. Keep cutting the size of the labor force which seems to be the liberal way of cutting unemployment. Not a pretty picture except to those who want a massive central govt with millions dependent.
How will he have it under 7 %? I highly doubt it, if anything we need to worry about it going over 8 % under his alleged leadership.
Any competent statistician will tell you that the best predictor of future success is past performance.Are you really proposing that the best Obama can do is stagnation?
How will he have it under 7 %? I highly doubt it, if anything we need to worry about it going over 8 % under his alleged leadership.
Yeah, maybe Obama should quit talking about guns and get back to thinking about jobs. Some economists are saying Unemployment will rise to 7.8% and others are saying it will stay the same.
They never really agree on anything and yet counting numbers there really shouldn't be any excuses for mistakes.
Any competent statistician will tell you that the best predictor of future success is past performance.
90 million have completely dropped out of the workforce, bloating welfare, and disability roles
It's ironic that people who dn't like Obama generally have the opinion that government can't do anything to create jobs, and they also know if Obama is talking jobs, he is talking about government actions to stimulate job creation, which they adamantly oppose, but when Obama isn't talking about jobs, then they complain about that.
The only action they would support is the action that we all know Obama won't take, and that is what conservatives often refer to as getting out of the way, and the rest of us call it letting business interests exploit every American resource, from workers to the environment.
Do you conservatives REALLY want Obama to talk jobs, or is this just a kneejerk complaint, or worse, do you expect that Obama is suddenly going to favor conservative supply side policies?
What we are shedding now are people leaving the labor force by stop looking for jobs. Obama will soon have the unemployment rate under 7% if he continues with his economic policies that punish job creators and adds red tape to the hiring process along with higher taxes. Keep cutting the size of the labor force which seems to be the liberal way of cutting unemployment. Not a pretty picture except to those who want a massive central govt with millions dependent.
"Not in the Labor Force" (currently 89,967,000) does NOT mean "dropped out of the Labor Force." It means did not work or have a job the week of March 10-16, and either could not have started work that week or did not look for a job after Feb 16th.
This includes 14.8 million high school and college students, 22.6 million non-disabled people 65 and older, 23 million disabled (some overlap with sudents). I don't have the data on stay home spouses or independently wealthy.
92.5% of those not in the labor force say they don't want a job and of those who say they do, over half haven't bothered to look in over a year.
How are you claiming that someone who goes from Employed to Not in the Labor force means fewer people are unemployed????Figure out how the unemployment rate is calculated and you will understand that when people drop out of the labor force they also drop off the roles of the unemployed meaning fewer people are unemployed and a lower labor force, that will mean a lower percentage unemployed.
Let's see .. a recession is defined as two consecutive calendar quarters of down GDP. We were down at the end of December .. and let's see what the end of March looks like.U.S. employers added just 88,000 jobs in March, the fewest in nine months and a sharp retreat after a period of strong hiring. The slowdown may signal that the economy is heading into a weak spring.
That's the correct direction .. but, you know, with the GDP down in December even with Christmas, and thus things not looking that great for this quarter, it doesn't really make sense that unemployment would be dropping.The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate dipped to 7.6 percent, the lowest in four years, from 7.7 percent.
Well, there we go, the real reason unemployment has fallen in recent months: piss poor tabulation techniques!But the rate fell only because more people stopped looking for work. People who are out of work are no longer counted as unemployed once they stop looking for a job.
Oh well would you look at that -- unemployment is also tied to the definition of a recession by some, and if an administration can sweep the truth under a technicality rug that unemployment is really rising .. which it does by simply not even attempting to come close to counting all the ever increasing "discouraged workers" even in the obscure "deeper" formulas .. then we'll never know whether this definition has occurred!In a 1975 New York Times article, economic statistician Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was "two down consecutive quarters of GDP".[3] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten. Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months.[4]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?