TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- March Payroll Report Out: 308,000 New Jobs Added
March Payroll Report Out: 308,000 New Jobs Added
Yea, I probably should have put just put it in the state of the US economy thread, but I'm not updating that until monday and econ stats like this always excite me 
.
Initial reactions: It's good news but it was long overdue and it needs to be consistent performance over the next several months. This sucks for Kerry though of which I'm slightly disappointed.
U.S. job growth soars
Gain of 308,000 jobs far better than Wall Street's forecasts; unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent.
April 2, 2004: 9:42 AM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money senior writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew at the fastest pace in nearly four years in March, the government said Friday, in a report that soared past Wall Street's expectations and could play a pivotal role in Fed policy and the presidential election.
Though economists cautioned that one month does not a trend make, it was possibly the best economic news since the onset of the last recession in 2001 -- a sign of spring for the nation's labor market, which has been mired in its longest slump since 1939.
Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 308,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 46,000 in February. The unemployment rate rose to 5.7 from 5.6 percent.
Economists, on average, had expected 123,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.
It was the strongest gain in payrolls since a matching gain of 308,000 in April 2000.
While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that 179,000 people entered the labor force in March. Employment in that survey actually fell by 3,000 jobs, resulting in a higher unemployment rate.
Still, most economists believe the survey of businesses, which is much broader, is a more accurate measure of the health of the labor market.
The surprisingly strong number should ease some of the political pressure on President Bush, who has been sharply criticized by Democrats for presiding over a net job loss so far in his administration.
It could also raise speculation that the Federal Reserve is closer than ever to raising its target for the fed funds rate, an overnight bank lending rate it manipulates to steer the economy.
Despite some signs of incipient inflation, most economists have believed that the Fed was waiting for a string of strong payrolls reports to raise rates, and Friday's report could be the first in that string.
"This definitely sets the Fed on the track for the hike they've been talking about for several months," Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, told CNNfn. "But the Fed does require that there be a sustained trend -- it requires more months like this -- not necessarily at 300,000, but at 200,000 or better."
On Wall Street, stock futures jumped, and prices plunged in the bond market, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury as high as 4.15 percent, the highest since February. Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.
The report comes after months of weakness in the jobs market and could be the boost that the Bush administration has been waiting for.
In its report, the department said service industries such as education and health care added 230,000 jobs in March. Part of the jump in services was due to the end of the grocery workers' strike in California, which brought thousands of workers back onto payrolls, but the Labor Department offered no details about the impact.
Goods-producing industries added 78,000 jobs, including 71,000 new construction jobs. Construction payrolls were actually cut in February, due mainly to bad weather. Weather in March, on the other hand, was unusually dry and mild in much of the country.
Manufacturing payrolls were unchanged, after 43 months of declines. Economists had hoped this would finally be the month factories added to payrolls, based on surveys of factory operators showing a greater inclination to hire.
Average hourly wages rose 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $15.54. But average weekly earnings slipped 88 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $523.70.
Wage growth is crucial for consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy. Hourly wages have grown just 1.8 percent in the past year, near the lowest level since 1986.
The average workweek also shrank by 0.1 hours to 33.7 hours, while the manufacturing workweek fell by 0.1 hours to 40.9 hours. Economists watch the length of the workweek as a leading indicator of employment.
Another leading indicator, temporary help payrolls, fell by about 2,000 jobs, only the second such decline in the past 11 months. Employers often hire temps before making more permanent hires, but some economists have worried that firms have lately used temps as a way to avoid paying health and other benefits.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/new...dex.htm?cnn=yes
Edit: oops neophono beat me to it.
That's 759,000 new jobs in the last 7 months. I'm Rick James, bitch! This train has left the station.
Fucking awesome.
** Note to US students who are graduating (like me): Start doing your loan consolidation paperwork now, 'cuz rates won't be this low for long.
Its a step in the right direction but a far cry from what he promised when he sold us the tax cuts.
such a hater dude.
Seems like youd be happier if the economy tanked.
I blame Bush for creating new jobs in the USA!
damn Bastard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo such a hater dude. Seems like youd be happier if the economy tanked. |
Man, I feel sorry for Disco. Dogs don't know when their owners are morons.
Totally hypothetical: What if, say, 50 liters anthrax or botulism toxin or 100 canisters of VX nerve gas turns up in a raid somewhere in the Bacca Valley and it was traced back to Saddams former regime several months or even several years from now. What would be your thoughts on that?
Say this summer job growth continues on a positive trend dispelling the notion that March and April were a fluke. What would be your thoughts then?
i think its a lie...well maybe not a "lie", but they're prolly upto some tricks again. like redefining manufacturing to include the production of burgers or sum such shit. 46000 jobs in february, almost no growth in the private sector, and then the very next month, for no particular reason, all of a sudden there's 300000+ jobs created? please.
i do however, hope that i am wrong, that 300k+ quality jobs really were created
| quote: |
| Originally posted by AnotherWay83 i think its a lie...well maybe not a "lie", but they're prolly upto some tricks again. like redefining manufacturing to include the production of burgers or sum such shit. 46000 jobs in february, almost no growth in the private sector, and then the very next month, for no particular reason, all of a sudden there's 300000+ jobs created? please. i do however, hope that i am wrong, that 300k+ quality jobs really were created |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider the Labor Department |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo "Payrolls grew an average 171,000 jobs a month in the first quarter, helped by upward revisions to January and February, versus average gains of 60,000 a month in last year's fourth quarter" Ya can't "trick" that. as much as you'd maybe like to believe "they" could, "they" can't. paranoia will destroy ya |
I really think capitalism is nice
That jobs report would seem to conflict with this one released only days ago:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ployment_states
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ That jobs report would seem to conflict with this one released only days ago: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ployment_states |
For all of you who are paranoid about the jobs number, that it was fudged, you don't quite understand how the "system" works. Yes, the Labor Dept. is technically an executive agency, but the White House has no pull whatsoever in changing the numbers. The numbers are calculated as they have been for decades, or else they wouldn't be accurate across a period of time. If the Labor Dept. wanted to change the types of jobs included, they'd have to go back and recalculate decades of numbers to get them all on the proper scale.
Plus, the people who develop these numbers are career employees of the federal government. They are not political appointees.
And furthermore, the Labor Dept. understands that the validity of these numbers means a lot to capital markets, so the neutrality of their analysis is fiercly verified internally.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok For all of you who are paranoid about the jobs number, that it was fudged, you don't quite understand how the "system" works. Yes, the Labor Dept. is technically an executive agency, but the White House has no pull whatsoever in changing the numbers. The numbers are calculated as they have been for decades, or else they wouldn't be accurate across a period of time. If the Labor Dept. wanted to change the types of jobs included, they'd have to go back and recalculate decades of numbers to get them all on the proper scale. Plus, the people who develop these numbers are career employees of the federal government. They are not political appointees. And furthermore, the Labor Dept. understands that the validity of these numbers means a lot to capital markets, so the neutrality of their analysis is fiercly verified internally. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus didn't Michael Moore write that article? After all isn't Michael just an arm of Kerry? |
| quote: |
OOPS! LABOR DEPT. LOST 321,000 AMERICAN JOBS! By JOHN CRUDELE April 1, 2004 -- LET'S make some trouble. Tomorrow morning the Labor Department will announce the number of new jobs created in March as well as the monthly unemployment rate. The experts - you will recognize them because for months they've been sitting in the corner with dunce caps on - are expecting 125,000 new positions to have appeared during the month and the unemployment rate to fall from 5.6 percent to 5.5 percent. We all know how politically sensitive these figures are, especially in a presidential election year. And I don't have to tell you how much Wall Street obsesses over them. Well, what if I told you that the Labor Department made 321,000 jobs disappear in January. If it hadn't been for this move, Washington would have reported monstrous growth of 433,000 jobs that month instead of a paltry 112,000. Don't believe me? Go to the Labor Department's website: http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm. This is a section on the so-called "birth/death model adjustment," and it's buried deep in thousands of pages of other facts and figures. You'll see a "-321" in the box under January 2004 - which means that 321,000 jobs were removed from the totals reported to the public. This'll make the experts and Republicans crazy (or at least that's my aim.) But the officially reported job count was reduced because models in the Labor Department's computers say - but can't prove - that many companies went out of business in January and took jobs with them. This is all very nutty stuff. Last year, for instance, the government computers concluded that jobs mysteriously appeared in nine of the last 10 months of 2003 because someone in the hidden netherworld of economic forecasting thought - but also couldn't prove - that new companies were being born. And remember, this company creation was supposedly happening when the economy was so blah that the folks in D.C. decided we desperately needed a tax cut. Normally the government comes up with its monthly jobs figures based on surveys of some 160,000 companies and government agencies, which may or may not tell the truth about hiring. The guesstimates on companies being born or dying are based on an economic model called the "auto-regressive integrated moving average." I don't know what the hell that means, but I did want to get some big words into this column. So let me give you a couple of bottom lines - if that isn't an oxymoron. First, take all numbers coming out of the Labor Department with a pillar of salt. Second, don't believe what the experts think. They have about as much chance of guessing the monthly labor number as Lotto queen Yolanda Vega has of figuring out which numbered balls are going to appear in the chute. Third, trust only this. After all the seasonal adjustments (which are now inexplicably done every month), the guesswork on the birth and death of companies, the millions of people who may have stopped looking for work, the offshoring of jobs and dozens of other statistical peculiarities - nobody really knows nothin' about the current job market. My guess: Friday's number will continue to show mediocre job growth because the economy isn't growing as strongly as Washington would like and because there is no real incentive for companies to take on the added cost of new workers. Let's call the rest: Fun With Numbers. |
The point is this:
If you don't believe these numbers because they are some stastical fallacy, or computer malfunction, then you should not beleive the same numbers when they say we are losing jobs.
You can't selectively say I want to listen to the Labor department only when they are reporting bad news - loss of jobs - and not good news - creation of jobs - because they are lying with their meothodoly
And that is just the thing... I haven't heard anyone (either from right or left) critize the authenticity of the numbers when they reported job losses, or meager job growth. Yet all of a sudden there is a good job growth, and people are crying fowl "no fair, no fair! this can't be! this looks bad for kerry it must be untrue".
Your thinking is politically motivated, and simply not correct - unless you are equally willing to condemn job loss numbers.
I've seen this condition before.
It's called selective reasoning disorder. It is a degenerative gasrtonuerological myopia brought on by repeated watching of old X-files episodes. In most cases it leads to sudden loss of values and sound decision making abilities.
I can recomend some excellent physicians in France that specialize in this area on an outpatient basis.
Unfreakinbelievable ... I knew the thread would turn to this eventually but I didn't know it would happen this quickly. Look people, statisticians and economists are NOT politicians. Government agencies such as the BEA, the labor department, the census bearuea, etc., are NOT politicians. They collect data as they have ALWAYS been doing for decades past, present it, and leave it up to the politicians to interpret it. Remember when Greg Mankiw from the council of economic advisors committed the political feaux pas of saying outsourcing actually aided the economy? Then EVERYBODY from the bush administration, republican congressmen, and democrats jumped on him calling for his resignation, etc.??? Guess what? He was speaking as an ECONOMIST NOT A POLITICIAN! Look, I've been following the data closely for the past 3 years through all of its up and downs so I'm going to make things quite simple for all of you ... either you value the credibility of the data as a whole or you do not beleive ANY of the data. You do not PICK AND CHOOSE which data you WANT to believe in and casually dismiss the data that goes against your arguments/convictions/beliefs unless you have a rational argument to support selective choice. Therefore which is it??? Did bush REALLY lose 2.5 million jobs as indicated by government statistics? Did Clinton REALLY maintain a 3.5% unemployment rate as indicated by government statistics? MAYBE in reality, 2000-2004 were remarkable boom years and 1992-2000 were recessionary years because government statistical agencies haven't a SHRED of credibility!!! Or MAYBE since the labor department and ANY government department are always lackeys of the administration in power we've been in CONTINUAL depression since the beginning of time!
Please ... this bipartisan bullshit is really pissing me off.
"Sticking to your guns" is not very condusive towards building integrity. One would like to think that the Bush administration is an excellent case in point. But in reality it appears that the phenomenom is widespread.
you go Occrider! Tell them!
Haven't gotten around to this topic yet. The numbers are great for last month, exactly what Bush touted them to be, for the 1st time in 7 months. Congrats. But seriously, it is good news for the economy.
The bad news, however, is people are still quite discouraged about the job market:
| quote: |
| The share of the U.S. population working or actively seeking a job has fallen to 65.9 percent, the lowest level in 16 years. Economists say the weak jobs market is causing people to give up their searches and drop out of the labor pool at an unusual pace - holding down the unemployment rate, which was 5.6 percent in February. "Normally in a recovery the participation rate would rise," said Sung Won Sohn, Wells Fargo's chief economist. "People hear about the improving economy and more job opportunities so they actually come out of the woodwork. We are seeing the opposite of what's been normal in the past. That's why the jobless rate has really become somewhat of a misleading indicator." That growing trend has caused the participation rate to fall 1.2 percentage points since the start of the recession in March 2001. This is the first time the participation rate has fallen 27 months into an economic recovery. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.