June Hiring Up, Unemployment Rate Drops

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know what they are but something is keeping rates artificially low. Pressure from the WH (Snow?) I can't put my finger on it.
Treasuries are traded just like anything else, why does the whitehouse not prop up the dow?
Who says they're not? Look at the brokers getting into trouble for fraudulent practices.

This "recovery" is completely tilted to the corporate bottom line and the gov't is still going further and further into debt each month with no end in sight.
You grasping...back to everything is illusion unless the news is bad...
Grasping? Christ, man! Look at the news! Look at the numbers! Only someone trained in the Goebbels School of Propaganda sees this as a faultering economy.

fixed...
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
Real wages are down (wages aren't even keeping up with inflation for the majority of workers while CEOs are reaping millions and millions)
The euro lost its "edge" by the end of 1999 and by spring 2002 it was at about .87 vs. the dollar but is now back up to 1.19 vs. the dollar.
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.


Oh, as for homeownership, that's only because interest rates are incredibly low (while prices are skyrocketing.) Once those rates start climbing, ARM holders and interest-only mortgage holders are going to be in for a world of hurt.

Having a weak dollar against the euro is good. It allows us to sell our goods cheaper there, as well as makes european goods more expensive here.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: conjur
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.

The S&D people cannot explain why gas is not at least $4 a gallon based on the % of increase because it is all bullsh!t.

Because oil is not the only cost in making gas...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: conjur
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.

The S&D people cannot explain why gas is not at least $4 a gallon based on the % of increase because it is all bullsh!t.

Because oil is not the only cost in making gas...

There's the greed factor - i.e. Corporate profits (records) and gasoline taxes (record). (and the government doesn't even want to spend the gasoline taxes on the highways that it was intended to - Bush threatens to veto highway bill - bill still stuck)

 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
June Hiring Up, Unemployment Rate Drops


WASHINGTON - Hiring around the country picked up slightly in June with employers adding 146,000 jobs ? helping to push the unemployment rate down to 5 percent, the lowest in nearly four years.

The latest snapshot of the nation's jobs climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, supported the view of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues that the labor market continues to improve gradually.

The modest payroll gain of 146,000 jobs in June was up from 104,000 net jobs added in May. Payroll growth for both April and May turned out to be better than the government previously reported. Still, the strength of job growth seen in June was likely to disappoint economists. Before the release of the report, they were forecasting a more robust increase of around 195,000 jobs for the month.

"It all suggests that the labor market is improving a bit. But it's kind of anemic compared with what we were expecting. It really does validate the Fed's view. There is a gradual improvement in the labor market. But it is very gradual," said William Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

Manufacturers shed jobs in June for the fourth month in a row. Job growth slowed in retailing but picked up briskly in professional and business services, and in the leisure and hospitality field.

The 5 percent civilian unemployment rate, meanwhile, was down a notch from the 5.1 percent registered in May. It matched the jobless rate in September 2001 and was bested only by a 4.9 percent unemployment rate in August 2001.

The Federal Reserve, wanting to keep inflation in check, lifted a key interest rate by one-quarter percentage point to 3.25 percent last week. Fed policymakers suggested the economy and the job market are in good shape despite the toll of high energy prices.

"Although energy prices have risen further, the expansion remains firm and labor market conditions continue to improve gradually," Fed policymakers said last week.

Oil prices surged to $61.28 a barrel on Wednesday, a closing price that marked a new record high.

Still with the labor market improving gradually rather than by leaps and bounds, economists said Friday's report justifies the Fed staying on its course of modest, quarter-point interest rate increases this year.

The labor market, which has seen uneven job growth from month to month, is one part of the economy that has struggled to get back to full throttle after the 2001 recession. Economists would like to see steady payroll gains of at least 150,000 each month.

President Bush, plagued by questions about the health of the job market in his first term, wants to see the country enjoy good economic conditions, especially as he tries to sell his plans for overhauling Social Security.

In June, manufacturers cut 24,000 jobs. Makers of motor vehicles and parts, which have cut production and offered promotions to sell off excess inventories and entice buyers, lost 18,000 jobs over the month.

Professional and business services, however, added a robust 56,000 jobs in June, up from 10,000 new positions created in May. Employment in financial activities grew by 16,000, an improvement from the 4,000 new jobs seen in the previous month. Leisure and hospitality companies stepped up payrolls by 19,000 in June after being flat in May.

Education and health services expanded payrolls by 38,000, down from 46,000 in May. Retailers added just over 2,000 jobs in June, compared with roughly 15,000 the month before.

The average time that the unemployed spent in their search for work in June was 17.1 weeks, an improvement from the average 18.8 weeks registered in May.

Workers' average hourly earnings, meanwhile, rose to $16.06 in June, up from $16.03 in May.

The unemployment rate is calculated on the basis of a survey of 60,000 households, sort of a poll of the jobs market. Economists tend to give more credence to the much broader survey of payrolls, which examines 400,000 work sites. That's the survey that showed 146,000 jobs were generated in June.



I guess this is the meaningful job creation that the left wanted.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
no more or less relevant that it has been in the past. You dont like the number so you want it be irrelivent
No, it's becoming obsolete. People are remaining unemployed for very long periods of time and they are dropping off the report. Also, those who are finding employment are finding increasingly that jobs are part-time, pay less, and/or offer little to no benefits.
You once again mistake how the unemployment is calculated. It is done by survey, not unemployment rolls. Time to drop that partisan game. Nor is ther eany evidence that new jobs are worse than old jobs. It time to drop this act.
As I've pointed out many times before, the unemployment survey number is deceptive because it counts someone as "employed" if they worked even a single hour in the survey period, regardless of their former employment. Used to draw a six-figure salary with full benefits, but today you work part-time at Wal-Mart for $6 per hour and no benefits? Congratulations, the BLS counts you as employed. Haven't been able to find employment for two years, but your neighbor gave you $5 to mow her lawn last week? Congratulations, the BLS counts you as employed.

The BLS also ignores anyone not "actively" looking for work, no matter what their former employment status was. For example, if you've gone back to school because you could not find a job, you are ignored by BLS, even if your preference would be to be working. The same goes for discouraged workers who are no longer sending in resumes or applications because they've already applied at every suitable employer in their area: ignored by BLS. That's not an unreasonable approach, but people need to understand that not everyone who is unemployed but prefers to work is counted as unemployed. (And remember the BLS changed its employment reporting methodology in January, 2003, causing a one-month jump of over one million "jobs". Note that these were NOT real jobs, however, just an artifact of their new methodology. Any comparisons of pre-2003 employment with 2003+ employment needs to be adjusted to get an apples-to-apples comparison.)

Further, in spite of a few happy anecdotes, there is ample statistical evidence the overall quality of employment is dropping for typical wage earners. The number of people who involuntarily accepted part-time employment instead of full-time jumped by 30+% over the first four years of Bush 43. The statistical distribution of employment has shifted to lower-paying sectors, and the average annual wage dropped significantly. Finally, let's not forget that we are still in the hole on total jobs when one recognizes we need roughly 150,000 additional jobs per month just to stay even with the growth in the work force. In other words, over an average four-year period, anything less than about 7,000,000 additional jobs represents an employment shortfall.

Given those facts, I'd say it's time for you, charrison, to "drop that partisan game" and "drop this act". Yes, the employment situation is improving, but it is not all roses as you continually imply.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
146,000 new jobs in June, eh? Not looking good.

150,000 is the minimum to maintain equilibrium with incoming participants of the workforce.

Unemployment number is meaningless anymore as it's based upon a survey and if people are part-time or working at low wages, they don't consider themselves unemployed. This is not a robust economy any way you want to slice it.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
Real wages are down (wages aren't even keeping up with inflation for the majority of workers while CEOs are reaping millions and millions)
The euro lost its "edge" by the end of 1999 and by spring 2002 it was at about .87 vs. the dollar but is now back up to 1.19 vs. the dollar.
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.


Oh, as for homeownership, that's only because interest rates are incredibly low (while prices are skyrocketing.) Once those rates start climbing, ARM holders and interest-only mortgage holders are going to be in for a world of hurt.
Having a weak dollar against the euro is good. It allows us to sell our goods cheaper there, as well as makes european goods more expensive here.
That would be fine if we were running a trade surplus. Seen the numbers lately?

All the weak dollar is doing is making imports (esp. oil) more expensive)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
146,000 new jobs in June, eh? Not looking good.

150,000 is the minimum to maintain equilibrium with incoming participants of the workforce.

Unemployment number is meaningless anymore as it's based upon a survey and if people are part-time or working at low wages, they don't consider themselves unemployed. This is not a robust economy any way you want to slice it.


But the average is what 185k a month for the last year or so. WHat are you complaing about again?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
Real wages are down (wages aren't even keeping up with inflation for the majority of workers while CEOs are reaping millions and millions)
The euro lost its "edge" by the end of 1999 and by spring 2002 it was at about .87 vs. the dollar but is now back up to 1.19 vs. the dollar.
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.


Oh, as for homeownership, that's only because interest rates are incredibly low (while prices are skyrocketing.) Once those rates start climbing, ARM holders and interest-only mortgage holders are going to be in for a world of hurt.
Having a weak dollar against the euro is good. It allows us to sell our goods cheaper there, as well as makes european goods more expensive here.
That would be fine if we were running a trade surplus. Seen the numbers lately?

All the weak dollar is doing is making imports (esp. oil) more expensive)



That explains why oil(more expensive) and the dollar(stronger) are going in opposite direction for the last year...

You might also want to learn from history that trade surpluses in the US go with bad ecnomic times, so careful for what you wish for. Oh yea you always want bad economic times.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
Real wages are down (wages aren't even keeping up with inflation for the majority of workers while CEOs are reaping millions and millions)
The euro lost its "edge" by the end of 1999 and by spring 2002 it was at about .87 vs. the dollar but is now back up to 1.19 vs. the dollar.
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.


Oh, as for homeownership, that's only because interest rates are incredibly low (while prices are skyrocketing.) Once those rates start climbing, ARM holders and interest-only mortgage holders are going to be in for a world of hurt.
Having a weak dollar against the euro is good. It allows us to sell our goods cheaper there, as well as makes european goods more expensive here.
That would be fine if we were running a trade surplus. Seen the numbers lately?

All the weak dollar is doing is making imports (esp. oil) more expensive)

Strength of the dollar has nothing to do with oil prices...Oil is pegged to the dollar, so the strength of the dollar doesn't matter. If you look at the past year, the dollar has surged...and so have oil prices. That goes against your theory that a weak dollar creates high oil costs.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
146,000 new jobs in June, eh? Not looking good.

150,000 is the minimum to maintain equilibrium with incoming participants of the workforce.

Unemployment number is meaningless anymore as it's based upon a survey and if people are part-time or working at low wages, they don't consider themselves unemployed. This is not a robust economy any way you want to slice it.
But the average is what 185k a month for the last year or so. WHat are you complaing about again?
Are you making these numbers up? According to the most recent BLS figures, the standard seasonally-adjusted non-farm employment has increased from 131,479K in June of 2004 to a (preliminary) 133,537K in June 2005. That is an increase of 2,058K jobs for the year, or an average of 171,500 per month. Better than break-even, yet once again not as rosy as you said.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
146,000 new jobs in June, eh? Not looking good.

150,000 is the minimum to maintain equilibrium with incoming participants of the workforce.

Unemployment number is meaningless anymore as it's based upon a survey and if people are part-time or working at low wages, they don't consider themselves unemployed. This is not a robust economy any way you want to slice it.
But the average is what 185k a month for the last year or so. WHat are you complaing about again?
Are you making these numbers up? According to the most recent BLS figures, the standard seasonally-adjusted non-farm employment has increased from 131,479K in June of 2004 to a (preliminary) 133,537K in June 2005. That is an increase of 2,058K jobs for the year, or an average of 171,500 per month. Better than break-even, yet once again not as rosy as you said.



A number off the top of my head...forgive the minor inaccuracy...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
The unemployment number is becoming obsolete and you know that.
Real wages are down (wages aren't even keeping up with inflation for the majority of workers while CEOs are reaping millions and millions)
The euro lost its "edge" by the end of 1999 and by spring 2002 it was at about .87 vs. the dollar but is now back up to 1.19 vs. the dollar.
Spring 2002 oil was at about $25/bbl and is now over $61.

Those are facts that are indisputable.


Oh, as for homeownership, that's only because interest rates are incredibly low (while prices are skyrocketing.) Once those rates start climbing, ARM holders and interest-only mortgage holders are going to be in for a world of hurt.
Having a weak dollar against the euro is good. It allows us to sell our goods cheaper there, as well as makes european goods more expensive here.
That would be fine if we were running a trade surplus. Seen the numbers lately?

All the weak dollar is doing is making imports (esp. oil) more expensive)

Strength of the dollar has nothing to do with oil prices...Oil is pegged to the dollar, so the strength of the dollar doesn't matter. If you look at the past year, the dollar has surged...and so have oil prices. That goes against your theory that a weak dollar creates high oil costs.
Hmmm


July 2004:
1.22661 USD

End of June 2005:
1.21553 USD


Ooooo....the dollar has been ON FIRE!


:roll:

The dollar has weakened against the Euro since it started being traded.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ntdz

Strength of the dollar has nothing to do with oil prices...Oil is pegged to the dollar, so the strength of the dollar doesn't matter.

If you look at the past year, the dollar has surged...and so have oil prices.

That goes against your theory that a weak dollar creates high oil costs.

Well at least this got folks disputing what drives Oil and Gas prices.

Absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand.

The good news is it looks like Gas will finally be where it should be in relation to the price per barrel.

They were told to hold back until last week when they got the go ahead to raise gas to $3.

Yes, it is pre-planned and approved by our Government.

I spoke with an Official personally 2 weeks ago when the discussions were taking place and that person has to remain anonymous of course.