Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 110,000 in March -not 230000

[papau]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Friday, April 1, 2005.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MARCH 2005

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 110,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate declined to 5.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Several industries added jobs
over the month, including construction, mining, health care, and wholesale
trade.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.7 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.2 percent, decreased in March. The jobless rate was down from 5.7 per-
cent a year earlier. Over the month, the unemployment rates for adult men
(4.6 percent), whites (4.4 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (5.7 percent)
declined. The unemployment rates for adult women (4.5 percent), teenagers
(16.9 percent), and blacks or African Americans (10.3 percent) were little
changed. The jobless rate for Asians was 3.9 percent, not seasonally adjusted.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In March, persons who had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more accounted
for 21.5 percent of the unemployed, down from 23.8 percent a year earlier. Job
losers made up 49.1 percent of the unemployed in March, down from 53.5 percent
a year earlier. (See tables A-8 and A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment and the employment-population ratio were about unchanged
in March at 140.5 million and 62.4 percent, respectively. The civilian labor
force participation rate was 65.8 percent for the third straight month. (See
table A-1.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

There were 1.6 million persons who were marginally attached to the labor
force in March, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked
for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed,
however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey. The number of discouraged workers, at 480,000 in March, was little
changed from a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally
attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed
no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had
not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsi-
bilities. (See table A-13.)

- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| Feb.-
Category | 2004 | 2005 | 2005 | Mar.
|________|________|__________________________|change
| IV | I | Jan. | Feb. | Mar. |
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|____________________________________________________
Civilian labor force.....| 148,136| 148,089| 147,979| 148,132| 148,157| 25
Employment.............| 140,092| 140,296| 140,241| 140,144| 140,501| 357
Unemployment...........| 8,044| 7,794| 7,737| 7,988| 7,656| -332
Not in labor force.......| 76,282| 76,949| 76,858| 76,909| 77,079| 170
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Unemployment rates
|____________________________________________________
All workers..............| 5.4| 5.3| 5.2| 5.4| 5.2| -0.2
Adult men..............| 4.9| 4.7| 4.7| 4.9| 4.6| -.3
Adult women............| 4.7| 4.6| 4.6| 4.7| 4.5| -.2
Teenagers..............| 17.1| 16.9| 16.3| 17.5| 16.9| -.6
White..................| 4.6| 4.5| 4.4| 4.6| 4.4| -.2
Black or African | | | | | |
American.............| 10.8| 10.6| 10.6| 10.9| 10.3| -.6
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 6.7| 6.1| 6.1| 6.4| 5.7| -.7
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
ESTABLISHMENT DATA | Employment
|____________________________________________________
Nonfarm employment.......| 132,302|p132,772| 132,573|p132,816|p132,926| p110
Goods-producing(1).....| 22,000| p22,047| 22,004| p22,056| p22,080| p24
Construction.........| 7,063| p7,119| 7,090| p7,121| p7,147| p26
Manufacturing........| 14,338| p14,314| 14,307| p14,322| p14,314| p-8
Service-providing(1)...| 110,302|p110,725| 110,569|p110,760|p110,846| p86
Retail trade(2)......| 15,072| p15,104| 15,081| p15,120| p15,111| p-10
Professional and | | | | | |
business services..| 16,633| p16,751| 16,694| p16,766| p16,793| p27
Education and health | | | | | |
services...........| 17,110| p17,193| 17,178| p17,189| p17,212| p23
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality........| 12,569| p12,627| 12,611| p12,630| p12,640| p10
Government...........| 21,702| p21,734| 21,710| p21,741| p21,750| p9
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Hours of work(3)
|____________________________________________________
Total private............| 33.7| p33.7| 33.7| p33.7| p33.7| p0.0
Manufacturing..........| 40.6| p40.6| 40.7| p40.6| p40.5| p-.1
Overtime.............| 4.5| p4.5| 4.5| p4.6| p4.4| p-.2
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)
|____________________________________________________
Total private............| 101.2| p101.7| 101.5| p101.7| p101.8| p0.1
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Earnings(3)
|____________________________________________________
Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| $15.83| p$15.92| $15.90| p$15.91| p$15.95| p$0.04
Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| 533.89| p536.51| 535.83| p536.17| p537.52| p1.35
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

1 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
2 Quarterly averages and the over-the-month change are calculated using
unrounded data.
3 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.
p=preliminary.

- 3 -


Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 110,000 in March to 132.9
million, seasonally adjusted. Industries with over-the-month job gains in-
cluded construction, mining, health care, and wholesale trade. Payroll emp-
loyment has risen by 2.1 million over the year and by 3.1 million since its
most recent trough in May 2003. (See table B-1.)

Within the goods-producing sector, construction employment rose by 26,000
in March, following a gain of similar magnitude in February. This industry
has added 489,000 jobs since its most recent low in March 2003. Residential
building and residential specialty trade contractors together accounted for
70 percent of the 2-year gain. Employment rose in mining for the fifth con-
secutive month. This industry has added 22,000 jobs since October 2004,
mainly in support services for oil and gas operations.

Manufacturing employment was little changed (-8,000) in March. Small job
losses occurred in textile mills (-2,000) and apparel (-5,000), as both in-
dustries continued to experience long-term job declines. Since last summer,
manufacturing employment has declined slightly.

In the service-providing sector, health care added 16,000 jobs in March,
with hospitals accounting for half of the growth. Over the year, health care
employment has increased by 243,000.

Wholesale trade employment was up by 15,000 over the month, with gains in
both its durable and nondurable components. Since its most recent low in
August 2003, the industry has added 112,000 jobs.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend upward
in March (27,000). Over the year, monthly job gains in this broad industry
category have averaged 51,000. Within professional and business services,
temporary help employment was about unchanged in March, following an increase
of 26,000 in February.

Elsewhere among service-providing industries, employment continued to trend
up in food services and in credit intermediation. Following strong growth in
February, retail trade employment was about unchanged in March. The industry
has added 89,000 jobs over the year. In March, job losses continued in air
transportation; this industry has lost 127,000 jobs since its peak in April
2001.

- 4 -

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours in March, seasonally adjusted.
The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours. Manufacturing
overtime fell by 0.2 hour over the month to 4.4 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers
on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 percent in March to 101.8 (2002=100).
The manufacturing index was down by 0.2 percent over the month to 93.8. (See
table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents in March to $15.95, seasonally adjusted.
Average weekly earnings increased by 0.3 percent over the month to $537.52.
Over the year, average hourly earnings and average weekly earnings each grew
by 2.6 percent. (See table B-3.)
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aHAUYkMHswTw&refer=home
U.S. March Payrolls Rise 110,000, Trailing Forecast (Update1)
April 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers added 110,000 workers in March, trailing even the lowest economist estimate as rising costs crimped the job market. Bonds and stocks rose on speculation the Federal Reserve won't need to raise interest rates as quickly as investors expected.

The increase follows a revised gain of 243,000 jobs in February that was smaller than previously estimated, the Labor Department said today. The median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey was for an increase of 213,000. The jobless rate declined to 5.2 percent from 5.4 percent in February. <snip>

``It's indicative of an economy that's decelerating,'' said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research Corp. in New York, whose forecast of 165,000 jobs was the lowest in the survey. ``The new Fed conundrum is when to stop the tightening.''

Revisions show the economy added 27,000 fewer jobs in January and February than previously estimated. Job gains were predicted to fall from February's previously reported increase of 262,000. Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged up to 300,000.

[swag]

1. Whoa! What an airball!

And what shitty news for America's workforce.

Paradoxically, the stock market may love it because it will force the Fed to remain accommodative and will ease any wage inflation fears.


What a crappy number.

[swag]

9. Weak jobs=stock rally?

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/01/markets/stockswatch/index.htm

Futures, bond prices spike following a dim March employment report.
April 1, 2005: 8:40 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Stock futures jumped Friday following a weaker-than-expected March employment report, indicating a strong start for Wall Street.

U.S. stock futures rose sharply just after the 8:30 a.m. ET Labor Department report.

Only 110,000 jobs were added to U.S. payrollls in March, versus a forecast from economists surveyed by Briefing.com for 220,000 jobs to be added. But the weaker number could be interpreted as a signal that the Federal Reserve will be reluctant to raise interest rates at a pace faster than the current one.

. . .

[ClintonTyree]

11. Bingo...............

but the dollar, which has been making a comeback of late because people believe the Fed may take a more agressive posture on interest rates, will tank again. BIG TIME! I'd hate to be long in the dollar today.

[swag]

12. You're right on, there.

Dollar down into the shitter, past $1.30/euro again as you typed.

[cthrumatrix]

15. it's 401k money coming in 1st day of the month.....market makers dream$$$

then a few days later...watch what happnes.

[cthrumatrix]

2. Shrub plays an Arpil Fool's joke on the US..........again

[durablend]

40. Unfortunately, it's the joke that repeats...

Every day he's in office...

[papau]

3. 170000 stop looking for work= unemployment rate goes down to 5.2% from 5.4

I guess that is more good news from "tax cuts for the rich and deficits for the kids" GOP/Bush.

[cthrumatrix]

4. the MSM message "unemployment dropped"...all hail shrubya

[papau]

5. I wonder: Any mention that real unemployment =U-6 -still 9.3%

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm HOUSEHOLD DATA

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

(Percent)



Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted

Measure

Mar. Feb. Mar. Mar. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
2004 2005 2005 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of
the civilian labor force................................. 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as
a percent of the civilian labor force.................... 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor
force (official unemployment rate)....................... 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.2

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers..... 6.4 6.1 5.7 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.5

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached
workers.................................................. 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.2

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers......................................... 10.4 9.9 9.4 9.9 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.1

[cthrumatrix]

7. the corp media thinks U6 is a "submarine" from McHale's Navy

[papau]

20. 7.7 million unemployed an average 19.5 weeks - highest since Nov 04

There were 7.7 million people unemployed in March with the average duration of 19.5 weeks without work, the highest since November

[mhr]

27. At 60 Months, I Guess I Am An Extreme Outlier

eom

[nickinSTL]

29. Sorry, my fiancee too

My fiancee's been out of work since August 2000.

And another of our friends who work in IT lost her job yesterday.

What job recovery, again?

[mhr]

31. Yes It Is Pathetic How Few Jobs Are Being Created By This Economy

Please pass on my sympathies.

[Birthmark]

41. You are absolutely right.

The increase in employment level under Bush was 1.7% as of January, 2005. Under no other President in the last 33 years was the increase less 3.1%; and that was his father's rate. Aside from his dad, no other President had in increase in employment level below 5.7% - and five of the last nine Administrations increased employment level 8% or more.

Bush sucks.

[mhr]

45. Yes, And The Experts Agree

"Overall, this level of (job) creation represents the worst job performance since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression)."

http://www.jobwatch.org /

"In the previous five expansionary economic cycles the average increase in employment over the first 39 months was 10.1%. In the current cycle the increase is 1.5%.

If employment had climbed by 10.1 % since November 2001, we would have added 13.2 million jobs instead of the 1.9 million actually reported. That’s a difference of 11.3 million jobs."

http://www.comstockfunds.com/screenprint.cfm?newsletterid=1165

My Conclusion: The American middle class is fast approaching demise and will need life support to survive!

[Birthmark]

36. Funny thing about the U- numbers.

After 12 months of not looking for work, a person is dropped from ALL of the U-series. They are simply categorized as "Not in Labor Force." The number of people Not in Labor Force has increased by nearly six million since Bush took office. This dwarfs any other increase under any other President by more than 2 million.

[mhr]

46. Wow!

eom

[UpInArms]

24. saw this line in the Forex report

http://www.dailyfx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=537&Itemid=39

excerpted from the CHF view:

An interesting report released by the Federal Reserve today indicated that due to a lower workforce participation rate, only 93,000 jobs need to be created each month to keep the unemployment rate unchanged.

[ClintonTyree]

6. The talking heads on CNBC.........................

are STILL raving about how GREAT this economy is. :eyes: It's SOOOOOO healthy! :rofl: Of course, that's their job, bullshitting people into putting their money into the casino........and losing it.

5.2% unemployment? NEVER do these asswipes consider all of those who's unemployment benefits have lapsed, and those who just quit looking for work because there's nothing out there.

The majority of those 110,000 jobs are in the SERVICE INDUSTRY, which usually pay no better than minimum wage.

Yeah, "this economy is very sound". :eyes: How long can they keep THIS lie going, the freaking wheels are falling off.

[swag]

17. Hey, quitcher bitchin' and sell your kids on eBay like an American!

Get with the Ownership Society!

[Catchawave]

28. LOL, eBay was the first thing that came to my mind.....

That is, 110,000 is probably how many new sellers joined last month!

[htuttle]

18. CNBC is the equivalent of a carnival barker

"Step right up and double your money, folks! You won't want to miss out on this great opportunity. Come one, come all!"

Actually, that sounds like a lot of spam I get, too.

[southernboy]

8. Disaster and people are dropping out of the labor pool

But everyone is taking credit
for getting this number right.

We're in a new world.

Now, how's the pope doin'?

[cthrumatrix]

10. "look over there"....quick..... don't look at the "underlying facts"

[ClintonTyree]

14. Hey southernboy...........

welcome to DU. :hi: What part of the south are you from?

[southernboy]

23. Thank you Clinton Tyree. I live in Bossier City n/t

[papau]

13. Out of 110000 new jobs, 179000 are pretend "birth/death" at home work

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural Resources & Mining
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Construction
38 39 31 -7 16 10 2 -7 -7
Manufacturing
3 8 7 -22 4 6 -10 2 2
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
15 26 20 -25 18 19 11 13 19
Information
2 3 1 -6 3 -2 2 2 2
Financial Activities
10 7 8 -12 8 4 8 5 13
Professional & Business Services
66 26 24 -32 24 14 41 -5 9
Education & Health Services
37 11 -2 -10 17 15 29 9 8
Leisure & Hospitality
45 77 84 45 27 -24 -25 -12 16
Other Services
9 6 7 -11 5 2 -3 2 4
Total
225 204 181 -80 123 44 55 9 66



2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural Resources & Mining
-5 0 0
Construction
-60 9 31
Manufacturing
-38 3 6
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
-50 9 25
Information
1 3 -1
Financial Activities
-7 9 9
Professional & Business Services
-115 21 56
Education & Health Services
7 14 8
Leisure & Hospitality
-6 28 37
Other Services
-7 4 8
Total
-280 100 179

[KayLaw]

16. I understand the Birth/Death Adjustment

I have a hard time understanding the charts. Does this mean that we're actually losing jobs without counting the employees of closed businesses as new jobs? I so, how many did we lose this month?

[papau]

19. yes - most likely

:-(

They do not say in the easily available data the actually numbers of closed business jobs lost put back in as new jobs they just have not found yet. (I am sure they do somewhere but I must run out at the moment and do not recall where that number is)

The correction to 2004 Annual data reported in Feb/March 1099/w-2 data will not be out for 6 months. It is not a lock down to a number correction - but instead to a stat number -- they just use the real number to test for a better 5 year "fit" of guesses - and then publish a revised guess correction for birth death.

That is as close as we get to a "real count" - albeit only via statistics on birth death and annual reported actual payroll with a 9 month lag.

[papau]

21. Value of dollar drops - heading north of $1.31per Euro soon

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aO5UkIloooXU&refer=home

Dollar Drops; Job Growth Falls Short of Economists' Forecasts
April 1 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar fell the most in more than two weeks against the euro after a government report showed the U.S. economy created fewer jobs than expected last month.

American employers hired 110,000 workers, compared with a median forecast of 213,000 from economists polled by Bloomberg. The figure may damp speculation the Federal Reserve will scrap its ``measured'' pace of interest rate increases in favor of bigger, half-percentage-point moves to contain inflation.

``This is a very, very bearish report,'' said Kenneth Landon, senior currency strategist in New York at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. ``The dollar is resuming declines after a respite and with this number we can see a push back to $1.31 per euro very soon.''

[HughBeaumont]

22. Doesn't even cover the churn. Bushonomics at it's FINEST.

Bond market is rallying like a mofo. Last month was revised down. As Iraq burns and main street has zero bargaining power, Lancelot Link and his gaggle of warbastards and yacht drivers could give two flying fuckolas.

[papau]

25. I wonder why no one comments on the 27000 job gains in Jan/Feb that went

missing in the report

just a correction to prior numbers - nothing to see here folks.

[mhr]

26. Does Not Cover The Growth Of New Entrants - Immigrants, HS, College, Etc.

Pathetic!

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Used To Get Arguments About This Here, But. . .

. . .i'll do it again. The methodology used by the Commerce and Treasury economists is statistically flawed. The values released are overestimated high nearly 80% of the time. About 10% they estimate negatively, and 10% they estimate correctly.

Many, many, GDP, Cash Flow, Balance of Trade, N/E, UE, and income estimates are revised downward. It's typical that they revise downward a half-quarter after the initial values.

However, there are many private and academic sector economists who produce estimates that are far more reliable, and then there are those who have predictive models that essentially identify the likely range even before it happens. Unfortunately, none of them work with the Econo-Harlots in Treasury or Commerce.
The Professor

[mhr]

32. Hi Professor, On Main Street We Know This To Be True

Because we get the door slammed in our face regularly.

I realize that is not a scientific measure.

However, it is reflective of a poorly performing economy that is not being accurately reported about.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Correct, Indeed

This is not a classically defined recession, but that's because the definition needs to be revised. This is a period of stagnation that is nearly unprecedented in the modern money transfer age.

When automation and information sharing should be propelling the economy, there is little forward movement. That tells me that absent the technology, this economy would be backsliding significantly. The velocity of money is much higher due to the tech, yet there's no growth to speak of, beyond the increased GS and the natural growth rate due to population increases. Absent those, the economy is flat at best, even in nominal terms.
The Professor

[papau]

34. Once again you speak truth clearly - "Econo-Harlots" and the media that

loves them.

:-(

[AnneD]

42. here,here

Many I borrow the 'econo-harlots'? The view from main street has not jived with wall street since late 2000 (or whenever they started pimping the party line).
I think you are being generous when you said the economy is flat. IMHO the 'recovery' was based on consumer's refi-ing their homes and trying to maintain their lifestyle/survive this economic storm. Well, this storm is lasting longer than than expected. People are not treading water anymore, they are barely holding their chin up and are exhausted. One more wave (prolonged high gas prices), their head will be under and they will be gasping for air. I think we are nearing critical mass. Any numbers to back up my gut feeling professor?

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Lots & Lots & Lots Of Numbers

More than you probably want to see. I have direct access to the SAUS database which is where all Commerce and all Treasury numbers go.

One thing to keep in mind, that re-fi doesn't enhance the economy hardly at all, given that the same money is still being spread in different ways. The savings on the monthly payment may be spent on other things, but then that would be actual nominal growth.

The economy is flat from a statistical perspective. But, remember that since consumer expectations are, and always have been, a slow but steady progression in quality of life and standard of living, flat is a bad thing. It fails to meet the Maslovian expectations that drive a capitalist system! So, when i say flat, i'm not being generous at all. Stagnation is a very bad thing from an economic sustainability perspective. It's demotivating at every level of production! It slows down growth and even the service sector at the highest levels pay the price. (Big banks HATE low ROI.)

The gas prices are a genuine concern that could actual cause modest contraction in the economy. That could be very bad for the employment levels. Don't see it affecting either real or nominal growth much, but could put forth a job crunch.

Lastly, be my guest on the econo-harlot thing. It's out there in public. I've used it, out loud, and in front a crowd at economic conferences. The econo-harlots know what i think and they know who they are.
The Professor

[Birthmark]

35. I've done a little personal research into unemployment.

One of the things I looked at was the ratio fo increase in the population to the increase in the number of people employed for the last 30+ years. Here is what I came up with:

Increase in Civilian Nonistitutional Population/Increase in Employed (numbers in thousands)
1972 -- 12098/ 6233 = 1.94
1976 -- 12024/ 6599 = 1.82
1980 -- 11595/10551 = 1.10
1984 -- 8638/ 5702 = 1.51
1988 -- 8230/ 9963 = 0.83
1992 -- 8192/ 3524 = 2.32
1996 -- 7786/ 8216 = 0.95
2000 -- 11986/10183 = 1.18
2004 -- 10780/ 2361 = 4.67

For every new person employed under W, the population increased by nearly five people. This is over twice as bad as his fater who had had the worst rate.

But everything is great, ain't it?

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Wise Analysis!

That's the problem with most of the profession. Too much two dimensional thinking, in a world that doesn't function in two dimensions.

Indexing the employment rate to population was a smart thing to do! You get an "A" on this assignment. You turned a statistic into a parameter that led to a valid conclusion. I've had grad students too stupid to even understand WHY we need to do this with the numbers.

Good work.
The Professor

[Birthmark]

38. Thanks, Professor.

I appreciate your kind words.

I spent a few days looking at the employment situation a variety of ways. I also did the same thing for the increase in employed/unemployed and increase in labor force/not in labor force. In every one of these comparisons Bush's performance wasn't just the worst of any President since 1972 (which is as far back as I felt like researching), it was worse by a multiple of two or three. It's really quite appalling that the media simply spew the U-3 number and burble about how good things are.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Clueless Drones, All

The Professor

[mhr]

48. Excellent Analysis Birthmark - Thank You For Sharing

We need more people like yourself, The Professor, Thahitinut and Papau.

Kudos to all for confirming that I am not crazy when I tell people that there are not many "good" jobs to find in this economy.

[Chicago1]

43. Alot of people ARE NOT in those numbers. Unemployed # is HIGHER

Those numbers are completely out of wack and ALOT of people are not being included.

Waiting for the IMPEACHMENT WHILE THE SCANDALS KEEP UNFOLDING
America's Work Stories
http://usaworkstoriese.blogspot.com
[email protected]

[struggle4progress]

47. Non-Farm Payrolls Disappoint Consensus

<mumble mumble> There was no fooling today as disappointing employment figures surprised the market and fell well short of consensus expectations. US Non-Farm Payrolls declined the most since August of 2004, adding only 110,000 jobs to the economy compared with estimates of a rise of 213,000 for the month of March. However, on a good note, the jobless rate dipped to 5.2 percent mainly on a decline of individuals actively participating in the workforce. Shortfalls in construction spending, factory orders and an incremental dip in University of Michigan Confidence exacerbated dollar bearish sentiment, albeit momentarily, as traders questioned the momentum in the world's largest economy. Ultimately, dollar bulls reentered following the ISM manufacturing data, confirming earlier suggestions that manufacturing growth and activity remains strong as prices paid by the sector soared to a reading of 73, up from 65.5 in February. As a result, investors witnessing confirming hints of inflationary pressures bid up the dollar with speculation of continued short-term interest rate hikes. This leads one to believe that notions of a "jobless recovery" look to finally be passé as market participants search for further signs of rising prices in boosting dollar valuation as the consistency of interest rate hikes now take center stage. <blather blather>

http://www.dailyfx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=562&Itemid=39