HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » U.S. Economy Adds 295,000...

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:04 AM

U.S. Economy Adds 295,000 jobs, Unemployment falls to 5.5 %

Source: New York Times

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent.

The report was a big improvement from January’s, when employment rose to a newly revised 239,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.

Economists were generally positive about the state of the nation’s recovery from the recession, despite its relatively sluggish pace.

“While there are a lot of risks out there, it feels less risky than in the past 25 to 30 years,” Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, said before Friday’s release. “It feels really, really good out there.”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0



Very good news....better than expected, much better...here is another quote from the article:

Analysts’ expectations had called for about 230,000 new jobs and for a slight decline in the unemployment rate, which ticked up slightly to 5.7 percent in January.

40 replies, 3143 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. Economy Adds 295,000 jobs, Unemployment falls to 5.5 % (Original post)
Stuart G Mar 2015 OP
Ace Rothstein Mar 2015 #1
candelista Mar 2015 #16
progree Mar 2015 #18
DCBob Mar 2015 #19
progree Mar 2015 #20
DCBob Mar 2015 #21
backscatter712 Mar 2015 #30
Ace Rothstein Mar 2015 #25
Darb Mar 2015 #37
candelista Mar 2015 #38
Botany Mar 2015 #2
Stuart G Mar 2015 #4
underpants Mar 2015 #5
Ace Rothstein Mar 2015 #6
Botany Mar 2015 #11
Ace Rothstein Mar 2015 #14
mcar Mar 2015 #3
ProudProg2u Mar 2015 #7
Dopers_Greed Mar 2015 #8
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #9
vdogg Mar 2015 #13
taught_me_patience Mar 2015 #23
procon Mar 2015 #10
brentspeak Mar 2015 #12
DCBob Mar 2015 #22
onenote Mar 2015 #24
jtuck004 Mar 2015 #28
brentspeak Mar 2015 #31
progree Mar 2015 #32
progree Mar 2015 #33
brentspeak Mar 2015 #34
progree Mar 2015 #35
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #39
question everything Mar 2015 #15
onenote Mar 2015 #36
onenote Mar 2015 #40
progree Mar 2015 #17
Scurrilous Mar 2015 #26
jtuck004 Mar 2015 #27
Jimbo S Mar 2015 #29

Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:07 AM

1. Whoa!

Those are some really good numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Rothstein (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:50 PM

16. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."-- Benjamin Disraeli

 

A whole lotta people aren't getting counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:11 PM

18. True

The official unemployment rate (U-3) only counts jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks.

This U-6 unemployment rate counts every jobless person who has looked for work, even just once in the past year, as unemployed:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709



It has come down a lot, but still not at the average of the Clinton or Bush years. But I am encouraged by the trend of the last 5 years.

By the way, a lot of people think that people who have been cut off from unemployment insurance benefits are not counted (a favorite RW meme when there is a Democratic president, and vice versa). Not true -- unemployment benefit status is not at all factored into the calculation of the national unemployment rate. Rather, it is based on a survey of 60,000 households. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:17 PM

19. The jobs numbers during the Clinton and Bush years were both skewed by bogus bubbles.

The dot come bubble and housing bubble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:20 PM

20. Yup. They sure were. Certainly makes comparisons difficult.

The most irritating thing is when people compare to some statistics that were considerably better in 2007 than today. Well, 2007 was the height of the sick feverish unsustainable housing bubble economy when people were using their homes as ATMs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And the financial sector was booming like crazy. I don't think that's the economy we should want or compare to or pine and sigh for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:24 PM

21. Exaclty.

It's like they want go back to go ole days of 2005-7. Idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:56 PM

30. U-6 dropped from 11.3% to 11.0%.

And it used to be at 17%.

You're right, it's not where it should be, but it's getting better quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:20 PM

25. Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to candelista (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:24 AM

37. The same methods are being used now as have always been used.

 

This exact post comes every month. Clue in. Positive is positive, negative is negative. Why go out of your way to shit on a positive and make it seem like a negative because you don't understand the math?

They have calculated it this way for along long time, it is no different now. Rush Limbaugh uses the same schtick to deride the president. What's your bullshit purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:36 AM

38. If you want an answer, spare the insults.

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:09 AM

2. Muzz-lyme, socialist, Kenyan, anti American, and what about BENGAHZI?

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:11 AM

4. That fellow at the podium..has done NOTHING TO HELP WITH JOBS...

NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING....

because...he is a .......NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE IS A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:14 AM

5. Yes but they will claim this news is merely from their presence as a majority

They've already done that once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:38 AM

6. You forgot Benghazi.

FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Rothstein (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:57 AM

11. I fixed it .... thank you



We really need a 10th investigation into Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:44 PM

14. I see you added Benghazi in caps.

Nice touch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:09 AM

3. K&R

Good news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:15 AM

7. The "RepubliCONS"

 

Facts...? We don't need no stinking facts...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:22 AM

8. Probable GOP response

"DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THOSE NUMBERS?!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:24 AM

9. Someone will be along shortly to tell us how horrible this is

 



"But what are the REEEEEEEAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL numbers, hmmmmmm????"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:31 PM

13. Lol.

See down thread. Didn't take long at all, you called it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:07 PM

23. They trot out the same arguments over and over again

 

#1) but... but... but... the jobs are all shitty service sector jobs!
#2) walmart must be opening more stores!
#3) labor force participation dropped again! (complete bullshit argument)
#4) U-6 is still 11%!!!!
#5) birth/death model accounted for xxx of the number jobs
#6) market is tanking!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:34 AM

10. where are the headlines?

Where are the long lines of smiling Dems queueing up in front of massed TV cameras?

Where are all the political pundits, who should be amazed, agog, and somewhat apologetic, about this good news?

Why aren't the republicans gnashing their teeth in dismay at once again being proved wrong?

My rabbit hole runneth over...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:05 PM

12. 85% of which are low-paid service sector crap jobs

Which, ethically, shouldn't be allowed to count as part of the statistics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:33 PM

22. So... you will need to recalculate all the past historical numbers to have any fair comparison.

And I suspect once you do that, today's numbers will still sound good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:13 PM

24. is there a link for the 85 percent figure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:36 PM

28. There is for 58%...

 


...
We find that during the recession (2008 Q1 to 2010 Q1), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage
occupations. By contrast, during the recovery (2010 Q1 to 2012 Q1), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which
grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations. Specifically:

Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.

Moreover, the unbalanced recession and recovery have meant that the long-term rise in inequality in the U.S. continues. The good jobs deficit is now deeper than it was at the start of the century:

Since the first quarter of 2001, employment has grown by 8.7 percent in lower-wage occupations and by 6.6 percent in higher-wage occupations.
...
a
National Employement Law Project - Full report here.

It says full report, but it doesn't fully report on the details of a plan to prop up the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. For that one needs to read Timothy "Killer" Geither's book "Stress Test". Has a really good explanation as to why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:01 PM

31. From ADP's latest job report:



http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2015/February/NER/NER-February-2015.aspx

Source: ADP®, Automatic Data Processing

ROSELAND, N.J. – March 4, 2015 – Private sector employment increased by 212,000 jobs from January to February according to the February ADP National Employment Report®.Broadly distributed to the public each month, free of charge, the ADP National Employment Report is produced by ADP®, a leading global provider of Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions, in collaboration with Moody’s Analytics. The report, which is derived from ADP’s actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally-adjusted basis.

Payrolls for businesses with 49 or fewer employees increased by 94,000 jobs in February, down slightly from 97,000 in January. Employment among companies with 50-499 employees increased by 63,000 jobs, down from 106,000 the previous month. Employment at large companies – those with 500 or more employees – increased from January adding 56,000 jobs, up from 47,000. Companies with 500-999 employees added 18,000 jobs, up from January’s 16,000. Companies with over 1,000 employees added 38,000 jobs, up from 30,000 the previous month. ... Goods-producing employment rose by 31,000 jobs in February, down from 45,000 jobs gained in January. The construction industry added 31,000 jobs, the same number as last month. Meanwhile, manufacturing added 3,000 jobs in February, well below January’s 15,000.

Service-providing employment rose by 181,000 jobs in February, down from 206,000 in January. The ADP National Employment Report indicates that professional/business services contributed 34,000 jobs in February, a drop-off from January’s 49,000. Expansion in trade/transportation/utilities grew by 31,000, a sharp decline from January’s 50,000. The 20,000 new jobs added in financial activities is an increase from last month’s 15,000 and marks the largest gain in that sector since March 2006.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:46 PM

32. The ADP's service-providing sector is not just hamburger flippers.

[font color = blue]#12>> 85% of which are low-paid service sector crap jobs which, ethically, shouldn't be allowed to count as part of the statistics.<<[/font]

[font color = blue]#31>>Service-providing employment rose by 181,000 jobs in February, down from 206,000 in January. <<[/font]

Not all service providing jobs are low wage -- the service sector is everything except goods-producers. For example, the graphic on that page in your link shows a combined increase of Trade, Transportation, & Utilities, Financial Activities, and Professional & Business of 85,000 -- most of these are middle-paying or better. We've been predominantly a service economy for probably all the way back to the 50's. Please don't make it sound like all service sector jobs are hamburger flippers.

Somehow we seem to be managing

Here is the average hourly wage of production and non-supervisory employees, adjusted for inflation (and expressed in chained 1982-1984 dollars)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032



Note this statistic does not include CEOs or any other kind of executive. This doesn't include business owners. This doesn't include managers or supervisors. These are all people working for someone else for a paycheck who have noone reporting to them. These are not the financial and economic glitteratti. And yet they are doing better than under Bush, even better than under Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:03 PM

33. Ewwuuu - I set that graph all the way back to where its data begins -- 1964

Here is the average hourly wage of production and non-supervisory employees, adjusted for inflation (and expressed in chained 1982-1984 dollars)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:29 PM

34. NYT: As U.S. Adds Jobs, Paychecks Barely Budge

Yes, most of the service sector jobs added were actually McJobs.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0

By DIONNE SEARCEYMARCH 6, 2015

...

Job growth last month was heavily concentrated in the service sector, with leisure and hospitality adding 66,000 jobs, as well as an expansion of 54,000 jobs in education and health. Construction added 29,000 jobs in February, while manufacturing increased by a modest 8,000. Gains were also made in professional services and the trade and transport sectors.

Still, one consistently dark patch in the recovery has been the sluggish growth of wages. Average hourly wages for private sector workers rose only 0.1 percent in February, after a reported 0.5 increase in January.

Slow wage growth suggests that the economy is still far from returning to its potential and is a big factor behind the sense among many Americans that the recovery has largely left them behind.

“Everyone knows of someone who has been laid off or has a friend or relative who has been laid off,” said Gary N. Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “We hear we’re on the road to recovery, but people aren’t convinced of that.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:51 AM

35. "Yes, most of the service sector jobs added were actually McJobs. " No, they were not

And your excerpt certainly doesn't support that. And most certainly neither does the wage data.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-adds-robust-295k-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-134545194--finance.html
February's hiring gains were broad-based. Some of the industries with the biggest gains include mostly low-paid work: Hotels and restaurants added 60,000 jobs, retailers 32,000. But higher-paying fields also added jobs: Professional and business services, which include accountants, engineers and lawyers, gained 51,000, construction 29,000 and financial services 10,000


[font color = blue]>> Still, one consistently dark patch in the recovery has been the sluggish growth of wages. Average hourly wages for private sector workers rose only 0.1 percent in February, after a reported 0.5 increase in January. <<[/font]

Yes, that 0.5% increase in January was really nice, coupled with a 0.7% drop in the CPI -- for a 1.2% gain in purchasing power in just one month. I bet February has a negative CPI too, so that the nominal 0.1% February rise will be something larger after the inflation adjustment.

Over the 12 month period through January 2015, inflation-adjusted wages have increased (9.07/8.81-1)*100% = 3.0%. ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032 ). That can't happen if most of the new jobs are hamburger flippers. (The inflation figures for February won't be out until late March, so I can't give you a 12 month figure through February until then).

Anyway, the earnings figures are very volatile from month to month. Something that polemicists exploit. With all the highly volatile data series in the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey, there's always the statistic of the month that looks bad and the polemicists make a huge huge hoohah over, and try to mislead people into thinking that's the record of the "Obummer administration".

Typically after a statistic moves in a bad direction, the next month it moves in a good direction, and you never hear about that. Instead, the polemicists look for, and almost always find, some other statistic that was weak or went south for the month and that's what they endlessly hoohah about. This is called "cherry-picking the bad statistic of the month".

Data of job sectors is another highly volatile data series that lend itself to polemicist mischief.

I write about all these tricks of the polemicists, "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

At the bottom of the above link's page, I cover the key job numbers from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey over longer periods of time than a month -- namely a year, and since the Jobs recovery began in March 2010. I think that's a better way to judge economic progress since a longer time period somewhat evens out the month-to-month statistical noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:54 AM

39. I heard it was like 200% of them were crap jobs. Maybe more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:49 PM

15. And the market is in a free fall

Supposedly because this will mean the feds will raise interest rates which, really, is about time.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:45 AM

36. I don't think you know what "free fall" means.

The market took a hit yesterday. It dropped by more than 200 points (over 1.5 percent plus). But throughout the day, including at the end of the day, it had small periods of recovery -- this wasn't a panic sell off. It was comparable to the 200 plus down days that market has from time to time these days. This year is only two and a half months old and already there have been a number of days like this. Yet the market is still higher than it was at the beginning of the year (and even slightly higher than it was three months ago)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:57 PM

40. Is it in the opposite of a free fall today?

Seeing as it has recovered a significant amount (more than half) of Friday's loss?

The market reacts, and the reacts to the reaction and then reacts some more. Characterizing a drop of 1.5 percent as a free fall is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:55 PM

17. And wages, even after adjusting for inflation, are higher than under Bush and Clinton

Here is the average hourly wage of production and non-supervisory employees (not inflation-adjusted):

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008



When adjusted for inflation (and expressed in chained 1982-1984 dollars)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:04 PM

26. Good news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:17 PM

27. It's good news - Bwahaha -

 

What Trickle-Down Economics Has Done to the US: The Rich Get All the Money

...
That Improving Economy Is Further Away Than It Appears

Leisure and hospitality - the fastest growing major blue-skill industry - is the worst sector. The average leisure and hospitality worker makes just $18,900 a year (gross, before taxes). This is not even enough to keep a family of three above the poverty level ($19,790 in 2014). Similarly, retail, the largest blue-skill sector, is second-worst in terms of pay, with average annual earnings of $27,700. - Mike Cassidy, Where Are the Jobs? 2015 (1)

By most media accounts, the US economy at the beginning of 2015 is recovering nicely from the Great Recession. GDP is growing at a historically healthy rate, above 2 percent per year. Unemployment is about the historic average, at 5.7 percent. The stock market is near record highs. And more jobs are being created than at any time in more than 10 years. But this is all a great deception. The expansion is benefiting a tiny minority of the population only - the very rich. No one else has any money, and without significant changes in government policies, no one except the wealthy is likely to have any in the future.

...


http://truth-out.org/news/item/29447-what-trickle-down-economics-has-done-to-the-us-the-rich-get-all-the-money

No difference between the war-mongers and the job-mongers. People so desperate for good news they refuse to acknowledge the details in the fine print and thus get exactly what they deserve.

Btw, the author of this well-substantiated article is a member here, and has a book coming out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 05:53 PM

29. The website of my local paper

about the third or fourth headline down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread