March Job Growth Strongest in 4 Years

[epicstruggle]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040402/economy_jobs_1.html

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall Street.

Wow, just impressive. Hope we can keep adding 100k-300k jobs per month. Might be able to erase that 2.3 million, err i mean 2 million jobs lost.

later,
epic

 

[RussSchultz]

How'd you hear about this? The story of the day is 'high gas prices'.

We can't have any good news about the economy until after the election.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How'd you hear about this? The story of the day is 'high gas prices'.

We can't have any good news about the economy until after the election.

But that's only if Bush loses the election.

 

[Natoma]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040402/economy_jobs_1.html

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall Street.

Wow, just impressive. Hope we can keep adding 100k-300k jobs per month. Might be able to erase that 2.3 million, err i mean 2 million jobs lost.

later,
epic

What the. The article contributed the rise to construction workers beind rehired, along with grocery workers returning after a strike? Uhhh, how many grocery workers were striking, and for what company? That's a lot of workers.

[EDIT] didn't get to the bottom

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute at grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000 increase in retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Now I remember. That strike has been going on for a while now. What was the name of the grocer? Safeway?[/EDIT]

My uncle was one of those newly gainfully employed. Good show. But I'm not going to get optimistic about this job turn around until it happens for another month or two. We've been down this road before last year when jobs and growth exceeded expectations for a couple of months, and in one case a quarter, only to crater and everyone get "gloomy" all over again.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We've been down this road before last year when jobs and growth exceeded expectations for a couple of months, and in one case a quarter, only to crater and everyone get "gloomy" all over again.

Um...that would be typically only the democrats who got all "gloomy" again at the first sign of any "not spectactular" economic indicator...and have been ever since Bush took office. "Normal" people have been pretty optimisitic for well over a year when looking at all the indicators as a whole.

 

[Natoma]

Is that why the unemployment rate dropped from 6.4% to 5.6% in 2003, because the economy lost 50K jobs overall during that timeframe, and people were obviously getting employed in some other fashion? Or could it be that people simply left the workforce because they didn't feel they could find a job?

 

[epicstruggle]

bah humbug!! People be happy we are finally getting some actual good news. (well not so good for kerry ) Lets try to be optimistic, go out and shop, spend some cash. Im receiving 3 bad ass lcds from dell this week (600$ a pop), and plan on buying new computer parts when the next gen cards come out. Time to fuel the economy people. Buy, buy, buy!

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Is that why the unemployment rate dropped from 6.4% to 5.6% in 2003, because the economy lost 50K jobs overall during that timeframe, and people were obviously getting employed in some other fashion? Or could it be that people simply left the workforce because they didn't feel they could find a job?

Of course, there is an inherent problem with your continued posturing that people are "leaving the workforce" on the belief that they can't find a job.

There are people who leave the workforce, and decide they don't WANT another job. They're married and are supported by their spouse...they have enough of a nest egg and take early retirement, etc.

All of this has nothing to do with my past assertoin though...that most people / economists I've read have been "cautiously optimistic" for well over a year on the economy. It's only Democrats that have been running around screaming that the "sky is falling" every time you can contrive some negative aspect into an economic figure...or if some figures aren't improving "fast enough" to their own satisfaction.

Jobs is a lagging indicator. It's the last thing to go when the economy turns down, and the last thing to come back as the economy comes back.

 

[Natoma]

bah humbug!! People be happy we are finally getting some actual good news. (well not so good for kerry ) Lets try to be optimistic, go out and shop, spend some cash. Im receiving 3 bad ass lcds from dell this week (600$ a pop), and plan on buying new computer parts when the next gen cards come out. Time to fuel the economy people. Buy, buy, buy!

later,
epic

We got our bout of happiness last summer when we spent $4K on our computer. hehehehe. No more outlandish happiness until February next year.

 

[Razor04]

People be happy we are finally getting some actual good news.

I will be happy when I am able to locate a job and don't have to live at home with the parents like a lazy bum...

 

[Natoma]

Is that why the unemployment rate dropped from 6.4% to 5.6% in 2003, because the economy lost 50K jobs overall during that timeframe, and people were obviously getting employed in some other fashion? Or could it be that people simply left the workforce because they didn't feel they could find a job?

Of course, there is an inherent problem with your continued posturing that people are "leaving the workforce" on the belief that they can't find a job.

There are people who leave the workforce, and decide they don't WANT another job. They're married and are supported by their spouse...they have enough of a nest egg and take early retirement, etc.

All of this has nothing to do with my past assertoin though...that most people / economists I've read have been "cautiously optimistic" for well over a year on the economy. It's only Democrats that have been running around screaming that the "sky is falling" every time you can contrive some negative aspect into an economic figure...or if some figures aren't improving "fast enough" to their own satisfaction.

Jobs is a lagging indicator. It's the last thing to go when the economy turns down, and the last thing to come back as the economy comes back.

800K people don't just decide to leave their job when they see rampant unemployment the way it has been (1% point accounts for roughly 1 million people) because they don't want another job and are supported by their spouse or have enough of a nest egg and take early retirement.

The economy, sans jobs, has been firing on all cylinders for about 2 years now. Productivity (which some here poo poo'd on me when I was evangelizing the positive impact is was having on our economy), the falling dollar's impact on our export economy, stock market growth, etc etc etc.

But Joe, the recession has been officially over since November 2001. It's now April 2004. Lagging indicator has historically meant 6-9 months. Not 2-3 years. This has been an atypical recovery. By historical accounts, this economy should have added 3-5 million new jobs based on the strength of the recovery since November 2001, when in fact it's only added about 1.3 million. ~3 million jobs were lost at the peak, and now this month's figures should put us around 1.8 million jobs lost overall.

But no, it's just those wascaly democrats. Those consumer confidence numbers that fell more than 20 points during 2003 were just an anomaly.

 

[digitalwanderer]

So is this with the new policy of listing fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs?

 

[RussSchultz]

So is this with the new policy of listing fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs?

That wasn't a policy decision. It was a musing about the nature of our job classifications and whether they make sense or not.

Regardless, it wouldn't matter if it was a policy or not. The number above is total jobs created, not 'manufacturing jobs', so fast food jobs are counted no matter what the policy is.

 

[Natoma]

So is this with the new policy of listing fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs?

I forgot about that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

800K people don't just decide to leave their job when they see rampant unemployment the way it has been (1% point accounts for roughly 1 million people) because they don't want another job and are supported by their spouse or have enough of a nest egg and take early retirement.

Says who? 800,000 people is nothing in this economy.

But Joe, the recession has been officially over since November 2001.

Yes, it was a mild recession by most accounts. So we're expecting a huge boom "recovery?"

It's now April 2004. Lagging indicator has historically meant 6-9 months. Not 2-3 years. This has been an atypical recovery.

Yes, this has been a but a-typical.

Which is why the economisists I've read have been cautiously optimistic like I said. Not "jubilant".

By historical accounts, this economy should have added 3-5 million new jobs based on the strength of the recovery since November 2001, when in fact it's only added about 1.3 million.

Boo hoo. Like I said..."it's just not fast or robust enough" for you?

But no, it's just those wascaly democrats. Those consumer confidence numbers that fell more than 20 points during 2003 were just an anomaly.

With the press spinning the economy as they have, what else would you expect "consumer confidence" to do? Consumer confidence is a yo-yo.

 

[epicstruggle]

So is this with the new policy of listing fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs?

I forgot about that.

Actually, the manufacturing sector did not loose any jobs. But the growth was in _other_ sectors. However you quantify/qualify it, more people are working. Which is a good thing. Now we just need to keep this engine moving.

later,
epic
ps natoma what did you buy for 4k?

 

[Natoma]

Oy vay. :?

 

[Natoma]

So is this with the new policy of listing fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs?

I forgot about that.

Actually, the manufacturing sector did not loose any jobs. But the growth was in _other_ sectors. However you quantify/qualify it, more people are working. Which is a good thing. Now we just need to keep this engine moving.

Actually if you take out manufacturing losses, the economy has gained ~1.4 Million jobs since 2001.

ps natoma what did you buy for 4k?

Sig, along with two ipods, subsequent accessories, and a color photo printer.

p.s.: my prior post was to joe, not you epic.

 

[indio]

Just someone explain this one thing. Unemployment went up. Why are we celebrating? The bottom line is the percentage of people not working rose.
The bottom line didn't improve it got worse. Now if we can stop those pesky companies from firing people we'd be alright.

 

[Natoma]

Just someone explain this one thing. Unemployment went up. Why are we celebrating? The bottom line is the percentage of people not working rose.
The bottom line didn't improve it got worse. Now if we can stop those pesky companies from firing people we'd be alright.

Unemployment % goes up because of the way in which the workforce is tabulated. Because the economy added so many new jobs, people felt as if they could get a job themselves, thus they began actively seeking one. They are then added to the workforce tabulation.

If job growth continues the way it has, I predict the unemployment percentage will top out around 6.5%. There was an interesting article I read a couple of months ago that said that if the number of young people (18-35) who were actively seeking jobs in 2000 were seeking them today, the unemployment rate would be about 7.4%. I wrote a post on this in an earlier thread actually. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

Here you go:

The Department of Labor doesn't consider you part of the workforce if you no longer receive unemployment benefits and you are also not actively searching for a job, but are unemployed. Here's an example:

1) Someone who works X # of hours a week is considered employed.
2) Someone who is laid off but is searching for a job or is receiving unemployment benefits is considered unemployed.
3) Someone who is neither working nor searching for a job nor receiving unemployment benefits (Homemaker for example, or college student), is not considered part of the workforce.