Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Feb. nonfarm payrolls up tepid 21,000

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:33 AM
Original message
U.S. Feb. nonfarm payrolls up tepid 21,000
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38051.3545023148-812690990&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by 21,000 in February, far below Street expectations of 130,000, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent. January's payrolls were revised lower by 15,000 to 97,000. Economists expected February payrolls to rise 130,000, according to a survey conducted by CBS MarketWatch. Private-sector payrolls were flat in February, with government agencies accounting for 21,000 new jobs. Manufacturing lost 3,000 jobs. Services added 46,000 jobs, including 13,000 in retail. Temporary help services added 32,000 jobs.

...just a bit more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Here comes OBL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Now *that* is funny!
My husband and I are bustin' a gut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Very Funny...Thanks
I sometimes think cartoonists are the only ones who get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barkley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Priceless!
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 01:36 PM by Barkley
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. Just confirmed on CNN...
130,000 jobs expected, only 21,000 created.

Not good for America, but it's especially not good for the Chimp...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:40 AM
Original message
Catch the January revisions... remember 108,000... nope it was 97,000
So the post tax cut job stimulation ... in the past three months...

1,000 in December
97,000 in January
21,000 in February

What was that prediction... 2.6 million jobs in 2004? They better start being created because in the first two months they have only generated 118,000 or 4% of the "predicted new jobs". That means they would have to generate 2,482,000 in the next ten months; or on average: 248,200 a month. February's numbers (which probably will follow the trend of future down revisions) are less than 10% of that number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. Wasn't December revised upward to a robust (for a republican) 8,000 jobs?
This is typical for republican presidents. Republican presidents are consistently bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had the first negative number since the depression.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.

You can not have cheap labor if the job market is strong. Nothing is more republican than that.


The numbers in this chart are from July, 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barkley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Great Data! Thanks so much!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike1963 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. It looks even more striking when you do the math & get 8300 a DAY!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. So..........
without government hiring there was an actual increase of...........zero jobs in February. Yep, the Bush economic plan is working to perfection. I can't wait to see how this is spun. It should be very amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. Bush tries to get good headlines -even with bad News! - DOL report below
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 08:57 AM by papau
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2004


Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February, and the
unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment levels in most of the major industries were little changed over the month.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was 8.2 million in February, and the
unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted. Both measures are below their recent highs of June 2003. Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.1 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), teenagers (16.6 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (9.8 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 4.7 percent in February, not seasonally adjusted.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs--declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of 2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5 million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See A-1.)

The number of persons who work part time for economic reasons edged down in February to 4.4 million, seasonally adjusted. This category includes persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-5.)

About 7.2 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) held more than one job in February. These multiple jobholders represented 5.3 percent of the total employed, down from 5.6 percent a year earlier. (See table A-13.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In February, about 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, 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 sur-
vey. There were 484,000 discouraged workers in February, also about the same as 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 1.2 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See
table A-13.)

Within professional and business services, employment in temporary help services rose by 32,000 over the month, after a small loss in January. Since April 2003, the temporary help industry has added 215,000 jobs.

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged in February at 33.8 hours, seasonally adjusted. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 41.0 hours, and has risen by 0.9 hour since last July. Manufacturing overtime was unchanged in February at 4.5 hours, but has increased since last summer. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 percent to 98.9 in February (2002=100). The manufacturing index increased by 0.1 percent over the month to 94.2. (See table B-5.)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 3 cents over the month to $15.52, seasonally adjusted. The increase for January was 4 cents, as revised. Average weekly earnings rose by 0.2 percent in February to $524.58. Over the year, average hourly earnings increased by 1.6 percent, and average weekly earnings increased by 1.9 percent.(See table B-3.)...March 2004 is scheduled to be released on Friday, April 2, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).<snip all the tables>

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aAedZ4OlZbFU&refer=news_index

U.S. Economy Adds 21,000 Jobs, Less Than Expected; Jobless Rate Unchanged =Treasury Notes Surge as Economy Adds Fewer Jobs Than Forecast =Dollar Tumbles Against Euro; U.S. Economy Adds Only 21,000 Jobs http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/economies.html

U.S. February Payrolls Rose 21,000; Jobless Rate Holds at 5.6%
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers added 21,000 workers in February, less than the lowest forecast amid the fastest annual economic expansion in at least two decades. The unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent and more job-seekers left the work force.

The results follow a January gain of 97,000 that was less than previously estimated, the Labor Department said in Washington, and trailed the median forecast of 130,000 in a Bloomberg News survey of economists. Factory employment fell by 3,000, the 43rd straight decline.

Consumer confidence and President George W. Bush's popularity have sagged as the economic expansion, tax cuts and lowest Federal Reserve benchmark interest rate in 45 years fail to ignite hiring. Critics including Senator John F. Kerry, who will challenge Bush in November, say he hasn't done enough to stop the loss of 2.3 million jobs in his tenure.

Disappointing results ``leave open the danger that consumer income and spending growth will fade later in the year,'' said Nigel Gault, U.S. research director at Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, before the report. ``It would suggest that the Fed can be very patient before raising interest rates, perhaps for all of 2004.'' <snip>



EARLIER TODAY THE PRE-RELEASE BLOOMBERG WAS:

U.S. February Job Gains May Reach Three-Year High, Survey Shows
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers may have added 130,000 workers in February, the largest gain since shortly before George W. Bush became president more than three years ago, economists said in advance of today's government report.

A sixth straight increase in jobs would be the longest streak in almost four years. The unemployment rate may have held at 5.6 percent, a two-year low, based on the median of 63 forecasts in a Bloomberg News poll before the 8:30 a.m. Labor Department report in Washington.

Bush credits last year's tax cuts for stoking the economy, which grew by 6.1 percent in the July-December period, the strongest six months since 1984. Critics including Senator John F. Kerry, a Democrat preparing to challenge Bush in November's election, say the president hasn't done enough and cite the lost of 2.3 million jobs during his tenure.

Meeting or exceeding the February forecast ``would show that jobs are slowly catching up to economic growth,'' said Ellen Beeson, an economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York, who forecast a gain of 140,000. ``It would also help buy some time for Bush, because he can point to that and say that things are only going to get better.'' <snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmcgowanjm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. How does a Jobless Recovery help me?
Ever since the last Unemployment the Pundits
have been saying jobs are here, jobs are coming.
The recovery is weeks away. I heard it like a drumbeat.

Remember Greenspan's last speaking engagement?

But the Rich should keep their tax cuts and the poor
should keep paying FICA-Payroll taxes even as the
US Gov't should lower SS benies.

Get ready to hear alot more about Deflation and
Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. No Such Thing
There is no such thing as a jobless recovery. Employment saturation is as strong an indicator of economic robustness as is GDP growth. One cannot have an economic recovery if the jobless rate is stagnant.

This is not conventional economic theory. I had a paper published in the academic circles on this very thing. It's peer reviewed and accepted. Employment is NOT a dependent artifact of other economic indicators. It's an independent indicator of macroeconomic health.

The next time someone tells you about a "jobless recovery" you can tell them there is mathematical proof that there is no such thing.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barkley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. What phase of the business cycle is the economy in now?
Congrats on the paper!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I Don't Do Business Cycles
I'm one of the minority in the economics community (damned radicals!) that believes the business cycle is autocorrelated to the GDP. More importantly, i think, is that it's autocorrelated to the employment saturation index.

So, using one to predict the other is a pointless excercise.

I think following the trend in the ESI is more important, as it allows one to see the ability of GDP to grow (on a real basis) in the near term without massive increases in extrinsic gov't spending to prop up nominal growth (as is happening now).

So, the answer to your question i don't know and i don't care. I know there are folks who spend their whole lives on this stuff. I think they're wasting their effort.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barkley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. If ESI is autocorrelated with GDP (via the business cycle) then how
is "Employment is NOT a dependent artifact of other economic indicators. It's an independent indicator of macroeconomic health?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. LISTEN TO THE PROFESSOR
HE KNOWS HIS STUFF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. what about those 2.6 million
job related program activities they promised? Did it say anything about those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kysrsoze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Well, I'm sure there are still 2.6 million people looking for jobs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Indians granted US citizenship!
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 09:06 AM by PATRICK
Job creation soars by millions. They might balk at dual citizenship but with appropriate tax cuts and government bribes it might just work.

Satire. (on edit) Seriously, how many outsourced jobs HAVE been created overseas? A very useful number to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichV Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. What part of gov't is growing?
Where are those 21,000 new government jobs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. To add insult to injury, average hourly earnings were up .02% for
a yearly increase of 1.6%, the weakest since 1987.

Jobs going overseas, health costs soaring, raises non-existant..and corporations are making huge profits. The republican way of doing business..the rich get richer..screw the middle class and poor.

I am anxious to hear the spin on this pathetic set of numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Florida_Geek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
12. But But Whistle Ass
Just talked to a owner that hire 2 whole people.....And thanked him for his tax break.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kysrsoze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
13. Holy shit! Is that all? Oh man....that's not good, considering
this is the timeframe when companies are supposed to have a new hiring budget. That's terrible. The ONLY good coming out of it is more bad press for the MISadministration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. tepid..tepid?
doesn't the economy need 150K/month just to keep up with population growth and so forth let alone replace the 2.5million lost and the 8million who can't find work? and I haven't even brought up the white house prediction that 2-3million will be created by the end of the year

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack from Charlotte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. That was my question..............?
How many new jobs per month are required to just break even? That is jobs required to take care of all the new people entering the workforce for the 1st time?

gasperc.......... 150,000 per month? Is that the number?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stewert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. 150,000 is The Number !

Yes 150,000 is the number of new jobs the economy needs to create each month
just to break even with the population growth. What happens is every month
150,000 new people in America become old enough to work every month.

That 21,000 number is sad, it's roughly 400 jobs per state.

Not to mention the January numbers were revised down by 15,000, what if they
revise the February numbers down too.

It seems that they revise the numbers down almost every month, they say one number,
then next month give you the real number. The economy also lost 3,000 more manufacturing
jobs in February, that is the 43rd straight month of lost manufacturing jobs. If Bush stays in
office for 4 more years we wont have any manufacturing jobs left.

Don't forget the Bush economic council said the economy would create 220,000 to 300,000
new jobs a month after his july 2003 tax cuts kicked in.

Where are they ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Don't you know the right-wing excuse?
These people are all self-employed. I mean they can't be starving, can they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. you know what's wierd? we're hiring.
and architecture firms don't hire unless they NEED to (they also don't give raises unless forced).

so i see construction hiring picking up this summer. or at least next year. hopefully it will be too late for president moran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yeah sounds like the October surprise may come in April.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
osaMABUSh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
27. Worst since the DEPRESSION - how about some more tax cuts?
In the fall debates we can say worse since Hoover and the Depression.

But those that don't work are better off - no I'm not talking about the middle class unemployed I'm talking about the rich who live off investments.

Class warfare? Well, he is the War President, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC