Yeah, the economy sure is awfully "shakey" in its present state. At this rate, the Herbert Hoover comparisons will be something for yesterday's punditry. That the Dow remains in the green is even better news after a million jobs were added in three months....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040604/D830BAKO1.html

New Jobs Help U.S. Extend Hiring Spree
Jun 4, 1:45 PM (ET)
By LEIGH STROPE

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. employers added almost a quarter million workers in May, extending a nine-month hiring spree and accommodating enough new jobseekers to hold the unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

Tens of thousands of jobseekers are renewing their searches in an improving labor market, so the overall, seasonally adjusted civilian unemployment rate did not improve from April's 5.6 percent figure.

Nevertheless, the snapshot of America's employment situation in May met the expectations of most private analysts and fueled anticipation of an increase in interest rates when the Federal Reserve meets at the end of this month. The Fed's main interest rate has been at a 46-year low of 1 percent, but analysts expect that to end with the jobs market steadily gaining steam.

On Wall Street, the report sent stocks sharply higher, giving investors confidence that continued job growth is sustainable.

Hiring last month was widespread, with businesses adding an overall 248,000 new jobs across the economy. Industries that posted the biggest gains *******d construction, health care, professional and business services and hotels and restaurants.

"What is really key is that every major sector had improvements," said John Silvia, chief economist for Wachovia Securities. "That suggests these gains are sustainable."

The struggling manufacturing sector also is reawakening, adding 32,000 new jobs last month. Based on revised figures, it was the fourth straight month of payroll increases after almost three years of continuous losses.

Friday's report was good news for President Bush, who has been counting on continued employment growth to boost his re-election prospects. The economy was expected to be a major drag on his campaign, but that may prove otherwise.

Bush, in Rome on a three-day European visit, told reporters the jobs report "shows that our economy is vital and growing."

"The policies in place are working, the entrepreneurial spirit is strong and the small business sector of the economy is vibrant," Bush said.

"What a difference a year makes," said Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, noting the big payroll gains in the past three months. "A wakeup call has been sent that the United States economy is back."

Bush still is on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to have lost jobs during his watch - but those losses are shrinking. His administration was widely criticized for an overly optimistic forecast that 2.6 million new jobs would be created this year. But economists now say the chugging economy could approach that mark.

"I'm pleased to see strong job growth and that's what I am concerned about," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. "Every month of strong job growth is good news to me and it's good news for America."

Still, the economy is far from the booming 1990s. Last month, 8.2 million people remained unemployed. While the overall jobless rate stayed at 5.6 percent, it was much higher among blacks, at 9.9 percent and Hispanics, at 7 percent.

Allison Dobson, spokeswoman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, said, "Any step forward in the job market is good news for workers but America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression, with 1.9 million private-sector jobs lost in the Bush presidency."

The report "is welcome news for American workers who are enduring the most prolonged jobs slump since the 1930s," said Rep. Pete Stark of California, the top Democrat on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. "But we still have a jobs deficit, and most of the economic growth we have seen has fattened businesses' balance sheets, not workers' paychecks."

The average duration of unemployment rose to 20 weeks last month, up from 19.7 weeks in April. Almost 22 percent of all jobless workers have been without work for 27 weeks or more.

Construction employment rose by 32,000 in May, with 91,000 new jobs added since January. In services, professional and business services added 64,000 new jobs, fueled by hiring increases in temporary employment firms. Hiring at such firms has grown by 14 percent since April 2003.

Hotels and restaurants added 33,000 jobs over the month, and financial services boosted payrolls by 15,000.

But some industries lost jobs, including telecommunications, which shed 5,000 positions last month. Also, there were fewer government jobs last month, as employment in that sector decreased by 27,000.

WOO. I'm feeling it.

Sweet. I think I'm going to vote for Bush now.

I just can't wait to see how Paul Krugman paints himself into another corner.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I still think it's unfortunate that people think this has something to do with the president.</font>

Even from a pedestrian stand point, seeing as how most of the new jobs are being formed in the private sector, I'm not sure how you can rule out tax cuts altogether as some factor in job growth. There are several respectable non-partisan economists (The Economist *******d) who attribute the growth to the tax cuts in some form or another. They certainly helped create a ton of jobs between 1983-1990. True, presidents can do little in regards to what the economy ultimately does, but they can at least urge growth in different ways...

I wish people would realize that those numbers don't factor in the number of jobs vacated - the economy is stable if anything. People are leaving one job and going to another, that's all that is really happening.

What are you talking about?

Here:

"But some industries lost jobs, including telecommunications, which shed 5,000 positions last month. Also, there were fewer government jobs last month, as employment in that sector decreased by 27,000."

32,000 jobs lost is hardly comparable to 248,000 jobs gained, especially when 27,000 of those are government jobs.

Besides, "vacated jobs" are good news. It means those who left those jobs are moving up the ladder and leaving an opening for someone who isn't as far along.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
What are you talking about?

Here:

"But some industries lost jobs, including telecommunications, which shed 5,000 positions last month. Also, there were fewer government jobs last month, as employment in that sector decreased by 27,000."

32,000 jobs lost is hardly comparable to 248,000 jobs gained, especially when 27,000 of those are government jobs.

Besides, "vacated jobs" are good news. It means those who left those jobs are moving up the ladder and leaving an opening for someone who isn't as far along.

It's hard to say these jobs are vertical gains by looking at numbers. But, also, as jobs increase, the number of employees covered by health insurance continues to decrease.

It's better to have quality jobs with benefits than those same jobs without. Companies are cutting out those benefits to fill their vacanct holes. It's still a no-win situation in that retrospect.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Even from a pedestrian stand point, seeing as how most of the new jobs are being formed in the private sector, I'm not sure how you can rule out tax cuts altogether as some factor in job growth. There are several respectable non-partisan economists (The Economist *******d) who attribute the growth to the tax cuts in some form or another. They certainly helped create a ton of jobs between 1983-1990. True, presidents can do little in regards to what the economy ultimately does, but they can at least urge growth in different ways...

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Unfortunately George II wants to make the tax cuts permanent. I agree that occassional tax cuts can help spur the economy but in the long run permenent tax cuts aren't going to help anything. The success of tax cuts in the first place is that they are used occasionally when the economy is slipping.</font>

It's hard to say these jobs are vertical gains by looking at numbers. But, also, as jobs increase, the number of employees covered by health insurance continues to decrease.

exactly.

people are taking crappy jobs to replace good ones they lost because they cannot afford to wait any longer for an equally good job. that's not impressive to me.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Unfortunately George II wants to make the tax cuts permanent. I agree that occassional tax cuts can help spur the economy but in the long run permenent tax cuts aren't going to help anything. The success of tax cuts in the first place is that they are used occasionally when the economy is slipping.</font> Yes, but government spending is a much better tool to jumpstart the economy when used properly.
People don't understand this because all they see is the government spending their money instead of the money going back in their pockets.
Tax cuts are only used because it appeases the voting public.

Tax cuts are only used because it appeases the voting public.

i agree. the voting public is rather dopey and they think a tax cut/tax refund means they get more when they aren't getting more than a smoke and mirror show.

that stupid 300 tax refund america got was dumb. it was like an advance payment on my taxes, not a bonus like most people thought. and really, that 300 i got back meant that some jerk who made more than 20 mil got an insane tax cut which is what all that nonsense was about.

Well if you take let's say $1 billion, and use it to reinvest in highways or something, then that money goes to companies who hire more workers who receive the money in the end. All the companies that provide the materials benefit. As long as it is reinvested in the country, then the economy will see the full amount of the money and everyone benefits.
You give $1 billion back in tax cuts then people have the choice to save it in the bank or take it out of the country or something and it does not go into the economy at all.
But people would rather have the money.

Originally posted by sppunk


It's hard to say these jobs are vertical gains by looking at numbers.

It is easy to say. Just look at the numbers. Look at the vertical gains on the chart from the story. If added jobs outweigh lost jobs, then you have a surplus of jobs, not an equlibrium. This is not exactly rocket science. About a million jobs have been added to the economy this year. This is not arguable.

Originally posted by sppunk

But, also, as jobs increase, the number of employees covered by health insurance continues to decrease.



That may be true but that's inherent in any transition economy, and yes, despite all the good news we're still in the transition phase. You can't expect killer benefits to accompany some of these new jobs because a lot of businesses are still unsure of the long term stability of this recovery and are at the same time meeting the crunch of increasing demand and output. That's understandable.

But aside from that, I ask simply: is it better to have a job without certain benefits or no job at all? This is not an mid-80s, mid-90s recovery by any means at this point, but it's gaining ground and can't be discredited simply on the grounds you've submitted.

Originally posted by homechicago



people are taking crappy jobs to replace good ones they lost

"financial services boosted payrolls by 15,000."

"professional and business services added 64,000 new jobs"

Not exactly what I'd call crappy jobs.

pay rate and benefits are not the same. people laid off from a 50,000 job with full family healthcare are getting 40,000 jobs with diminished overall healthcare. just because it's a professional job doesn't mean they are retaining previous salary nor are they getting an increase.

Right, but you said "crappy" jobs. 40k + is not exactly toss away jobs, ya know. If 40k is crappy, my job must really fucking suck.

Anyway, you're letting politics cloud your analysis of this. When have workers, on any large scale, ever gone back to the exact same jobs, salaries and benefits they had prior to being laid off because of a huge economic downturn? I think you're being a little unrealistic--basically grasping for straws--considering where we have been over the past two years.

if you have a family, a mortgage, etc., taking a 10k paycut and losing benefits - yes, that's crappy.

if you are single, it's not the end of the world, but it won't make the economy seem great and improving to you, the worker. the statistics don't reflect "similar jobs" it's just jobs, and it doesn't account for people who are unemployed and who lost unemployment benefits. i have friends and family that these situations apply to, and they aren't lazy know it alls who waste time in a chat room telling people they think they are experts on how the economy is getting better.

Originally posted by tweedyburd

When have workers, on any large scale, ever gone back to the exact same jobs, salaries and benefits they had prior to being laid off because of a huge economic downturn?

huge economic downturn?

right, it's still a downturn, not an improvement. not a true recovery. recovery means things get better than before, not worse. if your future consisted of changing jobs where you made less and less, would that be a positive economic state?

"recovery means things get better than before, not worse."

You must have a warped sense of what is "better," because if I'm not mistaken you just said a million new jobs in three months is worse than what we had prior, which was barely any job growth at all.

God, you really are clueless, aren't you? Do you have any understanding at all of economic realities?

First and most unfortunately, your argument is unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky nonsense based on generalized half-truths. You have kept a straight face and tried to argue that a million new jobs created in three months is meaningless. As if that wasn't enough, you still have not addressed the fact that, even taking your own argument, every economic recovery has an initial period where the new jobs being created aren't necessarily as beneficial to the worker on a large scale as the job he may have had prior to the recession. But this is not a long term trend nor is it indicative of the entire recovery as a whole. If it were the trend then median family income would not have grown over the expansion of the mid-late 60s and the huge expansion of the 80s. Go back and look at the type of jobs that were created at the beginning of those expansions. You will find that they, too, were in many cases not as solid as the jobs held prior to the stagflation Carter years or the economic uncertainty leading up to Kennedy's administration. But after about a year, median family income grew at an exceptional rate and extended on into the 90s to unprecedented levels. Again, show me an economic recovery in the 20th century where the initial stages of recovery produced the exact same quality of jobs that were held prior to a recession. Don't bother--you won't find one. The simple fact is when a budding recovery follows a significant recession, often times you have to crawl again before you can walk, or walk before you run, as it were. This is the reality, and you have no basis to condemn this recovery as meaningless based on the historically ignorant notion that this development is somehow a precedent.

The only thing lazy in this thread is your thinking.

By Adam Geller / AP Business Writer

NEW YORK -- Conventional wisdom says that once companies begin hiring temporary workers, a turnaround in the overall job market must be close behind.

But nearly 2" years after the economy officially began its recovery, old assumptions about new jobs are providing more confusion than comfort.

A report released by the government Friday showed temporary employment increased once again in February -- by 32,000 jobs -- just as it has been doing for the better part of a year.

But the permanent hiring that was supposed to flow from the temp jobs is still not materializing. The economy as a whole added a scant 21,000 jobs last month, far below the 125,000 that analysts had forecast. That has economists, and even temporary staffing businesses, scratching their heads.

Wow, thanks for the now-irrelevant article from way back in early March, long before the first reports of 340,000 jobs for that month materialized, and long before the million added since were known. I imagine that writer would have a much different take on it in mid-June.

Thanks also for ignoring my points.

You have no argument. I am through discussing this matter with you.

all i'm doing is commenting on how the statistics mean more than literal numbers, and that one can glean information from many angles. that's it. where did i disagree with economic history?

it's okay that you hate me and think me an ignoramus. being an intellectual makes you feel good, so enjoy yourself.

cheers

:rofl:

What an exit.

If your idea of relevant information is a four month-old business article, too old to consider the huge job gains of the past three months, then remind me to never take you seriously again.