Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Businesses The Almighty Buck

Employers Added Just 98,000 Jobs in March Below Expectations of 180,000 (usatoday.com) 108

Employers slowed their pace of hiring while the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level in almost a decade in March, highlighting steady but sometimes mixed progress across the labor market. From a report on USA Today: Payroll growth weakened significantly last month amid harsher winter weather as employers added 98.000 jobs in a sharper pullback than anticipated. The unemployment rate, which is calculated from a different survey, fell to 4.5% from 4.7%, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg projected 180,000 employment gains, based on their median estimate. Analysts expected some payback in March after unseasonably mild temperatures pulled forward hiring to early in the year, especially in sectors such as construction, resulting in 200,000-plus job gains in January and February. And a snowstorm that slammed into the Midwest and East Coast in mid-March likely further curtailed job growth, says economist Jim O'Sullivan of High Frequency Economics. [...] But some economists also have said the outsize job gains early this year defied a low unemployment rate that's supplying businesses a shrinking pool of available workers. Many analysts expect that trend ultimately to result in average monthly job gains of about 170,000 this year, down from 187,000 last year and 226,000 in 2015.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Employers Added Just 98,000 Jobs in March Below Expectations of 180,000

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:02AM (#54191041)

    We need more H1B's* to fill the gaps

    or someone willing to work 60-80 hours a week in the bay area for 60K

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      "The jobs are going away, folks. The jobs are going away. *waves pinched fingers* *shakes titties*" -- Donald J. Trump

      I still want to transition to 32-hour work weeks, or maybe as low as 28. That's one of the side goals of my Universal Social Security plan: the efficiency improvements would normally lead to sharp population expansion, but I'd rather stall wealth growth in favor of shorter working hours. At a point, being wealthier doesn't really help you, because you buy all these toys but you work

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:27AM (#54191211)

        At a point, being wealthier doesn't really help you, because you buy all these toys but you work all the time and don't have any leisure hours to play with them.

        You don't buy all those toys to play with them. You buy all those toys because someone else at the country club bought them, and because Bob down the street doesn't own them and you want him to be jealous. Or did you think they actually used those extra 2 kitchens and 4 bedrooms, or the Olympic sized swimming pool with waterfall and and built-in grill that would give Bobby Flay wet dreams? That's why they have to lease the newest Range Rover, Porsche, or BMW every 2 years. Once you reach a certain threshold, toys aren't meant to be used, they're meant to be seen.

        • Rich people take vacations and private jet flights. Middle-classers just up-size their house from 982sqft (1950 average new single-family home size) to 2,300sqft (2000 size) and try to figure on when they can play all their XBox games.

          Generally, we've gotten bigger houses and apartments to store our computers, tablets, kitchen appliances, washing machines, 6 TVs (one in every room), guitars, bicycles, fancy lamps, and so forth. We've also started to eat at McDonalds a lot, because who has time to cook?

          • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

            Generally, we've gotten...6 TVs (one in every room)....We've also started to eat at McDonalds a lot, because who has time to cook? If we cooked, we couldn't watch all that anime on Netflix.

            I solved that problem by putting a TV in the kitchen ;)

          • It's odd tho.. it takes me less time to cook and clean up from a meal that costs less than mcdonalds at home and would cost me $40 if I ate out.

            Wild caught salmon...
            Put over a low heat in some olive oil or butter with a bit of seasoning of the day on top and perhaps a line of mayo. Place in veggies around the edge of the skilliet. Set timer for 8 minutes. Turn salmon at 8 minutes. Set timer for 4 minutes. Test that it's 'flaky' at 12 minutes and that the veggies are tender. Transfer to plate. Put 1/8

            • That works after you've put in the time to learn to cook, which involves some planning. Most people aren't thinking that far ahead.

          • What if you're watching an anime cooking show while you're cooking? I don't think there are any on Netflix, though.

      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday April 07, 2017 @11:49AM (#54191763) Homepage Journal

        efficiency improvements would normally lead to sharp population expansion

        Huh? Humans are not rabbits. All evidence shows that the wealthier we get, the fewer children we have.

        • No, all evidence shows that when an individual human unit gets wealthier, it slows its rapid breeding. Humans don't need to produce more children when fewer die out, either, as a society.

          As a population, a human society includes a gradient of wealth. The expansion of that society causes scarcity pressures, which eventually limit that expansion. Those limits are felt at different levels in different ways.

          Think about food. If you have fertile land in good climate to produce food for 10,000,000 people,

          • Global data pretty clearly demonstrates that we've reached a point where increasing wealth (and especially female education) slows population growth. Indeed, we've already passed the point of peak childbirth; fewer children are born every year and that trend has been continuing for the last 30 years. The only reason population is currently growing -- as wealth continues to increase -- is because we're filling out the age brackets.
            • So global statistics show population growth is slowing even though we're still growing population faster than ever because population won't really stop growing until it stops growing?

              History has shown, and continues to show, that advances in technology reduce scarcity, and that reduction in scarcity directly causes a population boom. Reduction in scarcity is wealth. It's the capacity to feed 7 billion people on a planet that can sustain 0.63 billion humans. It's the capacity to have cars, roads, and r

              • So global statistics show population growth is slowing even though we're still growing population faster than ever because population won't really stop growing until it stops growing?

                No. Global statistics show that the annual total number of births has been steadily declining since the late 80s. Population is growing only because the global population skews young, and we're in the process of filling out the age groups. Hans Rosling explained it very well in this TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

                • BTW, if you don't want to watch the whole video (though I highly recommend it; Rosling does a great job of making dry statistics interesting), you can start at 10:15 for the most relevant part.

        • All evidence shows that the wealthier we get, the fewer children we have.

          Only some evidence shows that.
          Until about 50 years ago, wealth meant more children.
          So what changed?
          1. Contraceptives
          2. Rapidly falling infant and childhood mortality
          3. Increasing urbanization

          • All evidence shows that the wealthier we get, the fewer children we have.

            Only some evidence shows that. Until about 50 years ago, wealth meant more children. So what changed? 1. Contraceptives 2. Rapidly falling infant and childhood mortality 3. Increasing urbanization

            And female education. That seems also to play a very significant role.

    • Are robotic worker units allowed to be counted as jobs?

      It wounds better to say we created X number of jobs than to say we downsized X human beings and replaced them with foreign made robots that don't get sick, strike, complain, want raises and benefits, or make crazy demands for humane working conditions and safety.

      Replacing people with robots is like printing money! Or burning fossil fuels. It can be done forever without any consequences! It's great!
  • So, do to climate change, already seasonally adjusted stats now have to be seasonally adjusted??!

  • Another terrorist attack in Sweden.
    • Binary guy is correct for once.

      Both factually (Google it - "In what appeared to be a terrorist attack, a truck plowed into a crowd on a street and crashed into a department store in central Stockholm on Friday.") and rhetorically (this Anti-Trump spin job of a headline attached to a fairly neutral summary is far less significant than another terrorist attack in fragile Europe).

      • Binary guy is pretty incorrect, on both dimensions.

        Sure there was a terrorist attack in Sweden, but the problem is with the term "another". Yes, there have been past terrorist attacks, but the implication was clearly referencing to the non-existant terrorist attacks Trump spoke of earlier this year as what is "another" to.

        And what anti-Trump spin? The numbers were half the prediction. That's pretty dramatic. And the name "Trump" and title "President" appear nowhere.

        is far less significant than another te

  • Yet the government, who hates Trump, reports 98,000.

    They also revised that "magnificent" February jobs number...downward.

    There must be some middle-eastern country we can bomb.

  • It's Obama's fault that the numbers are below expectations.
    • by Zuriel ( 1760072 )
      Thanks, Obama. [youtube.com]
    • This actually makes sense. So many jobs have been saved that not as many people need to find new ones.
      • This actually makes sense. So many jobs have been saved that not as many people need to find new ones.

        Umm, you could have lots of people looking for a job, with no new jobs being added. One of the factors as to why the expectations are what they were, is due to unemployed people entering the job market. So now those people have entered the job market, only to find that less jobs were created.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    we're gonna be sick of jobs. We're going to win so hard it's going to hurt, believe me.

  • There is not shortage of skilled workers never has been. That's supply-side myth used to suppress the movement of value into profit not wages. Nowhere near full employment: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... [economicoutlook.net] http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... [economicoutlook.net]
  • That's so weird... (Score:2, Informative)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    The DNC, an hour before the March job numbers were out put out this press release:

    An hour before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the March jobs numbers, the Democrat National Committee issued a news release saying, “Today, the U.S. economy is expected to continue the longest streak of private sector job growth on record, one of President Barack Obama’s most important accomplishments.

    Source: CNS [cnsnews.com]

    From the same article:

    The number of employed Americans increased 472,000 to 153,000,000 in Marc

  • by notsteve ( 650350 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @11:46AM (#54191737)
    It's so interesting to see these threads in virgin form, before the Russian trolls assigned to Slashdot descend.
  • Guess it depends on who you read:

    > 4/5/2017 9:03 AM ET
    > US Private Sector Job Growth Far Exceeds Estimates In March
    > Employment in the U.S. private sector increased by much more than anticipated in the month of March, according to a report released by payroll processor ADP on Wednesday.
    > ADP said private sector employment soared by 263,000 jobs in March compared to economist estimates for an increase of about 187,000 jobs.

    http://www.rttnews.com/2760791/u-s-private-sector-job-growth-far-exceeds-e

  • by whitroth ( 9367 ) <whitroth@@@5-cent...us> on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:22PM (#54192001) Homepage

    About 8 or 10 years ago, and this was the *only* time I heard it, not since, the US economy needs to add about 128k jobs per month, for the number of people entering the workforce over those leaving it.

    • 128k

      Newer estimates are higher: [businessinsider.com]

      On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth and not allow the unemployment situation to get worse.

      So when you read "added 98,000" you have to understand "lost 108,000" relative to steady state.

      And when the loyal press diligently repeats "and the unemployment rate fell" you can fall back on your fourth-grade mathematics to know that they're lying with statistics (like removing people who cannot find work).

      Why this is important

  • This might be partially related to the restaurant bubble ending.

The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

Working...