November Jobs Report: Economy Adds 228,000 Jobs; Unemployment Steady (npr.org) 119
An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in November, according to the monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate remained steady at 4.1 percent, unchanged from October. "Employment growth has averaged 174,000 per month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 187,000 in 2016," the agency's Acting Commissioner William J. Wiatrowski said of the report. The number of unemployed people was "essentially unchanged at 6.6 million," the bureau said. Of that number, 1.6 million are considered to be long-term unemployed -- workers who have not had jobs for 27 weeks or more. "Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9 percent in November," the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. Other groups saw little change from the previous month. As for wages, the agency says, "In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 cents to $26.55. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 64 cents, or 2.5 percent."
The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in november (Score:1)
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Re:The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in november (Score:4)
There is a high likelihood of USA attacking Iran if she gotten her rightful appointed throne
I'm not sure if you are trolling or just an idiot. You really think a war with Iran would have been a good thing? The stupidity of that comment is just stunning. Please do the human race a favor and don't reproduce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's a lot of stupid packed into not that many words.
Have you considered apply for a position at Winzip?
Re:The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in november (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Not for 228,000 those people. Besides, not all people work. You have retirees, permanently disabled & children that don't participate in the workforce, so the impact is more significant that you might think, especially since it's just one month.
CNN: Strong jobs report: Unemployment rate 17y low (Score:4, Insightful)
I found the CNN headline interesting:
Another strong jobs report: Unemployment rate remains at 17-year low
This on CNN's front page, with their usual "impeach Trump!" stuff above and below. CNN continued:
--
The report also showed that on average weekly paychecks increased by 3.1% over the last 12-months, the first time that reading has topped 3% in nearly seven years
--
When CNN feels obligated to mention that paychecks are rising faster than they have since Bush budgets, that's interesting.
Re:CNN: Strong jobs report: Unemployment rate 17y (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's the 86th month in a row of job-growth, and the whole "world economy is surging" to pick from a WaPo headline today.
Crediting an 11-month administration with 75 previous months of growth, and prosperity 10,000 miles away in economies not that interlocked with America's, would be a stretch.
The other 75 months are no great credit to Obama, either, as he was much-constrained from economic actions by Congress holding that "Power of the Purse". Recovery could have come faster, as up here in Canada, say. Whereas places with even *more* of the "austerity" than what the US Congress inflicted through sequestration and cuts to States, had the triple-dip recession...Britain for example.
But when you totally tank your economy through bank malfeasance (again, Canada never deregulated our banks, so none failed or needed bailouts), you can't help but have growth after while, no matter how badly you mismanage. Kids keep getting bigger; young people need homes, salaries have fallen painfully and labour is cheap. Money is even cheaper, since there's less to invest in.
"Growth" isn't always good. Sometimes is means "things fell really far and are really bad for a lot of people". Things are not remotely yet back to where they would have been if there'd been no bank collapse. A whole generation has had its early employment years sabotaged.
Re:CNN: Strong jobs report: Unemployment rate 17y (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry to burst your bubble of Canadian Exceptionalism, but Canadian Banks Got $114 Billion From Governments During Recession [www.cbc.ca]. this is data based on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and works out to $3400 per capita. This was tenfold the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto industry bailout.
Re: CNN: Strong jobs report: Unemployment rate 17y (Score:2)
Thanks for that link!
To the news story about how that number is from a think-tank essay hotly disputed by the bankers assn and the Dept of Finance, both.
If loaning banks money (and making a few billion profit on it) , at a time when all the big American banks they would normally rely upon for liquidity are locked up, is a bailout, then every government is bailing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the "rest of the world" was thriving and currencies tightly coupled to the price of oil were *all* doing poorly. The coupling of the Canadian dollar to the price of oil across 2014 and 2015 is a graph to review here.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump's got very little done legislatively except for the corporation tax cut. More regulations have been repealed than have been passed
http://www.washingtonexaminer.... [washingtonexaminer.com]
Which demonstrates that if you do little except cut taxes and deregulate, the US economy will tend to pick up speed.
And look at Apple. They've just paid Ireland what the EU demanded they pay, even though Ireland didn't want it
http://www.zdnet.com/google-am... [zdnet.com]
If the EU forces countries like Ireland to charge more tax, and Trump cuts corporate
Re: (Score:1)
Have taxes already been cut?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's passed the House and Senate, albeit in slightly different forms
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
You don't need to actually cut taxes to affect confidence - if the perception in the markets is that they will fall that's enough to cause some change in mood.
And both the House and Senate bills cut corporation tax from 35% to 20%, though Trump suggested off the cuff it might only go to 22% to finance other cuts. Still even 35% to 22% is a pretty drastic cut.
The UK rate is 20% in 2016, falling to 18% in 2020
Re: CNN: Strong jobs report: Unemployment rate 17y (Score:1)
So, the likely tax cut is part of the multiple year trend?
I'm trying to follow.
And I'm sure England with get an apple office, but I'd bet pretty big they keep a bigger one in the EU.
Re: (Score:1)
So, the likely tax cut is part of the multiple year trend?
My point is that a 35% tax rate is grossly uncompetitive and encourages companies to structure their business to generate less profits in the US, e.g. by opening offices elsewhere. That of course leads to them paying less UK tax. 20% is more competitive.
And I'm sure England with get an apple office, but I'd bet pretty big they keep a bigger one in the EU.
Why? Once the UK leaves the EU it's unlikely the EU will put tariffs on UK exports. And even if they do the UK can put tariffs on EU exports to the UK. Since the UK buys more from the UK than it sells, and under WTO rules it is legal to use the tariffs you c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Not for 228,000 those people. Besides, not all people work. You have retirees, permanently disabled & children that don't participate in the workforce, so the impact is more significant that you might think, especially since it's just one month.
It might also be less significant that you think. A net gain of 228K could mean that, e.g. 500K jobs were replaced by 778K lower paying jobs.
The "breakeven" point is usually over 100K per month, btw. Also, we are on track to add 156K fewer jobs for 2017 than 2016. Just more factoids to think about.
Re: (Score:2)
No, at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years (6.6M/228k=29 months). Full employment is not really a good thing for the economy as it means that employers seeking new employees to meet any rise in demand are unable to find them and it means virtually nobody is looking for a better job. If labor force participation was closer to the norm from the last 30 years I'd say 4% unemployment is just about perfect. Whta's odd though is that une
Bullshit (Score:1)
A tight labour market means you will be treated with respect from employers. It means you can have a family based on a full time job.
Only the agents of the 1% want an "unemployed pool".
Re: (Score:3)
at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years
We are at full employment right now, which the Federal Reserve considers anything below 5.2% U-3 unemployment. We have been at full employment since the summer of 2015. Arguably the definition of full employment may need to change a bit considering the participation rate is lower today than at other times of "full employment" in recent history, but probably not by much.
For instance when we were at 5.2% U-3 in the 90's, U-6 was at about 7.2. When we hit 5.2% U-3 a couple years ago, U-6 was at about 7.6%. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
The U-6 unemployment rate and the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 take the factors you mention into account, without being skewed by retiring baby boomers. I even mentioned the U-6 unemployment rate in my post, so I'm not sure why you are responding with your anti-U3 rate rhetoric to my post.
You are correct that a 5.2% unemployment rate today is not as good as a 5.2% unemployment rate 20 years ago. But a 4.8% unemployment rate is, more or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's a combination of global competition and the relatively weak labor force participation that's keeping wage growth in check, historically with 4% unemployment you'd expect wage growth about twice the current rate (which is barely beating low inflation).
Give it time. There's some lag proportional to corporate inertia for labor to get negotiating power, but if job growth continues rising wages are inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Sorta like a 0.1-0.2mm/month rise is a "rounding error at best" compared to the depth of the ocean, I suppose. Yet we still try to measure it and draw conclusions about the long-term aggregate effect.
These days it only takes about 100k/month to keep up with population growth [nytimes.com], so a year at a rate like this and you'd end up with about 1.5 million net new jobs. That's not insignificant.
Re:The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in november (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been the rate of growth for about 8 years now, with most of it being under Obama.
Don't hide from numbers just because the party that you don't like is in power, and they are showing good numbers that will make elections tight for next year.
We know that voters will vote with their wallet as the prime consideration. Now we have real problems, that are not being reflected by the economy. However ignoring the numbers, will not help push the agenda, you need to recognize the truth and work with it.
Companies are currently optimistic about how the republicans are deregulating everything. Thus driving a renewed expression of growth.
Re:The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in november (Score:5, Insightful)
Voters don't vote with their wallet... they vote for whoever promises to shit on the people they don't like, and they don't care if they get shit on a little too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs in novembe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But over the course of a year, 2.5 million jobs can really move the needle. Of course, you have to reduce the destroyed (layoffs, company shutdown , etc) from those created, so the net jobs is the main concern.
So why are we trying to kick people out of the US? (Score:1)
There is a dark side to full employment. This means we cannot have growth because companies will not be able to hire new people even if they wanted to. Kicking out people and focusing on these people who are different will hurt the economy. Because without these companies growing, there will be a point where all the people who wanted their stuff will have it, and stop buying it.
Re:So why are we trying to kick people out of the (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: So why are we trying to kick people out of the (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are entry level positions where I work that have gone unfilled for months in spite of (a) only needing a high school diploma (b) start immediately full time with benefits.
These arent exactly high paying jobs ($24K/year) but they beat minimum wage, are not labor intensive, the cost of living in quite low in the area ($10K/year apartments are not uncommon) and the company also offers free training and in-house hiring preference for a significantly higher pa
Re: So why are we trying to kick people out of th (Score:2)
Re: So why are we trying to kick people out of the (Score:2)
Re: So why are we trying to kick people out of the (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This means we cannot have growth because companies will not be able to hire new people
The low unemployment figures published by the labor department have factored out a huge number of employable people that supposedly "gave up" looking for work (according to labor.) The actual pool of available workers is much larger than what the unemployment number suggests. The is corroborated by the fact that wage growth has been modest despite the low unemployment rate; the pool isn't actually empty yet.
Removing people from the "work force" to improve the unemployment number was an obvious and widel
Re: (Score:1)
So they don't publish U-8?
That's news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, reducing unemplyment rates by removal of long-term unemployed was a Republican invention. My son would come home from jr. high loaded with talking points about how Bush was hiding the real unemployment rate, which he could quote. It wasn't such a fun talking point as it grew and grew under Obama.
We need something like 230k new jobs a month to keep up with population growth, so this month is a bare minimum of health. We need better for years to chip away at it and induce long term (and NEET
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To make a note, manufacturing jobs have been on the rise for a few years now. Just because it is a manufacturing job, it doesn't automatically make it a good one.
Having done IT for manufacturing companies, there is an hierarchy for job.
Machinists and Welders are at the top.
Floor workers are in the middle
Dock and shipping are at the bottom.
Re:And this is news for nerds how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is actually rather stupid.
Without competent people to receive materials and inspect them, the business is dead in the water. My company had had quite a hard time finding competent people who can understand the manufacturing system, the various technicalities required to inspect materials for conformity, etc. Without these people, product could not be built.
Same for shipping. We have no less than 6 major shipping companies we use. Each has separate packing requirements, documentation requirements, schedules and rates. Add to that the fact that the product is highly sensitive and requires reams of documentation, and special handling and packaging. While it's no rocket science, it's definitely not burger flipping.
Re: (Score:3)
Pay (and prestige) for any job does not depend on the impotance of the job alone - never has. Any business would be in trouble without someone to clean the toilets.
It's not about importance, but about value of and difficulty in hiring (or replacing) 1 additional person, vs the number of people willing and able to do the job. The more that people either want to do the job (because it's cool) or are able to do the job (even if it's a shit job), the less it will pay relative to similar work, and usually the
Re: (Score:2)
Did I not mention that we had a hard time finding someone who could and would fill the position?
Re: (Score:3)
they're talking especially about manufacturing jobs,
They are talking about manufacturing jobs because of political rhetoric, not because it shows any new trends. Manufacturing jobs grew by 126,000 per year from 2010-2016, but of course the White House only factors on 2016 where the was job loss in the sector. If you wanted a more liberal cherry picking of data you would look at 2014 where manufacturing jobs rose by over 200,000 (which is higher than 2017 end of year projections).
Put into context, manufacturing jobs dropped by about 600,000 per year from 2001
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Why the fuck should I give a shit about the job market in the US? Especially if 99% of those "created" jobs include the phrase "Hello, welcome to Walmart".
There's a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report in TFA; here it is again. [bls.gov] I believe this is what you might be looking for, since those Walmart jobs you disdain are almost exclusively part-time: "The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but was down by 858,000 over the year. "
How many government jobs were added? (Score:2, Troll)
This is the number we should be looking at. Did the number of government jobs grow or shrink? You can't fire these people easily and they get a pension for life Public sector jobs will always be a net drain on the economy because they produce nothing of value that can be exported.
Re:How many government jobs were added? (Score:4, Informative)
This is the number we should be looking at. Did the number of government jobs grow or shrink? You can't fire these people easily and they get a pension for life Public sector jobs will always be a net drain on the economy because they produce nothing of value that can be exported.
Well, then look at it. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics report (the subject of TFA): Employment in other major industries, including mining, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality, and government, changed little over the month.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a rather glib remark. I work at Georgia Tech. Everyone here is a public sector employee. Yet we, like MIT, Caltech, etc, are a huge engine for growth. Do we manufacture things? No. Do we spawn companies that do? Most certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Georgia Tech or any of the major research universities. If you want to look at destructive debt creation look at private for profit colleges, they're almost universally a drag on society.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, what an ignorant git. Maybe you figure dirtier air will make the U.S. more productive? SS keeps Grandma from coming to live with you, and you soooo want that to happen. NTSB keeps airlines beancounters from finding the precise balance between airline crashes and revenue production. Fisheries and wildlife management prevent Bubba from shooting everything in sight so that people have places to relax. NSF funds science, but you probably don't need no stinking science. NiH funds research into diseases w
Farce (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More fake news (Score:1)
The words of the con artist ring true. These are fake numbers. And the same reasons he gave for calling the numbers fake hold true now.
19 times he said the numbers were fake [washingtonpost.com].
Job numbers are biggest hoax in modern politics [businessinsider.com].
So there you have it. More fake numbers.
Re: (Score:1)
So you don't deny the numbers are fake. The only thing you can do is deflect.
Got it.
Thank u Obama. (Score:1)
Re:Thank u Obama. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, let's see what happens over the next year or so. And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold. And since trump has not pass a single item that really impacted the economy, this remains Obama's.
He has removed a bunch of anti-business regulations that Obama had put in place by Executive Order, so there's that...
Re: Thank u Obama. (Score:2)
Re: Thank u Obama. (Score:2)
Recession due [Re: Thank u Obama.] (Score:2)
Exactly, the general trends have not changed much for about 6 years: unemployment has steadily nudged down and the stock market has steadily nudged up. There were a few shorter-term bumps and spikes along the way, but the medium-term trends have been consistent. Same for inflation and GDP. Trump hasn't changed the general trend-lines (within typical noise levels).
That being said, we are due for a recession based on past "business cycles", which are typically on a decade cycle. An upward trend of this curren
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what T would blame the likely recession on? Further, I hope it's NOT a deep recession, because the coming tax cuts are further draining away our ability to have a "rainy day" stimulus. They ignored the boy-scout motto: Be Prepared.
Duh, he's gonna blame it on Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
But,what do you bet that neither GOP nor dems will do a damn thing about these issues?
Oh, as to blame,it is ALWAYS somebody else's fault when it comes to trump.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold.
Maybe a little longer for Trump - his hands are really tiny. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a little longer for Trump - his hands are really tiny. :-)
No, they just look tiny on someone 6' 4", 250 pounds, and with a huge.... ego.
The rumors of buying smaller pens at the Oval Office for him are just that, a rumor. They are actually crayons.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, let's see what happens over the next year or so. And yes, a us presidents actions normally take 6-12 months to take hold. And since trump has not pass a single item that really impacted the economy, this remains Obama's.
Well, the one win Trump has going for him is the bully pulpit. Last I heard, illegal immigration had pretty much stopped. Not because there was a wall or anything tangible but because Trump is pounding the issue. Likewise, Trump hasn't done much for business but sit there and say how much he likes business. Thing is that this gives business confidence and they'll act on that as like the stock market, it's not rational. Still, there's not much going on that seems all that different than what has gone on befo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that under 8 years of W, illegals grew from 5M to 12M MINIMUM. Many would argue that it grew more.
Under O, we were catching/releasing anybody with kids, so, the illegals simply turned themselves over. A such, it sounds like a lot, but it is not.
This is the same issue when ppl are saying that illegals commit fewer crimes. Turns out that it is bas
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. (Score:2)
Others and I are still unemployed. I'm almost my year! :(