Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Businesses The Almighty Buck

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

November Jobs Report: Economy Adds 228,000 Jobs; Unemployment Steady

Comments Filter:
  • Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?

    • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @10:32AM (#55701179) Journal

      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.

      • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @11:48AM (#55701703) Journal

        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.

        • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @01:14PM (#55702325) Homepage

          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.

        • 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

          • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

            Have taxes already been cut?

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Hal_Porter ( 817932 )

              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

              • 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.

                • 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

      • There's at least 60% of the population in the job market. Which is at a minimum 200 million so it's close to 1/10th of one percent. Significant? And you pretty well have to take employment figures as unsubstantiated because who other than the gov't knows how many people are working? You're taking it on trust.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

    • by afidel ( 530433 )

      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

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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".

      • by ranton ( 36917 )

        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

      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        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.

    • 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.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @10:47AM (#55701265)

      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.

       

    • We have 300+ million. Of that roughly 200+ million are working. So adding 228k is roughly 1/1000 or .1%. with unemployment steady, it means that ~228k were laid off and then rehired elsewhere.
    • It's comparable to the numbers lost per month during the recession [wikipedia.org]. So I'd say it's reasonably significant. I personally started a new job in November so maybe I'm biased.
    • by Rolgar ( 556636 )

      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.

  • 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.

    • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @10:21AM (#55701129)
      Really. So you think that the people who sneak across the border and are up for deportation because they've committed crimes are the ones that would be eligible for higher paying jobs in the sectors we're talking about?
    • Nope. Best thing we can do is phase in e-verify over 2 year period while pushing robotics. This would give ppl and business time to adjust.
    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      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

      • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

        So they don't publish U-8?

        That's news to me.

      • 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

  • 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.

    • by tsqr ( 808554 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @10:30AM (#55701171)

      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.

    • 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.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      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

  • "We've added 228,000 new jobs! They pay 9 dollars an hour, and require at least two bachelors and 5 years of previous experience."
    • I suppose it's better than during the Obama years when most of them paid $9 per hour - but were part time jobs.
  • As we were repeatedly told during the campaign when good employment numbers kept coming out, these are fake numbers.

    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.
  • 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.
    • Re:Thank u Obama. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @11:52AM (#55701729) Journal

      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...

      • None of those regulations impacted business except for coal. And few of those actually impacted them either. Coal is picking up due to exports and trump pushing more subsidies for them. However, Nat gas/wind will continue to cause utilities to shut down coal plants in America.
    • 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. :-)

      • 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.

    • 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

      • illegals have not been stopped. If you read the real data, it is that they are catching less of them and the level returned to levels under W.
        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
      • on a side note, one thing that I heard is that he is supposed to address illegals in jan/feb,. From what my GOP rep says that they will likely do e-verify, but he would not answer about real penalties for businesses that hire illegals. He did say that he thought that DACAs would be part of that, but we will see. If they phase-in e-verify over 2 years, and push automation, they could improve our economy a great deal and might even cover the damage that I expect from their tax bill.
  • Others and I are still unemployed. I'm almost my year! :(

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Working...