Unemployment drops to 5 year low

[abudabit]

WASHINGTON - If you were looking for a job as a teacher last month, you were in luck. Same goes for health workers, retail clerks and building contractors.

ADVERTISEMENT

All told, the economy added 180,000 new jobs, dropping unemployment to a 4.4 percent rate that matched a five-year low.

The mostly positive snapshot of the nation's employment climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, showed that companies ramped up hiring and paid workers more. That's good news for employees and jobseekers, and bodes well for the national economy, too, which is suffering a sluggish spell and a painful housing slump.

"For most people, the job market is still hitting on a lot of cylinders, especially for people who are willing to upgrade their skills. It is not leaving a large number of people stranded," said John Challenger, chief of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an employment research firm. "But there are pockets where people are having a difficult time," he said.

Those include people looking for work at factories, where jobs in March were cut for the ninth straight month. Makers of autos, furniture, clothing and textiles all eliminated jobs last month. Another soft spot: residential construction, a casualty of the housing slump.

But there were many more job winners than losers. Construction jobs led the way, especially for contractors and for commercial building. Retailers, health care providers, educational services and leisure and hospitality companies were among those boosting their payrolls.

"Businesses have a very good appetite for hiring workers. The job market is sturdy," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It is a good time to be looking for a job, particularly if you have skills and education."

Against that backdrop, unemployment fell from 4.5 percent in February to 4.4 percent in March. That matched the rate in October — the lowest in five years.

Here, too, there were winners and losers.

The unemployment rate for Hispanics dropped to 5.1 percent, a three-month low, while the rate for blacks climbed to 8.3 percent, a three-month high. The rate for women held steady at 3.8 percent. The rate for men declined to 4 percent.

The economy ended up adding 32,000 more jobs in January and February combined than the government estimated a month ago. Economists found that encouraging in assessing the health of the job market and the overall economy.

Workers' paychecks grew last month.

Average hourly earnings climbed to $17.22, up from $16.55 a year earlier. That represented a solid 4 percent increase.

Wage growth is good for workers and supports consumer spending, which is indispensable to the economy's good health. But a rapid pickup — if prolonged and not blunted by other economic forces — can raise fears about inflation.

Spiraling inflation would whittle away any wage gains, hurting workers' wallets. The Federal Reserve's biggest concern is that inflation could flare up.

Even so, many economists predict the Fed will keep interest rates where they are for much of this year.

In a separate report, the Fed said consumers borrowed less freely in February; they boosted their use of credit at a 1.5 percent pace, the slowest in four months. The moderation reflected less demand for auto, educational and other loans.

The new employment figures come as President Bush continues to cope with a lackluster job-approval rating of 35 percent from the American public, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. On the economy, just 38 percent approve of the president's stewardship while 60 percent disapprove, the poll shows.

Tapping into that discontent, Democrats are championing policies to close the gap between low- and high-income workers and make it easier for workers to form unions against company wishes. They're also taking a harder stance regarding the administration's free-trade deals.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, in an interview with The Associated Press, said the latest employment figures are a testament to the administration's economic policies and to the drive of the U.S. work force.

"These numbers show we are competing successfully in a very competitive global economy," he said. Addressing the weakness in factory employment, Gutierrez said: "Any job lost is painful. ... We need to stay focused on job training and preparing ourselves" for an even more competitive climate in the future.

In March, there were some challenges for jobseekers, too. For one thing, the job hunt got longer.

The average time that the 6.7 million unemployed people spent searching for jobs was 17.3 weeks in March, compared with 16.4 weeks in February.

"Opportunities are expanding, but it doesn't mean everybody's job search is easy," said Challenger. "But people who really want to look hard and stay at it are finding work."


Sucks that this is the first job I had which I didn't feel like flipping on.

[bethm1b]

Unemployment figures are rigged by the fact that most jobs are part time and alot of unemployed people aren't counted. But things have been worse.

[abudabit]

Unemployment figures are rigged by the fact that most jobs are part time
Source? And has this changed since the past? And if so can you give a source for the trend? Because when it comes down to it, it's all relative. If we are using the same measurement standards in 2007 as we are in 1990 and 1980 and those measurement standards are still valid for the current environment than I don't see the problem.



and alot of unemployed people aren't counted. But things have been worse.

A lot of unemployed people have never been counted. The measurement standards have been mostly consistent (the biggest change in the past was how military members were counted). You only are counted if you are seeking or want to seek a job. If they counted people who aren't looking for jobs and don't want jobs the unemployment rate would be over 50%. It's illogical to count people who don't want to be employed as unemployed.

We still have a lot looser standards of what we consider a part of the work force than Europe does, for example if France used our standards their reported unemployment rate would increase 1.5 - 2 times.

[bethm1b]

I don't have a source. But it's always been that way. The reason it's gotten worse is that companies are reluctant to give health benefits.

[Fruit Monkey]

But Bush Sucks Right?

[VMS]

I don't have a source. But it's always been that way. The reason it's gotten worse is that companies are reluctant to give health benefits.

Hunh? How is unemployment WORSE when companies are reluctant to give health benefits?

If companies aren't giving health benefits, then they've got more money to hire more employees, assuming they've got enough work for those employees.

That means the unemployment numbers are BETTER, not worse. Now, the jobs may not make everyone happy-happy, but they're J-O-B-S. And the numbers for the current employment figures are for MORE money and benefits, at least in comparison to the last decade or so.

Jebus, some people really are economic illiterates, aren't they?

[Ol'BloodyBottom]

I seen this yesterday buried in the paper. This is unreal things are looking up and all we hear is doom and gloom. Enough.

[DonTheTrucker]

But Bush Sucks Right?

Just don't mention the war. Of course the Bush hating crowd will find some way to pooh-pooh the fact that we're basically at a full employment economy.

Give the guy some credit. He's done a good job on everything but the fucking war.

[YourAmishDaddy]

If the economy is doing good pat yourselves on the back. You as a consumer and producer are the reason. Not a politician.

Shows how people are so brainwashed they won't even take credit for their accomplishments. So quick to give glory to some far off demigod.

[Ol'BloodyBottom]

If the economy is doing good pat yourselves on the back. You as a consumer and producer are the reason. Not a politician.

Shows how people are so brainwashed they won't even take credit for their accomplishments. So quick to give glory to some far off demigod.
Your right but people are quick to bash when things are doing bad.

[MrBogey]

The gov't can't create a good economy... but they can certainly make a horrible one.

[speedyjuice]

Just don't mention the war... Give the guy some credit. He's done a good job on everything but the fucking war.I still don't think he has done a bad job on the war. If the media would cover the war in a nuteral way, the american people would be over fucking joyed at how well it is going. HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN IN GERMANY? Almost 60 years, RIGHT? So how can we judge Iraq in 36 months?:huh:

[YourAmishDaddy]

Your right but people are quick to bash when things are doing bad.

Which is true. If anyone's to blame for downturns look at all the speculation that goes into it. People running the fed that have agendas that ultimately spook the buying public. This whole "consumer confidence" nonsense.

I look at a decent economy as that in spite of politicians and bureaucrats. Not because of them.

[Ol'BloodyBottom]

Which is true. If anyone's to blame for downturns look at all the speculation that goes into it. People running the fed that have agendas that ultimately spook the buying public. This whole "consumer confidence" nonsense.

I look at a decent economy as that in spite of politicians and bureaucrats. Not because of them.
Been saying that for years. In the 90's the .dot era was huge but we all know that Al Gore invented it.
Governments job keep me safe and fix my roads. I will do the rest.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Governments job keep me safe and fix my roads. I will do the rest.

Totally agree. Even though I don't even trust them to do either. Given the opportunity government always screws it up.

[DonTheTrucker]

I look at a decent economy as that in spite of politicians and bureaucrats. Not because of them.

QF f'ing T

[bethm1b]

Hunh? How is unemployment WORSE when companies are reluctant to give health benefits?

If companies aren't giving health benefits, then they've got more money to hire more employees, assuming they've got enough work for those employees.

That means the unemployment numbers are BETTER, not worse. Now, the jobs may not make everyone happy-happy, but they're J-O-B-S. And the numbers for the current employment figures are for MORE money and benefits, at least in comparison to the last decade or so.

Jebus, some people really are economic illiterates, aren't they?


I never said it made unemployment worse stupid. I said it kept the numbers down.

[bethm1b]

But Bush Sucks Right?


I don't know why you guys keep trying to paint me as a democrat. ALL politicians suck. Clinton was as much a scurve as Bush. these people could care fucking less about the people. 1% of the people in this country control 90% of the wealth, and they're the ones our government care about right up till election time.

[Ol'BloodyBottom]

I don't know why you guys keep trying to paint me as a democrat. ALL politicians suck. Clinton was as much a scurve as Bush. these people could care fucking less about the people. 1% of the people in this country control 90% of the wealth, and they're the ones our government care about right up till election time.
Sorry we ever doubted you. Let me be the first to appoligize to you Mrs Michael Moore.

[bethm1b]

Sorry we ever doubted you. Let me be the first to appoligize to you Mrs Michael Moore.


Apology accepted.

[HummerTuesdays]

I don't have a source. But it's always been that way. The reason it's gotten worse is that companies are reluctant to give health benefits.

If you can't back up "facts" with a source, please don't present them as "facts."

[weakside]

Unemployment is based on the economy, and the economy is based on consumer confidence more than anything else. So trying to put all the blame or give all the credit for the unemployment is just silly.

But if you are determined to turn this into a political thing, fine. If your Republican give the credit to the Whitehouse and if your a Democrat give the credit to Congress. Problem solved.

[weakside]

Unemployment is based on the economy, and the economy is based on consumer confidence more than anything else. So trying to put all the blame or give all the credit to either party is just silly.

But if you are determined to turn this into a political thing, fine. If your Republican give the credit to the White House and if your a Democrat give the credit to Congress. Problem solved.

Forgot to add the part why it is silly. I'm a dope.

[bethm1b]

If you can't back up "facts" with a source, please don't present them as "facts."


No.

[ern]

If you can't back up "facts" with a source, please don't present them as "facts."

Dam, this is wackbag, not a dissertation or thesis. Besides, it should be common knowledge to any party that the current government, whether it be a D or an R, always changes the way these government reports are determined. It is in their best interests to do so. Afterall, they are government reports which are not verified by an independent third party.

When people talk about the governments inability to affect the economy, they are talking largely out of ignorance. Examples of this are the inflation rate, consumer price index, and the federal gov prime lending rate.

Do to this threads democrat and republican driven ideology, I have included a link that may enlighten some. I had to pull it from australia, so no one would think I am a democrat or a republican. I am neither. A two party system provides you with the illusion of choice.

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/economics/issues/inflation/Topic3Tutorial2Inflati1.html


Regarding unemployment, on the BLS website (link below) they state that the information was changed in March 94 and july 2001. But that is just one little line at the top, and may not be indicitive of the formula they use, or who is and is not considered employed.

This is how it is measured now.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

[HummerTuesdays]

Fact: The sky is green. The mayor of my town said so.

[abudabit]

Dam, this is wackbag, not a dissertation or thesis. Besides, it should be common knowledge to any party that the current government, whether it be a D or an R, always changes the way these government reports are determined. It is in their best interests to do so. Afterall, they are government reports which are not verified by an independent third party.

So you are saying they are constantly altering the gathering and calculation methods to make unemployment look lower? Dude, think this through a little bit. If they were constantly doing that the formula would only be moving in one direction, to the point that we would at some time be reporting below the natural rate of unemployment. Yet that never happens.

And furthermore the government reports ARE verified by independent third parties. You think the government owns all the economists? Do you realize how many independent economic think tanks there are, and how unemployment and the labor market is one of the most scrutinized aspects of the economy? Did that ever occur to you?

If people like you stopped trying so hard to be the outsider for just 1 minute you would realize how rediculous some of the things you guys say are.




And about your inflation comments: Inflation is around 2%. Wage increases were around 4%. That's a real wage increase. The end.

[ern]

So you are saying they are constantly altering the gathering and calculation methods to make unemployment look lower? Dude, think this through a little bit. If they were constantly doing that the formula would only be moving in one direction, to the point that we would at some time be reporting below the natural rate of unemployment. Yet that never happens.

And furthermore the government reports ARE verified by independent third parties. You think the government owns all the economists? Do you realize how many independent economic think tanks there are, and how unemployment and the labor market is one of the most scrutinized aspects of the economy? Did that ever occur to you?

If people like you stopped trying so hard to be the outsider for just 1 minute you would realize how rediculous some of the things you guys say are.




And about your inflation comments: Inflation is around 2%. Wage increases were around 4%. That's a real wage increase. The end.

Ok, I thought I could get through that quickly, but I guess I would have to break down a generally understood concept into its individual parts and explain and provide proof of each part. I won't do it here, it is too time consuming and frankly not worth the effort.

I said "government reports" which is plural, meaning more than one. All government reports (o, I am sure there may be one or two exceptions to the rule) change over time. Many of these reports are based on some form of quantitative analysis, and the way it is performed changes over time. This is due to political and other reasons, not to mention that we are living in a dynamic society.

You say that the government reports ARE verified by independent third parties. Please tell me who the government consults with to independtly verify its findings prior to release to the public.

Here is my proof that they change, once again I did not say how often, you simply inferred that. Taken from the place that provides the report.

Why does the Government collect statistics on the unemployed?
To know about the extent and nature of unemployment. How many people are unemployed? How did they become unemployed? How long have they been unemployed? Are their numbers growing or declining? Are they men or women? Are they young or old? Are they white or black or of Hispanic origin? Are they skilled or unskilled? Are they the sole support of their families, or do other family members have jobs? Are they more concentrated in one area of the country than another? After these statistics are obtained, they have to be interpreted properly so they can be used--together with other economic data--by policymakers in making decisions as to whether measures should be taken to influence the future course of the economy or to aid those affected by joblessness.
Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

I will run out of room and patience, I will post again

[ern]

And yet again from the same place:

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?
The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified, but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

In January 1994, a major redesign of the Current Population Survey was introduced which included a complete revamping of the questionnaire, the use of computer-assisted interviewing for the entire survey, and revisions to some of the labor force concepts.

Here is a link to verify I am not lying to you
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm

[ern]

And yet agian, another link where they say that they changed things:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_a.htm

Chapter 1.
Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey

Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) analyzes and publishes statistics on the labor force, employment, and unemployment, classified by a variety of demographic, social, and economic characteristics. These statistics are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is conducted by the Census Bureau for BLS. This monthly survey of the population uses a sample of households that is designed to represent the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States.

Background
Specific concepts of the labor force, employment, and unemployment were developed in the later stages of the Depression of the 1930s. Before the 1930s, aside from attempts in some of the decennial censuses, no direct measurements were made of the number of jobless persons. Mass unemployment in the early 1930s increased the need for statistics, and widely conflicting estimates based on a variety of indirect techniques began to appear. Dissatisfied with these methods, many research groups, as well as State and municipal governments, began experimenting with direct surveys or samples of the population. In these surveys, an attempt was made to classify the population as employed, unemployed, or out of the labor force by means of a series of questions addressed to each individual. In most of the surveys, the employed were defined as persons with occupations (“gainful workers”), and the unemployed were defined as those who were not working but were “willing and able to work.” These concepts did not meet the standards of objectivity that many technicians felt were necessary to measure either the level of unemployment at a point in time or changes over time. Counts of gainful workers did not have a current dimension, and the criterion “willing and able to work,” when applied in specific situations, appeared to be too intangible and too dependent upon the interpretation and attitude of the persons being interviewed.

A set of precise concepts was developed in the late 1930s to address these various criticisms. The classification of an individual depended principally upon his or her actual activity within a designated period, that is, was the individual working, looking for work, or engaged in other activities? These concepts were adopted for the national sample survey of households, called the Monthly Report of Unemployment, initiated in 1940 by the Works Progress Administration.

The household survey was transferred to the Census Bureau in late 1942, and its name was changed to the Monthly Report on the Labor Force. The name was changed once more, in 1948, to the present Current Population Survey in order to reflect the survey’s expanding role as a source for data on a wide variety of demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the population. In 1959, responsibility for analyzing and publishing the CPS labor force data was transferred to BLS; the Census Bureau continues to collect the data.

[ern]

Dude, your gonna get me as many posts as you have if I keep going report by report, citing by citing.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_d.htm

The above link describes recent changes to the survey, as it comes from their handbook, and it is entitled "Chapter 1.
Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey" "Recent Changes to the Survey"

[ern]

Before I go further, I am not trying to be an outsider, I am cynical because I work for the government and see their crafty little changes and nuances daily.

[Garyisajoke]

journalism is a bad profession right now. i'm a reporter and my last two gigs went under within three months of each other. ...fucking internet is killing the newspaper industry.

[ern]

As far as independent verification is concerned, I would submit to you that there are three advisory councils to which the government entity meets with once or twice a year. I doubt highly that any government agency, especially one with a cabinet level position, would allow their reports to be independently verified. The bereau of Labor statistics is under the department of labor, which is headed by Chao, who was appointed by bush, who sits in his cabinet (oh - it isn't literally a cabinet like you may have in your house, it is the white house's group of people who advise the president - sarcasm intended). Here is a link to that page http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html


this is the list of
Advisory Committees for BLS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLS Business Research Advisory Council - Business groups
BLS Labor Research Advisory Council - unions
Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee - without research I am guessing eggheads


Last Modified Date: October 14, 2003

[ern]

journalism is a bad profession right now. i'm a reporter and my last two gigs went under within three months of each other. ...fucking internet is killing the newspaper industry.

Really? or sarcasm? I would think that few people outside of a college setting or lawyers have the patience to actually look things up.

[Garyisajoke]

Really? or sarcasm? I would think that few people outside of a college setting or lawyers have the patience to actually look things up.

i was sitting with the editor of the Raleigh News and Observer just yesterday talking about it. It's really hurting the industry. The internet is always on while newspapers are printed daily, sometimes weekly at the shitholes I worked at. older people still read, but demographics (and I know you all love proven facts, but I can't provide any, just repeat what the editor said) show that younger people tend not to read newspapers. i think newspapers are an institution and will never completely go away, but a lot of the smaller (and larger) papers are struggling to re-find their audience.

I also see it as a good thing because it forces us to be creative and to change our game to get people reading again. in my short time, I've always said that we needed to eliminate hard news/ap style/inverted pyramid and give readers more substance or more style. although, i'm not in much of a position to change anything, sitting at my desk, jerking off and writing album reviews for free.

there's a book by a UNC-Chapel Hill professor Meyer called "The Vanishing Newspaper." It's fucking brilliant whether you're in the industry or not and for those of us who are, it's fucking frightening.

[ern]

I believe that it is coming to an end nationally, but locally it will be far behind. I read any AP or reuters story on my comp before my sunday paper comes in. But local news is just that. I would think local papers will survive for a long time, until the foundations are in place for real time information. Maybe big cities can do it quicker, like NYC, but I don't see a third class city having that system in place for awhile.

Have you noticed that the gossip information in papers has seemed to grow substantially larger than the substantive?

I do like to read printed materials over text on a monitor, even a nice flat panel (digital). Besides coffee goes better with a paper than a laptop.

[Garyisajoke]

I believe that it is coming to an end nationally, but locally it will be far behind. I read any AP or reuters story on my comp before my sunday paper comes in. But local news is just that. I would think local papers will survive for a long time, until the foundations are in place for real time information. Maybe big cities can do it quicker, like NYC, but I don't see a third class city having that system in place for awhile.

very good point and I've heard that small community papers are actually thriving, the kick is, no matter how big they get, they can't pay for quality reporters because they have such a limited circulation, so there's not a lot of room for people like me, thus the business still slides.

it sucks, but it's about the only thing I ever wanted to do and now that I've done it, I feel it's about the only thing I can do.

[caniseeyourtaint]

The unemployment rate for Hispanics dropped to 5.1 percent, a three-month low, while the rate for blacks climbed to 8.3 percent, a three-month high. The rate for women held steady at 3.8 percent. The rate for men declined to 4 percent.

We're all missing the important fact. THIS is why the blacks have time to protest and complain about non-racist comments that they try to convince everyone are racist. The man be holdin them downs, massa. But why is it that everyone else are finding employment?

Get a job sparkling wiggles.