February Job Growth Surprisingly Weak

[Donutboy 0]

February Job Growth Surprisingly Weak

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP

WASHINGTON (March 5) - America's unemployment rate remained stuck at 5.6 percent in February as the economy added a paltry 21,000 position. The figures dramatized the relative scarcity of new jobs in a week in which President Bush shoved his re-election campaign into high gear.

The latest snapshot of the employment climate released by the Labor Department Friday depicted the painfully slow job growth the country has been enduring. The net gain in payrolls in February fell well short of the 125,000 jobs that economists had been forecasting.

Moreover, the job gains in January were revised to show a pickup of just 97,000 positions, down from the 112,000 first estimated a month ago.

Nevertheless, the overall seasonally adjusted civilian unemployment rate stayed at 5.6 percent in February as thousands of prospective workers gave up looking for a job. Approximately 392,000 people left the civilian work force in February from January.

The health of the nation's economy, especially the job climate, is a major issue in this year's presidential race.

Slow job growth has been a sore spot for Bush. Presumptive Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry has seized upon this as evidence of what he contends is Bush's poor handling of the economy.

The economy, after struggling mightily to get back on its feet after being knocked down by the 2001, finally staged a material rebound in the second half of last year. But for out-of-work Americans, it hasn't felt like better economic times.

There were some 8.2 million people unemployed in February, with the average duration of 20.3 weeks without work. That marked the highest average duration of joblessness in over 20 years.

Manufacturers lost jobs for the 43rd month in a row in February. Factories cut 3,000 positions last month, but that marked a slower pace than the 13,000 cut in January.

Construction companies lost 24,000 jobs in February as bad winter weather in some parts of the country delayed projects. Leisure and hospitality firms cut 9,000 jobs in February.

Retailers, however, added 13,000 positions in February. Temporary help firms added 32,000 and education and health-care services gained 13,000 jobs last month.

Analysts want to see the economy generate around 200,000 or 300,000 net jobs a month on a consistent basis before they declare a recovery in the fragile labor market.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is optimistic that job growth, which has been poking along, will speed up. ''We could get a pop in employment at any time,'' Greenspan said last week.

Despite the backdrop of the sluggish job market, consumer confidence rebounded in early March as Americans felt better about their current financial situations as well as the economy's prospects in the months ahead, according to an AP-Ipsos index of consumers attitudes.

Since last June, the Fed's main lever to influence economic activity, called the federal funds rate, has been at 1 percent, a 45-year low. Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates have helped motivate consumers and businesses to spend and invest, an important factor to lift economic growth.

Most economists expect the Fed to hold rates steady when it meets next on March 16. Looking ahead, economists have mixed opinions about the direction of short-term interest rates. Some economists believe the Fed will start to push up rates this year. Others don't believe higher rates will come until 2005.

This is still a jobless recovery. People are out of work longer now than at any time since Reagan's first term in office. Our industrial base is rapidly eroding as manufacturing jobs are being replaced by service sector jobs. Just like his father before him, this Bush doesn't have a clue!!

[MDM4AU 337]

HEY DB! Good to have you back! We missed your ridiculous "machine gun" posting!

I still disagree with you, but it is glad to see you back! (We need the comic relief. AL has tried to fill in for you and doesn't quite get the job done like you! )

Hope all is well!

[rexbo 104]

The sky is falling, oh woe is me, a terrible 5.6% unempoyment rate, we are all going to be lining up at the bread lines, our babies will go hungry, we will have to buy smaller SUVs to afford the gas, we cannot fly to Hawaii for vacation, we will have to, God forbid, drive to Florida. Oh what a terrible, horrible economy we live in today...

[Tiger Al 0]

The sky is falling, oh woe is me, a terrible 5.6% unempoyment rate, we are all going to be lining up at the bread lines, our babies will go hungry, we will have to buy smaller SUVs to afford the gas, we cannot fly to Hawaii for vacation, we will have to, God forbid, drive to Florida. Oh what a terrible, horrible economy we live in today...

Just out of curiosity, about what level of unemployment would concern you? Or, is it as long as you are employed it doesn't matter?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Historically speaking, 5.6% unemployment is not a high number. Obviously that doesn't mean you rest on your laurels and show no concern for those looking for work, but you also don't make mindless proclamation about this being the worst economy since the Great Depression either...especially when the trend is that unemployment is falling. It peaked last June at about 6.4 and has fallen to it's current level in the last 8 months.

This article offered some perspective toward the end:

...Given this rhetoric, it hard to believe that the current 5.7 percent unemployment rate is lower than the average unemployment rates during the 1970s (6.4 percent), 1980s (7.3 percent) or 1990s (5.8 percent)...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108290,00.html

This article was written mid January so it lists a figure of 5.7...the current rate is 5.6.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Just out of curiosity, about what level of unemployment would concern you? Or, is it as long as you are employed it doesn't matter?

it seems to me that we discussed in our econ classes that 'full' employment was considered to be not at 100%, and that even 100% wasn't even an optimal position to be in. but i can't really remember what economists consider 'optimal' employment levels, and it may even fluctuate given other factors.

what level of unemploymenet would not concern you, TA?

ct

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Economists used to see "full" employment as having an unemployment rate of 4% or below. The downside of that is that the Fed would tend to raise interest rates because of rapidly rising wages and prices (inflation). "Natural" unemployment is debated back and forth but usually settles somewhere between 6% and 6.5%, depending on who you talk to:

...In the 1970s, economists used a benchmark called "full employment," and it was generally agreed to mean an unemployment rate of about 4 percent.  But today, Fed officials and many economists believe that the economy cannot long sustain an unemployment rate below about 6 percent without  causing wages and prices to begin to spiral upward.

Fed officials here acknowledged there is still considerable debate about  the precise level of "natural" unemployment; some conservatives believe that it could be as high as 6.5 percent, while others believe it could be  slightly under 6 percent. But there is general agreement inside the central  bank that U.S. unemployment, which drifted down from 6.9 percent in mid-1993 to 6 percent in June of this year, is very close to the natural rate. That, in turn, helps explain why the Fed has moved repeatedly in recent months to boost interest rates. Fed officials stress that they use many other economic barometers as well but the natural rate of unemployment is clearly one of the most controversial at the central bank's disposal.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N34/fed.34w.html

This article was written back in 1995 which explains why it may sound a little dated.

[Tiger Al 0]

Just out of curiosity, about what level of unemployment would concern you? Or, is it as long as you are employed it doesn't matter?

it seems to me that we discussed in our econ classes that 'full' employment was considered to be not at 100%, and that even 100% wasn't even an optimal position to be in. but i can't really remember what economists consider 'optimal' employment levels, and it may even fluctuate given other factors.

what level of unemploymenet would not concern you, TA?

ct

I don't know. 4-5% maybe. The thing that bothers me most is the jobs that are leaving. People here have compared this to Honda, Mercedes and Hyundai plants opening here as if to say that it's good and normal business. The difference is that those car companies have expanded into the US. The jobs that have left aren't expansions, they've simply been relocated to other countries.

rexbo made light of this and, I suppose, if it involved only more affluent people who's only pain was to have to downsize from an Excursion to an Expedition or change their vacation plans, then I'd probably yuk it up with him because we should all have it so 'rough.'

While many of the jobs are well paying white-collar jobs, most are not.

[rexbo 104]

rexbo made light of this...

I did make light of this, the Democrats have been screaming that the world is coming to an end economically for the past 3 years, despite the incredible turnaround that our economy has made from conditions beyond the President's (or our Government as a whole) control In fact, the Democratic whining is actually hurting the economy and the people they supposedly care about. The steam in the economy is the consumer, and as long as the Democrat's are hollering, then lots of people are going to hold back their share, and buy the cheaper Kia made overseas and not the Honda made in Ohio.

And this is their plan, they absolutely do not want the economy to do well right now, nor people to get 'their' jobs back. So, they talk down the economy as much as possible, and then blame the resulting drop in consumer confidence on Bush.

[Tiger Al 0]

rexbo made light of this...

I did make light of this, the Democrats have been screaming that the world is coming to an end economically for the past 3 years, despite the incredible turnaround that our economy has made from conditions beyond the President's (or our Government as a whole) control In fact, the Democratic whining is actually hurting the economy and the people they supposedly care about. The steam in the economy is the consumer, and as long as the Democrat's are hollering, then lots of people are going to hold back their share, and buy the cheaper Kia made overseas and not the Honda made in Ohio.

And this is their plan, they absolutely do not want the economy to do well right now, nor people to get 'their' jobs back. So, they talk down the economy as much as possible, and then blame the resulting drop in consumer confidence on Bush.

Let's see if I've got your story straight: The economy is good but the Democrats badmouth it so that people will actually think it's bad, and then consumer confidence drops thereby making the economy, in fact, turn bad so we can then blame Bush and then what...? Oddly enough, your other story is that we really don't want to get Kerry (or anyone else) elected in 2004 because we REALLY want to get Hillary elected in 2008 because 2012 would just be too late. So, we want to make America think that Bush is bad but the only legitimate (in our opinion) alternative we will offer is HRC, but we don't want to run her until 2008.

Aren't you forgetting that all the while we'll be going to hell in a handbasket right along with everyone else? Oh, wait, I forgot...we all have limousines and make million dollar contributions to the DNC when we're not fretting about choosing between Hawaii and Barbados and having to limit our Dom Perignon intake to just two meals a day.

I get it now:

VLWC

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Economists used to see "full" employment as having an unemployment rate of 4% or below.

I hope you are referring to "full" employment numbers within our borders. Because, as long as a company is based within the continental United States, any and all jobs produced outside or inside the boundaries of the conus are considered in the employment numbers our government counts as job creation. So, a job in China, Mexico or India is considered a job created here within the continental United States. One thing we cannot allow to continue is the erosion of our manufacturing base. This area of production must remain intact to support our sovereignty. Continued independence is essential to remaining a free nation, otherwise we become too heavily dependent on the dictates of others, resulting in a loss of our strength as a nation. Other areas of growth that reflect a sustained recovery are high paying jobs with our borders. The absence of such would be a loss and an increase in the gap between the rich and poor. If Mcdonald's and Pic-Sweet vegetables are the only companies creating jobs then our tax revenue base is undermined, which will cripple our demand for goods and services of the public sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for decreasing the size and power of government, but without having a strong tax base who'll pay for interstate expansion, an area of eroding infrastructure. Infinite debt of fiat currency cannot support the stabilization of a capitalistic economy. Especially, when that debt is owned by foreign central banks. When they come collecting we'll end up giving up our land, which they have already begun to do. There is No Gold at Ft. Knox, just eye candy. To back our debt, we must pay with land. But this is impossible since we don't even own the deeds to our land here. The deeds to the United States of America's land are found at the Crown of Templar. So, we will be force to work off that debt in the New World Order by working in the fields as farm hands. Ever hear of Bio-diversity? The United Nations already owns most of our national parks and they are continuously purchasing land and structures within our borders.

HR 901 Testimony

Who Owns America?

FOX NEWS - Who Owns America?

[Ranger12 46]

All is know is that the democrats are still trying to say the economy is in the gutter and unemployment is out of control when the cold hard numbers say otherwise.

As an example, my father and brother lost their jobs two years ago when they plant they worked at closed down because of company streamlining. They were both able to find jobs right as their unemployment ran out. Of course, the both tried to find jobs that paid close to what they were making, but that was very hard to do. Finally, my brother found a job that will eventually pay decently over a few years. My dad found a job that would pay decent, but not nowhere what he had made before. To add to this, all 100 people that were laid off that they both worked with are not working and most at decent jobs. A few weeks ago, I got a little curious about seeing what types of jobs are available through the unemployment office, so I went there one morning. Well, guess what, there was not alot of people in there looking for jobs. On top of that, there were plenty of jobs available in their system for just about anything you could think off. You could look up jobs by zip code and regions of the whole state and there were tone of jobs out there. I asked the VA guy about this and you want to guess what he told me. Alot of the unemployed are way too picky about the job they want. The jobs are there folks! But it seems that many seem to have too much pride and would rather not work then to take a job they think is beneath them! Thus, the reason we have so many Hispanics coming to this country, because they will work those jobs. When I was laid off over four years ago from a good paying job, I tried to be picky, but found out that those jobs are not that easily available. So, I took a job that paid why less then I had before and it was going to be a struggle to make ends meet. But, I downgraded my style of living to make it work. Fortunately, I have had decent raises at the place I have worked for the past three years now, but I still am not making the money I have made before. But instead of whining about it, I am just grateful to have a job. Again they are no lack of jobs, just lack of some to swallow their pride. I think we all have known someone like that or have been guilty of that ourselves.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Everyone would like to be able to move straight from one job to another that pays the same or better, but often it just doesn't work that way, and it doens't matter who's in office, what their policies are, and so on. It's just the breaks sometimes. I lost my job back in late 1995 during those "glorious Clinton years". I had a little money in the bank to live off of (albeit at a drastically downgrading lifestyle) and did nothing but job search and send resumes for about three months. Finally, the money was running out and I had to do something and I refused to draw unemployment anymore. So I took a job over Christmas at Circuit City.

CC wasn't exactly paying what a marketing position at the record label did, but I had to do something. I had to downgrade for a little while to pay bills and figure out what to do next. Finally, I ended up going into sales at another music company...something I could do because of the sales experience I got at CC.

Bottom line is, careers take unexpected detours sometimes through times of not making as much money or having the same kind of good benefits, but you take what you can get and build back from there.

[rexbo 104]

[Let's see if I've got your story straight: The economy is good but the Democrats badmouth it so that people will actually think it's bad, and then consumer confidence drops thereby making the economy, in fact, turn bad so we can then blame Bush and then what...? Oddly enough, your other story is that we really don't want to get Kerry (or anyone else) elected in 2004 because we REALLY want to get Hillary elected in 2008 because 2012 would just be too late.

I never claimed that you Democrats were all absolutely 100% behind the same story, I mean Kerry cannot even agree with himself, so how are 2 Democrats going to agree to a plan to take over the country?

[Tiger Al 0]

Everyone would like to be able to move straight from one job to another that pays the same or better, but often it just doesn't work that way, and it doens't matter who's in office, what their policies are, and so on. It's just the breaks sometimes. I lost my job back in late 1995 during those "glorious Clinton years". I had a little money in the bank to live off of (albeit at a drastically downgrading lifestyle) and did nothing but job search and send resumes for about three months. Finally, the money was running out and I had to do something and I refused to draw unemployment anymore. So I took a job over Christmas at Circuit City.

CC wasn't exactly paying what a marketing position at the record label did, but I had to do something. I had to downgrade for a little while to pay bills and figure out what to do next. Finally, I ended up going into sales at another music company...something I could do because of the sales experience I got at CC.

Bottom line is, careers take unexpected detours sometimes through times of not making as much money or having the same kind of good benefits, but you take what you can get and build back from there.

I've heard you tell this story before and I was just wondering if you were married at the time? Kids?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Let's see if I've got your story straight: The economy is good but the Democrats badmouth it so that people will actually think it's bad, and then consumer confidence drops thereby making the economy, in fact, turn bad so we can then blame Bush and then what...?

Yep, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. I haven't heard anything positive come out of the mouth of a democrat since Slick Willy left the White House. I truely believe that some liberals, not all of them, do root for bad things to happen to the country just because President Bush is in office.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Let's see if I've got your story straight: The economy is good but the Democrats badmouth it so that people will actually think it's bad, and then consumer confidence drops thereby making the economy, in fact, turn bad so we can then blame Bush and then what...?

Yep, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. I haven't heard anything positive come out of the mouth of a democrat since Slick Willy left the White House. I truely believe that some liberals, not all of them, do root for bad things to happen to the country just because President Bush is in office.

That does seem to be the case. Their hatred of bush is such that they would consider it an honor to sacrifice basic rights to get him out of office. Really sounding like more of a cult than a political party.

[DKW 86 7,732]

Why dont we get some union folks to go to Korea, mexico, etc and start raising their wages so we can keep the jobs here. Sounds to me as if the Unions are really a big part of the problem.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Why dont we get some union folks to go to Korea, mexico, etc and start raising their wages so we can keep the jobs here. Sounds to me as if the Unions are really a big part of the problem.

Got somebody in mind...somebody you never want to hear from again???

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Everyone would like to be able to move straight from one job to another that pays the same or better, but often it just doesn't work that way, and it doens't matter who's in office, what their policies are, and so on.  It's just the breaks sometimes.  I lost my job back in late 1995 during those "glorious Clinton years".  I had a little money in the bank to live off of (albeit at a drastically downgrading lifestyle) and did nothing but job search and send resumes for about three months.  Finally, the money was running out and I had to do something and I refused to draw unemployment anymore.  So I took a job over Christmas at Circuit City. 

CC wasn't exactly paying what a marketing position at the record label did, but I had to do something.  I had to downgrade for a little while to pay bills and figure out what to do next.  Finally, I ended up going into sales at another music company...something I could do because of the sales experience I got at CC.

Bottom line is, careers take unexpected detours sometimes through times of not making as much money or having the same kind of good benefits, but you take what you can get and build back from there.

I've heard you tell this story before and I was just wondering if you were married at the time? Kids?

I was getting things in place to be able to ask my girlfriend to marry me when I lost my job. So that put the kibosh on that idea for a while.

Does being married or having kids change the fact that no matter who's running things, what the economy is doing, or how good of a worker you think you are, you can't hold out forever waiting for the perfect job to take the place of the one you had? I mean, sure, take some time, network, send out resumes, take advantage of anything you can to get that kind of job. But at some point, whether it's working construction, delivering pizzas, picking up garbage, or working at retail, you have to move forward and take something. If for no other reason than to maintain your dignity.

Is that so unrealistic? I mean, yes it's hard. Yes, it sucks. Yes, it will be difficult for a while. But impossible? Really?

I have a wife and child now. I could lose my job. It would be very tough. But I don't think I'd have the time to sit around and pass up job offers for very long before I'd have to find something, even if I hated it, to pay bills for a while. I have a friend. He's married, no kids yet. About two years ago, he left a position at my current company to take a better job somewhere else. Eight months later, he lost it in a downsizing move. He was in marketing and had acquired some graphic design skills along the way. He tried to get another marketing job, but to no avail. So he ended up taking on several jobs, one in advertising sales for a magazine, another as a freelance graphic designer, another as an independent booking agent for a jazz pianist, and another as a manager for the pianist and another artist. Would he rather have one good paying 40-50/wk job with good benefits? Heck yes. And he pursued those for a while. But, he had responsibilities...wife still in college, house payment, various other bills and debts. So, he gave up on his marketing dream and cobbled together a living.

It happens.

[CShine 0]

The bitter responses from the right-wing here seem to miss an obvious point. Nobody is saying the economy is a wreck. The obvious point here is that economists have been repeatedly saying that strong growth should be creating jobs by now. However, we see a disturbing trend here, strong growth that doesn't translate into jobs. That means that we're at a very unsteady point right now.

Should growth slip a bit at any point in the near future that would mean bad news on the job front. It's not that 5.6% unemployment is terrible. It's that the current hiring trends are not encouraging. JUST HOW MUCH growth do we have to have to actually create jobs?

Anytime the unemployment rate stays flat that means that there are many sections of the country that are losing jobs while other sections are gaining. There really is a noticeable divide when it comes to regional job markets. Right-wingers poo poo job concerns, but layoffs are VERY REAL AND ONGOING in many of the heavily industrialized states, and many of these large areas really are losing lots of work. This is why it's still a major political issue. The job market is still bad in widespread areas. It doesn't work to merely point to nationwide indexes and say this represents where the whole country is. A whole lot of the country is still suffering a bad job market.

[Ranger12 46]

The bitter responses from the right-wing here seem to miss an obvious point. Nobody is saying the economy is a wreck. The obvious point here is that economists have been repeatedly saying that strong growth should be creating jobs by now. However, we see a disturbing trend here, strong growth that doesn't translate into jobs. That means that we're at a very unsteady point right now.

Should growth slip a bit at any point in the near future that would mean bad news on the job front. It's not that 5.6% unemployment is terrible. It's that the current hiring trends are not encouraging. JUST HOW MUCH growth do we have to have to actually create jobs?

Anytime the unemployment rate stays flat that means that there are many sections of the country that are losing jobs while other sections are gaining. There really is a noticeable divide when it comes to regional job markets. Right-wingers poo poo job concerns, but layoffs are VERY REAL AND ONGOING in many of the heavily industrialized states, and many of these large areas really are losing lots of work. This is why it's still a major political issue. The job market is still bad in widespread areas. It doesn't work to merely point to nationwide indexes and say this represents where the whole country is. A whole lot of the country is still suffering a bad job market.

Bitter responses by the right wing? Are you freakin' kidding me? Have you even listened to the junk the democratic candidates are spewing? I think that is real funny when you say that the liberals have not been saying the economy is bad. That is all I seem to hear. What you just said about it not growing as quickly as predicted is the new rhetoric they are spewing because the finally realized that the American people did not believe their old rhetoric about the economy. For all of you keeping score, here is how the liberals have attacked Bush so far and their results:

Iraq and WMDS not being found-failed

Bush's NG service-failed

Unemployment-failing more every month

The economy is not good-failed

The economy is not growing as fast as predicted-will fail as all other attempts to discredit Bush have failed

[CShine 0]

Bitter responses by the right wing? Are you freakin' kidding me? Have you even listened to the junk the democratic candidates are spewing?

Yes, I have. None of that changes what the right is saying. Both sides are full of venom.

I think that is real funny when you say that the liberals have not been saying the economy is bad. That is all I seem to hear.

No, you're hearing them say it's a jobless recovery. No one is saying economic growth is weak. They're saying job growth is.

What you just said about it not growing as quickly as predicted is the new rhetoric they are spewing because the finally realized that the American people did not believe their old rhetoric about the economy.

No, right-wing economists have been predicting for months that we'd see job growth by now. Most of this week's predictions were in the ballpark of 100,00 new jobs expected this month. Obviously, they have to admit that their own forecasts were wrong and that the strong economy is not creating jobs like Bush predicted it would.

For all of you keeping score, here is how the liberals have attacked Bush so far and their results:

Iraq and WMDS not being found-failed

You're right. Bush's intelligence on Iraq did prove to be a complete failure. Even he admits that.

Bush's NG service-failed

Irrelevant issue. I thought the Dems were way off-base on that one from the beginning.

Unemployment-failing more every month

That's the absolute truth. The economy continues to fail at creating jobs.

The economy is not good-failed

The economy is not growing as fast as predicted-will fail as all other attempts to discredit Bush have failed

Nobody, I mean not one person is saying that economic growth is poor right now, nor are they saying it's not growing fast enough. You have absolutely nothing to back you up. You're just making that one up out of thin air.

[rexbo 104]

Nobody, I mean not one person is saying that economic growth is poor right now, nor are they saying it's not growing fast enough. You have absolutely nothing to back you up. You're just making that one up out of thin air.

“A Fight for our Economic Future”

If you listen to this guy, it certainly sounds like the sky is falling to me. If what he is saying is true, we should take our money out of the bank and stuff it in our mattresses...

Under George Bush’s watch, our economy has taken a nose dive. America has lost over three million jobs.  Surpluses have disappeared and deficits have soared to record heights.  Business investment in training and in America’s future has plummeted.  The stock market is down.  The gap in pay between those in the corporate suites and those in the cubicles, behind the counter, or on the factory floor has never been so wide.  And corporate scandals have shaken our confidence in the economy as corrupt CEOs make out like bandits, looting the earnings their employees created and feathering their nests while costing Americans their nest eggs.  It’s not hard to see why the American people think that today they’re working for the economy, but the economy’s not working for them.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Just a few facts, not that they should get in the way of good discussion.

Economic performance charts under Presidents