• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Economy Gained 126,000 Jobs in March, an Abrupt Slowdown in Hiring

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'The labor market’s yearlong streak of robust monthly job creation was broken on Friday with the Labor Department’s report that employers added just 126,000 workers in March, a marked slowdown in hiring that echoed earlier signs of a winter pall on the economy.'

...

In the Bureau of Labor Statistics report Friday, it revised its previous estimates for February and January, subtracting 69,000 jobs from the first quarter’s total. And there was also no sign that the millions of American who have disappeared from the work force were returning, as the labor participation rate — which includes those who have jobs and those who are looking — remained unchanged at 62.7 percent.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-march.html



Ouch.
 
Btw, although the average hourly earnings were up for the month, the numbers of hours dropped and so did the weekly earnings.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

But that's just the Establishment Data.

The Household survey was even uglier.

Total Americans employed rose only 34,000.

And the important 25-54 age range saw a LOSS of 64,000.

In fact, every general age range - 16-19, 20-24, 25-54 and 55 and over - saw a drop in employment except that old standby...the over 55's.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


And here is a worrying stat for the future, over the last 12 months, the 20-24 age range has showed a drop of employment of 117,000 (they lost 291,000 in March).
 
Last edited:
Ouch....Its the weathers fault ! Lol

We need more " stimulus to increase aggregate demand "....
 
And, in case you are wondering about the unemployment rate?

It stayed at 5.5% - despite the lousy jobs numbers - thanks in part to the government's best friend in the jobs data...the participation rate which dropped yet again to 62.7%.
 
I am sure the weather in the east played a small role, but I think the biggest drag on last months numbers was the weakening domestic energy sector due to low oil prices. Hopefully last month was just a brief blip in the overall trend.
 
'The labor market’s yearlong streak of robust monthly job creation was broken on Friday with the Labor Department’s report that employers added just 126,000 workers in March, a marked slowdown in hiring that echoed earlier signs of a winter pall on the economy.'

...

In the Bureau of Labor Statistics report Friday, it revised its previous estimates for February and January, subtracting 69,000 jobs from the first quarter’s total. And there was also no sign that the millions of American who have disappeared from the work force were returning, as the labor participation rate — which includes those who have jobs and those who are looking — remained unchanged at 62.7 percent.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-march.html



Ouch.

It always takes time for gdp growth to translate into jobs and with the dollar strong and the world economy mixed I see no real reason for better performance than we are seeing.
 
It always takes time for gdp growth to translate into jobs and with the dollar strong and the world economy mixed I see no real reason for better performance than we are seeing.

Time?

You do realize that in the all-important 35-54 age range, that there are less Americans working now then since the official end of the 'Great Recession'? That is 5 3/4 years.

How much time do you want?

The 'recovery' is a joke, imo. A QE/ZIRP/deficit spending joke of a recovery that has seen food stamp usage skyrocket...along with the national debt, the Fed balance sheet and the stock market (which primarily benefits the rich). Oh, and the home ownership rate is at a 19 year low and still falling.
Yet there are still less Americans employed in the all-important, prime money making, big ticket item buying, 35-54 age range since the recession ended.

Whatever the Fed/government is doing...it ain't, IMO, working for almost anyone but the rich.
 
Last edited:
Time?

You do realize that in the all-important 35-54 age range, that there are less Americans working now then since the official end of the 'Great Recession'? That is 5 3/4 years.

How much time do you want?

The 'recovery' is a joke, imo. A QE/ZIRP/deficit spending joke of a recovery that has seen food stamp usage skyrocket...along with the national debt, the Fed balance sheet and the stock market (which primarily benefits the rich). Oh, and the home ownership rate is at a 19 year low and still falling.
Yet there are still less Americans employed in the all-important, prime money making, big ticket item buying, 35-54 age range since the recession ended.

Whatever the Fed/government is doing...it ain't, IMO, working for almost anyone but the rich.

You keep repeating that statistic even after it has been pointed out to you that the 35-54 demographic is SHRINKING in size. So yes there are less people working in it because there are less of them. Our population is aging. How would you fix that? More immigration?
As far as the food stamp increases, you do know that the requirements have been eased resulting in more households that qualify.

As the economy weakens, states and the federal government are trying to help more people qualify for food stamps.
Since Oct. 1, new federal rules make it easier for households with income from combat pay, retirement accounts or education savings to be eligible. The rules are part of the 2008 Farm Bill, which changed the name of the food stamp program to SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

"This is a nutrition program, not a welfare program," says Jean Daniel, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), noting that half the 29 million Americans who receive aid are children. SNAP serves one of every five of the nation's kids, who are also eligible for free or reduced-price school meals.

Some states are going further to expand eligibility. Last month, California enacted a bill that will allow low-income people to keep some savings and still qualify for food aid. At least four other states — Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont — similarly eased the asset test this year.

"People won't have to sink to ground zero to get help," says Paul Fraunholtz, a deputy director in Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-19-foodstamps_N.htm
 
Last edited:
You keep repeating that statistic even after it has been pointed out to you that the 35-54 demographic is SHRINKING in size. So yes there are less people working in it because there are less of them. Our population is aging. How would you fix that? More immigration?


According to census.gov...between 2000 and 2010...

yes, 35-39 and 40-44 shrank in numbers (by 11.1% and 6.9% respectively).

But ages 45-49 and 50-54 rose significantly (13.0% and 26.8% respectively).

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf


Additionally, despite the large rise on the numbers of aged 45-54's recently (apparently THE most important demographic for the economy)....the number of employed persons in that very age group between the end of the Great Recession (June 2009) and today has DROPPED by 926,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf Page 16

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm


What kind if a recovery is it when the most important economic age group is growing in number and yet has less people employed?

Not a good one, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Time?

You do realize that in the all-important 35-54 age range, that there are less Americans working now then since the official end of the 'Great Recession'? That is 5 3/4 years.

How much time do you want?

The 'recovery' is a joke, imo. A QE/ZIRP/deficit spending joke of a recovery that has seen food stamp usage skyrocket...along with the national debt, the Fed balance sheet and the stock market (which primarily benefits the rich). Oh, and the home ownership rate is at a 19 year low and still falling.
Yet there are still less Americans employed in the all-important, prime money making, big ticket item buying, 35-54 age range since the recession ended.

Whatever the Fed/government is doing...it ain't, IMO, working for almost anyone but the rich.

Don't forget that we installed many too many political programs doing stuff that governments don't do well and allowed a Fed Chairman and President to create a humungus monster of a financial bubble the popped. That considered we arelucky to be, where we are.
 
A strong dollar has been a drag on corporate profits, and as such will continue to be a headwind until multi-nationals can adequately hedge their foreign currency exposure. Weather was not as much of a drag as it was last year, but a minor contributor nonetheless. Weakness in energy, the star of the U.S. economy the past few years, is beginning to be felt on the aggregate. There are also supply disruptions that have worked their way into recent data.

U.S. economic performance should maintain a less optimistic tone until the second half of 2015. By that time, both consumers and producers will be in better positions to navigate the changing environment.
 
According to census.gov...between 2000 and 2010...

yes, 35-39 and 40-44 shrank in numbers (by 11.1% and 6.9% respectively).

But ages 45-49 and 50-54 rose significantly (13.0% and 26.8% respectively).

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf


Additionally, despite the large rise on the numbers of aged 45-54's recently (apparently THE most important demographic for the economy)....the number of employed persons in that very age group between the end of the Great Recession (June 2009) and today has DROPPED by 926,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf Page 16

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


What kind if a recovery is it when the most important economic age group is growing in number and yet has less people employed?

Not a good one, IMO.

Another instance of inadequate analysis. You cite population growth between 2000 and 2010, and make the comparison to employment between 2009 and 2015. This is why nobody of substance takes you seriously.
 
I am sure the weather in the east played a small role, but I think the biggest drag on last months numbers was the weakening domestic energy sector due to low oil prices. Hopefully last month was just a brief blip in the overall trend.

Only 11,000 jobs lost in oil business. But don't worry, once those Walmart minimum wage increases kick in, the economy will be booming with more jobs.
 
Only 11,000 jobs lost in oil business. But don't worry, once those Walmart minimum wage increases kick in, the economy will be booming with more jobs.

Its not just jobs lost, but a loss of growth and thus hiring in the oil business. Moreover you have all the dependent industries for oil industry infrastructure and so on. There is a reason why Texas was producing so many jobs when oil prices were high.
 
Btw, although the average hourly earnings were up for the month, the numbers of hours dropped and so did the weekly earnings.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

But that's just the Establishment Data.

The Household survey was even uglier.

Total Americans employed rose only 34,000.

And the important 25-54 age range saw a LOSS of 64,000.

In fact, every general age range - 16-19, 20-24, 25-54 and 55 and over - saw a drop in employment except that old standby...the over 55's.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


And here is a worrying stat for the future, over the last 12 months, the 20-24 age range has showed a drop of employment of 117,000 (they lost 291,000 in March).


It is all Bush's fault......and global warming.......and racism.
 
I have said this for years. The supposed "Texas Miracle" is only a miracle if you believe that God miraculously put all that oil underneath Texas dirt.

And youve been wrong for years.

Texas has and has had a very diverse economy and in the last 6 years every sector of our economy has grown.

Oil and Gas accounts for only 10 percent of my States total GDP and Companies like Toyota and Millions of ecomomic refugees from California dont pick up and move here because 10 percent of our GDP is Oil and Gas.

They move here because Texas's Conservative approach to building economies WORKS and has always worked.

We incentivize private investment in our State through lower taxes and less regulations and that has leads to Jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom