308,000 Jobs Created in March (UE Rate Up at 5.7%)

CNBC | April 2, 2004

[the Real fifi]

I don't think so and neither does Virginia Postrel. I think more people than ever are self-employed or independent contractors. (Check her website for economists' takes on this.) In part this is due to the internet. In part it's because people prefer the freedom of working independently. In part it's because employers want to avoid the high state benefit/unemployment tax , etc. costs of having more than a small size ermanent payroll.

[alwaysconservative]

You count as "unemployed" if you say you want to be working for someone else but are not. Unfortunately, under the regulations that have been in place for several administrations, this doesn't properly reflect that most people who are self-employed who are working and making an income (thus, not "unemployed" as we generally understand the term). And contrary to what has been stated here, unemployment DOES count those who are not working but who are not still seeking unemployment benefits, such as students.

(Another problem is that most people mix-up the "jobless claims" with the unemployed, and the percentage uses the higher number. Also, the press seldom reports that a number of jobless claims are denied on grounds of merit, such as a termination for misconduct or a voluntary quit. That doesn't make them any less unemployed, but it does affect how many jobless claims are actually paid.)

Sorry if this answer sounds too technical. In other words, IIRC, we are pretty much at "full" employment somewhere around 2.5%. Maybe the foreign leaders supporting Kerry should divulge their unemployment numbers for our review, LOL!

[familyofman]

"It's absolutely ripping your heart out, isn't it?"

Far, far from it. I've been a proponent of this statistic over the household survey from day one. My shock is how fast the proponents of the household survey jumped ship, especially since the household survey has dropped for the past 2 months. Good employment numbers are good for everyone.

Can you really think a comment on survey 'jumpers' to be an expression of gloom? Your reading comprehension can use a little sharpening.

[Tennessean4Bush]

70,000 CA grocery

Not to be picky, but I read it was 30,000. It was from cnn.money.com but I don't have the link handy. Do you have a link for the 70,000?

[tellw]

The folks on DU are having a cow about this report. Read here.

[Sorcerer3]

ROTFL!! What do you suppose these people who "just give up" do? Go homeless on the streets rather than get ANY f'ing job? LOL!!

See, this is what happens when the goverment refuses to extend unemployment entitlements. PEOPLE GO BACK TO WORK when it runs out.

If people can't find a job after 2 years on unemployment then they have some serious mental issues they need to deal with. It's idiocy to pander to those who are unwilling to carry their own weight in society. I have no apathy for those types. There are jobs out there and there have been jobs out there for people. Every Sunday when I open up the classifieds to the help wanted section there are usually several pages worth of jobs. I just suppose some people are just too good for those jobs though so they deserve to starve or lose their homes as a result of their own petty self absorbed snobbish attitude.

As for students, there are plenty of jobs at McDonalds, Burger King, or the like out there. If they don't like those jobs then screw 'em.

Beggers can't be choosers. Take what you get or what's offered or create your own job. It's that simple.

[Coop]

No, I equate your constant negative posts to an equation of gloom.

The media is the one that chooses to make the payroll survey the main focus, not FR. So, like many, I'll rejoice at watching the media be depressed. I personally still believe the real truth lies somewhere in the middle, probably closer to the household survey.

[saul goode]

"I am not saying the sky is falling, I am glad that the jobs are being created. However, I think that all people able to work should be counted. If you have your own business, you are counted as employed. If you are in school with no job, you are unemployed. It is not that hard to put these numbers out there. They can even say that x% of the unemployed are students, that would give people an honest rate. Are they afraid to have the true numbers released?"

You may be right. However, following your logic, the only change to reporting the UE rate at 5.7% would be calling it the relative UE rate. If people give up looking for a job today, they did the same thing 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc. Adjusting the number today to reflect these people without adjusting these numbers in the past is like Algore recounting ballots in Democratic counties and not Republican ones.

[looscnnn]

A simple question are you employed? No. Does not matter the reason, just that you are able to work, but don't. Thus you are unemployed. Sure we can have what ifs, but the fact of the matter is that we need to have accurate numbers. They could even have such %s as unemployed/retired (you could claim that if win the lottery) & unemployed/not looking or something to that effect.

[familyofman]

"I personally still believe the real truth lies somewhere in the middle, probably closer to the household survey."

I'll take the payroll survey over the household survey. It has a longer acceptance in the general population of economists (all the labor stats are used - it's a matter of weighting) for predicting and analyzing trends.
You can't be too happy with the household survey dropping for the second month in a row - or will you be switching horses in mid-stream? There very well may be a slight inverse relationship between the two surveys - the past 12 months would tend to support that.
As I said in an earlier post; the champagne is on ice, but won't be uncorked until the final score is in. I don't celebrate victories at halftime or end of the third quarter - that's for rookies and showboaters.

[qam1]

The Spin Miesters in the Liberal media are already on it

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20040402/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Companies Add Jobs, but Unemployment Up

By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer

WASHINGTON - The nation's employers added 308,000 new jobs in March, hiring at the fastest pace in four years and providing long-awaited evidence the weak jobs market may be gaining steam.

At the same time, the civilian unemployment rate bumped up to 5.7 percent, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.

In a separate survey of companies, the figures showed widespread hiring in industries across the economy at a time when President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign, counting heavily on a pickup in the jobs market, jumped into high gear.

For the first time in 44 months, the nation's factories did not shed jobs. But they weren't hiring either. March's figures show zero gains and losses for manufacturers hammered by the economic downturn that began three years ago. The only sector losing jobs last month was information services, where companies cut about 1,000 jobs.

Revisions to payrolls showed a stronger jobs market than previously thought. Companies added 205,000 jobs in January and February, instead of the 118,000 reported last month.

"I'm not saying the labor markets are back where they need to be, but this latest job advance together with the positive revisions are making this look like a normal recovery," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

The jobless rate, compiled in a separate survey of households, inched up by 0.1 percentage point from 5.6 percent in February. That's because more job seekers renewed their searches last month, but were unsuccessful.

The health of the nation's economy, especially the job climate, is a major issue in this year's presidential race. The economy has lost almost 2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.

President Bush is promoting his message of an improving economy Friday in West Virginia, a state he narrowly won in 2000 and where Democrats are taking him to task for lost jobs.

Friday's report "is more evidence the economy has turned the corner and the nation's job market is getting stronger every month," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

But for out-of-work Americans, the economic rebound has been frustratingly slow. In March, there were 8.35 million people unemployed, compared with 8.17 million the previous month. The average duration of unemployment has been more than 20 weeks, a 20-year high.

"The president and administration officials are expressing pride in the fact that the economy has finally started to create some jobs, but on the third anniversary of the Bush jobs slump, we are still in a deep hole," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., top Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee. "We can't really talk about a jobs recovery until we see robust job creation for several months."

Jobless workers are increasingly accepting part-time work. The number of people who worked part time for economic reasons rose to 4.7 million in March, up from 4.4 million the previous month.

Construction employment rose by 71,000 in March following a decline the previous month. The industry has added 201,000 jobs in the past year.

Retailers added 47,000 jobs last month, led by the striking California grocery workers agreeing to a new contract and returning to work.

Employment in health care and social services increased by 36,000 in March, with the industry gaining 255,000 jobs in the past year. Professional and business services added 42,000 jobs, and in the leisure and hospitality sector, payrolls rose by 27,000.

Transportation and warehousing, utilities and government also added jobs last month.

[looscnnn]

Look, I am not saying that they should or shouldn't do. Nor am I saying that we should extend benefits. I am saying to have an honest count of unemployment numbers. To count self employed as employed, they are working you know.

I see the adds too, quite a few are temp agencies trying to pad their list of resumes for when openings happen. There are MLM schemes, etc. There are honest jobs too, but don't get fooled by the sheer number of ads. Just like on the internet job sites, not all jobs offers listed are true job available.

About your statement about students taking McDonalds, etc. jobs, you forgot that those are "jobs Americans don't want" per our administration, thus the reason for the "guest worker" proposal. If that happens, then what are the students or the "guest workers" to do?

[txrangerette]

Both Jan. & Feb #s were revised
UPWARD as well; added to Mar. #s
makes the new jobs in '04 OVER
700,000 for the first quarter.

WOO000 HOOOOOOO!!!

[oceanview]

"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute, which had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced temporary hires."

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040402/economy_5.html

Not sure now how all of these numbers worked into the figures, 72,000 workers were idle, but it may not a 1:1 effect on the March numbers. Not sure where they get 10-20K out of the 72K.

[oceanview]

The truth is, that in the months when the reports were bad, everybody here was touting the "household survey". Many of us said that was bunk. Now, you don't here anyone talking about the household survey.

[freedom1st]

You're right they are in denial. But some of them see the writing on the wall. Kerry is toast, they've already started a thread discussing if Hillary will be the 'Rat nominee in '08. LOL

[BJClinton]

Does anybody who really needs a job just "give up" and start living under a bridge?

I don't know about living under a bridge, but I quit looking and went back to school after being laid off last April.

[MeekOneGOP]

No doubt, Dan 'Baghdad Bob' Rather will take that perspective, Skooz ...

"The nation's unemployment rate skyrocketed up a full tenth of a percentage point, casting doubts on the Bush administration's economic plan. White House staffers are scrambling for answers as a stunned administration tries to put a positive face on this woeful economic development."

[familyofman]

"The truth is, that in the months when the reports were bad, everybody here was touting the "household survey"."

Being consistent is very difficult, especially when the numbers don't go your way. If these numbers continue on their current trends, the household survey will simply 'fade away' one more time.

I have and will continue not to use the household survey - those that have used it in the past should continue to do so. I doubt that will happen, now that a new 'trophy stat' has been presented.

[John O]

I've been hiding in my closet cowering in fear for the past few months after reading one too many Willie Green posts.

Has anyone paged our good friend Willie? I'm certain he'd want to know about this. (Unless of course he's been fired due to lack of work in his chosen profession)