Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US employers add 175K jobs in May, unemployment rate rises to 7.6 pct. as more seek jobs
AP via Brandon Sun ^ | June 7, 2013 | Christopher S. Rugaber

Posted on 06/07/2013 5:35:47 AM PDT by John W

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs in May, steady hiring but below the more robust pace that took place during the fall and winter.

The Labor Department says the unemployment rate rose to 7.6 per cent from 7.5 per cent in April. The increase occurred because more people began looking for work, a good sign.

The government said the economy added 12,000 fewer jobs in April and March.

(Excerpt) Read more at brandonsun.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2013 5:35:47 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John W

LOL. This really takes the cake. When unemployment fell for the past two years because people were so depressed that they stopped looking for work, the AP cheerfully reported that unemployment was falling. Now that its rising, the AP is careful to note that its because more people are looking for jobs. Goebbels would be proud.


2 posted on 06/07/2013 5:38:20 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

FactSet consensus was +170K and 7.5% so this was an in-line report.

Participation rate ticked up as well.


3 posted on 06/07/2013 5:38:21 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Unemployment goes UP, Obama buttlicking media says it is GOOD NEWS.


4 posted on 06/07/2013 5:38:41 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
How funny.

When the employment rate dropped ONLY because people stopped looking for jobs, no one noticed. They just heralded the drop in unemployment.

Now when the unemployment rate goes up, they say because more people are looking for jobs, a good thing!! Just unbelievable.

5 posted on 06/07/2013 5:39:17 AM PDT by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Guess the AP is quick to forgive the government for all the phone spying. That shouldn’t keep comrades from still being friends.


6 posted on 06/07/2013 5:40:36 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John W

So the unemployment rate rises because people look for jobs?


7 posted on 06/07/2013 5:40:48 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Congratulate Chris on his excellent PR work for Obama.

@ChrisRugaber


8 posted on 06/07/2013 5:41:13 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right

How funny.
When the employment rate dropped ONLY because people stopped looking for jobs, no one noticed. They just heralded the drop in unemployment.

Now when the unemployment rate goes up, they say because more people are looking for jobs, a good thing!! Just unbelievable.


The really funny thing is that everyone stopped looking for work just before the election so the unemployment rate magically went down a percent or so, but now they are looking for jobs and the rate will go up higher than it has been yet.


9 posted on 06/07/2013 5:43:37 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John W
a good sign.

Excuse me? People were out of work and not counted. Now they're still out of work but counted. What's the good sign? They're still unemployed!

10 posted on 06/07/2013 5:44:37 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Until Obama & the Democrats are removed from office....this “Obama” economy is going nowhere!!! Never will!!! Whatever Obama touches, it fails from either incompetence or criminal activity. It’s called either the “Chicago Way” or, “Facism At Work”. Take your choice!!! Welcome to the Obama “Banana Republic, America”!!!


11 posted on 06/07/2013 5:44:43 AM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX ( My only objective is to defeat and destroy Obama & his Democrat Party, politically!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdcbn

It’s the other side of the coin mentioned in earlier posts. One of the statistical lies in the unemployment rate is that if you are a “discouraged worker” not looking for a job, you aren’t counted in the unemployment calculation.


12 posted on 06/07/2013 5:45:17 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

You are right, its only a good sign if more jobs are being created and thus, people who weren’t looking start looking. If no jobs are created and more people start looking because they are out of money, that’s a very bad sign — its a sign of complete economic collapse.


13 posted on 06/07/2013 5:47:52 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

The broadest view of unemployment U6 - (Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force) declined from 13.9% in April to 13.8% in May.


14 posted on 06/07/2013 5:48:44 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

But, as someone pointed out in another post, those additional participators are still unemployed, correct?


15 posted on 06/07/2013 5:48:58 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John W

Did full-time employment go up?


16 posted on 06/07/2013 5:51:03 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
From Bill McBride at Calculated Risk:

May Employment Report: 175,000 Jobs, 7.6% Unemployment Rate

by Bill McBride on 6/07/2013 08:30:00 AM

From the BLS:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 175,000 in May, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. ... ...

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised from +138,000 to +142,000, and the change for April was revised from +165,000 to +149,000. With these revisions, employment gains in March and April combined were 12,000 less than previously reported.

The headline number was slightly above expectations of 167,000 payroll jobs added. Employment for March and April combined was revised slightly lower.

Payroll jobs added per month Click on graph for larger image.

NOTE: This graph is ex-Census meaning the impact of the decennial Census temporary hires and layoffs is removed to show the underlying payroll changes.

The second graph shows the unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate increased to 7.6% in May from 7.5% in April.

unemployment rateThe unemployment rate is from the household report and the household report showed a sharp increase in employment, and that meant a lower unemployment rate.

The third graph shows the employment population ratio and the participation rate.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was increased to 63.4% in May (blue line) from 63.3% in April. This is the percentage of the working age population in the labor force.

Employment Pop Ratio, participation and unemployment ratesThe participation rate is well below the 66% to 67% rate that was normal over the last 20 years, although a significant portion of the recent decline is due to demographics.

The Employment-Population ratio was unchanged at 58.6% in May (black line). I'll post the 25 to 54 age group employment-population ratio graph later.

Percent Job Losses During Recessions The fourth graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms, compared to previous post WWII recessions. The dotted line is ex-Census hiring.

This shows the depth of the recent employment recession - worse than any other post-war recession - and the relatively slow recovery due to the lingering effects of the housing bust and financial crisis.

This was at expectations - of course expectations are fairly low. I'll have much more later ...

17 posted on 06/07/2013 5:51:43 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

To be honest, I am surprised that it went up. First, I think these numbers are all political and Hussien has manipulated them in the past to help him. The last couple of weeks have been disasterous to him, especilly this last week. With that, I was expecting the number to fall to 7.4 or 7.3 to get peoples/ MSM attention off of the scandals.


18 posted on 06/07/2013 5:52:09 AM PDT by TMA62 (Al Sharpton - The North Korea of race relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Yes. But when people feel encouraged about the potential for getting a job and rejoin the search instead of giving up, that can be seen as a positive sign.


19 posted on 06/07/2013 5:52:56 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: John W

Logic says that adding only 175,000 jobs in May is terrible. The economy has yet another year of graduates entering the job force, and numbers like that don’t absorb them. They aren’t counted as umemployed and they’re showing up no where statistically.


20 posted on 06/07/2013 5:54:33 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Isaiah 5:20 leaps to mind. Not even shame in making their nonsense transparent anymore.


21 posted on 06/07/2013 5:55:17 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
people start looking because they are out of money, that’s a very bad sign — its a sign of complete economic collapse.

Yeah. Now they're getting desperate. Their unemployment ran out. The big lie is coming to an end.

The printing of monopoly money can't go on forever. (There is no economic recovery.)

22 posted on 06/07/2013 5:55:22 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

I would be concerned that their benefits have been reduced or expired therefore they are back looking out of desperation. 175,000 jobs added in a month just doesn’t seem like an indication of a boon that would encourage many to look.


23 posted on 06/07/2013 6:01:39 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grania
urbansurvival...
Of the 175,000 jobs created, how many were "estimated into existence" using the CES Birth/Death Model?
Answer 205,000 with the biggest increase (5,000) in manufacturing! (pssst...these jobs do not exist)
24 posted on 06/07/2013 6:02:58 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Guess the AP is quick to forgive the government for all the phone spying. That shouldn’t keep comrades from still being friends

That was just a light disagreement between lovers. The "media" will never decouple their collective head from Obama's backside.

25 posted on 06/07/2013 6:04:04 AM PDT by ScottinVA ( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: grania

But, but, but, ABC News is reporting this is “good but not great”!!!


26 posted on 06/07/2013 6:04:36 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]



             
                           

27 posted on 06/07/2013 6:13:55 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: John W

The numbers mean nothing, its all manipulated by design.


29 posted on 06/07/2013 6:31:20 AM PDT by seeker41 (Take back your country before it is too late-STOP islamic expansion in the USA remove zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

If you just include the months of positive job growth since 1939, the average is +217K. the +175 is 81% of that average. The median is +204K. I’ve said countless times here that this recovery is weak (just look at the Calculated Risk last chart I posted). But there is a recovery. It certainly could be better though.


30 posted on 06/07/2013 6:48:39 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grania

These are seasonally adjusted numbers to account for things like this. Common statistical technique.


31 posted on 06/07/2013 6:50:02 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grania

If the economy adds about 208,000 jobs per month, which was the average monthly rate for the best year of job creation in the 2000s, then it will take until April 2020 to close the jobs gap. Given a more optimistic rate of 321,000 jobs per month, which was the average monthly rate of the best year of job creation in the 1990s, the economy will reach pre-recession employment levels by December 2016.

Adding 175,000 jobs a month is not even keeping up with population growth.

32 posted on 06/07/2013 6:51:47 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John W
U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs in May

Mostly Temp & Part time I'm sure.

33 posted on 06/07/2013 6:56:01 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Plan "B" is now Plan "A")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

All these numbers are manipulated as much as possible. Who they count or not count, what they consider a job or fulltime employment, who they count as looking for work, etc.

The remains that few people today have fulltime employment than when Zero took office and the numbers look worse every day.


34 posted on 06/07/2013 6:57:16 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Obama .. Laser focus .. Incompetence .. a run of ‘bad luck’ .. or just a ‘liar’?

There is no right answer.

great choice, Dependent Entitled America.


35 posted on 06/07/2013 6:57:52 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

The unemployment rate is at least 15%. The underemployment rate is probably 20-25%.

In the best-case scenario, Ronald Reagan rises from the dead and becomes the president in 2016, and the economy recovers in 2018.

Thank you, libidiots and low-info voters, for a 10 year recession. At best.


36 posted on 06/07/2013 7:05:16 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Where is my barf bag.

Now its good news when it goes up...


37 posted on 06/07/2013 7:09:06 AM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Yes, also in this way as reported by CNBC-—

Stocks added to their gains across the board Friday as the government’s monthly employment report suggested the economy was tepid enough for the Federal Reserve to maintain its bond-buying program in the coming months.

Amazing.


38 posted on 06/07/2013 7:15:35 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John W

Some high profile names Q1 misses on revenue:

Target - “Sales rose 1 percent to $16.7 billion, trailing the $16.8 billion average estimate.”

Dell - Revenue down 2% YTY for Q1.

Intel - “Intel’s semiconductor sales in the first quarter were US$11.56 billion, a 3 percent drop from the $11.87 billion in the first quarter of 2012.”

HP (note - HP’s fiscal is offset from calendar): “Hewlett-Packard Co.’s (HPQ) fiscal second-quarter earnings slipped 32% as the technology company recorded revenue declines across its segments, though core profits beat its expectations.” (Classic headlining profits over revenue drop!).

IBM - “Total revenues of $23.4 billion were also below the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $24.5 billion.” Note that IBM revenue was $24.7B for Q1 2012. So revenue missed estimate and was over $1B lower in Q1 2013 than Q1 2012.

Sears - “Revenue fell 9 percent to $8.45 billion, missing the $8.74 billion forecast by Thomson Reuters analysts.”

Walmart - “Sales rose 1 percent to $113.43 billion. That figure excludes Sam’s Club membership fees. The results fell short of Wall Street expectations for earnings of $1.15 per share on (estimated - my add) revenue of $115.78 billion. Wal-Mart reported a 1.4 percent drop in revenue at stores open at least a year at its namesake business, its first drop in a year and a half.” Though sales were up (barely) they missed target by over $2B!

GM - “Net revenue in the first quarter of 2013 was $36.9 billion, compared to $37.8 billion in the first quarter of 2012.” Down YTY by almost a $1B.

Lexmark - “Revenues declined 10.9% year over year......On the other hand, Lexmark showed strength in keeping its operating cost down [note - when revenues are down - highlight the gross profit - which means lower cost and reduction in workforce].....Guidance for the second quarter and fiscal 2013 was not encouraging”

Dow Corning - “Dow Corning Corp. recently reported its financial performance for the first quarter of 2013. The company reported sales of $1.26 billion and net income of $62.1 million for the first quarter of 2013. Sales and adjusted net income were down 17% and 6%, respectively, compared to 2012.”

Some of these are small (Target). But most are large. GM and IBM miss by $1B each! HP is down ‘across all segments’ of its business!

Walmart misses by over $2B!

How did they hide it? With good profits. How to you get good profits with declining revenue? Reduce your cost aggressively. How do you reduce cost aggressively in the short term? Do not hire or layoff!

The misses in top line revenue were horrible in 1Q. That is not good for a ‘recovering’ economy.


39 posted on 06/07/2013 7:16:02 AM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

There are liars... there are damned liars... and the there is the US Government... they are such huge liars that they reside in a league all by themselves.

LLS


40 posted on 06/07/2013 7:22:34 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Here is full-time employment since January 2009


41 posted on 06/07/2013 7:41:09 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

Define “full-time”. I know what that means, but what does the BLS consider full-time? I think you’ll be surprised.


42 posted on 06/07/2013 8:03:03 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

From BLS: “Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.”


43 posted on 06/07/2013 8:20:44 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

That’s the text on their web site. Even you quoted them as saying “usually”. Define “usually”.

We know from previous reports they considered full time jobs anyone that worked a single hour in a month. They even had an issue recently where they considered full-time anyone working any job or combination of jobs 26+ hours.


44 posted on 06/07/2013 8:24:09 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Source for that?


45 posted on 06/07/2013 8:25:04 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: John W

Analysis from Wells Fargo:

Moderate Job Gains: Indicate Second Quarter Slowdown

May’s gain of 175,000 jobs and a three-month average of 155,000 indicates slower Q2 GDP growth and another year of 2 percent growth without the likelihood of any case for dramatic weakness or recession. The slower job gains are consistent with slower growth. The private sector continues to be the driver of job growth, averaging 163,000 job gains over the past three months. Gains were evident across most service sectors including education & health, leisure & hospitality and business services. However, manufacturing employment has now dropped three straight months and this corroborates the weakness we have seen in regional manufacturing surveys. Construction employment did exhibit a small rebound and this supports the outlook for continued gains in housing. The bottom line is that from an employment perspective, growth continues and is consistent with our expectations of moderate growth for the economy this year.

Wages and the Unemployment Rate: Fed Policy

May’s rise in the unemployment rate suggests that the Fed will maintain its QE program through the summer, at least until September, and likely even longer. In May the unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent, while the labor force participation rate actually rose to 63.4, off the lowest level since May 1979. This low level is a reminder of the difficulty of getting the marginally unemployed person back into the flow of the labor market. Meanwhile, the growth in average hourly earnings remained at 1.9 percent. This helps the case for moderate consumer spending gains and offsets the argument for significant consumer weakness. One theme that does continue in this cycle is that the response of earnings to lower unemployment rates has not been as strong as in prior cycles. Therefore, real income gains remain subpar.

Our view continues to be that there is more structural unemployment than many analysts and policymakers have suggested. The unemployment rate for workers without a high school diploma remains over 11 percent, while the U-6 measure of unemployment is at 13.8 percent.


46 posted on 06/07/2013 8:32:11 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

Once again, you need to sharpen your google-foo and learn on our own. You always ask everyone else to do your homework for you. Sorry, kid, you need to do you own research. Just spouting the Obama administration’s talking points don’t work around here.


47 posted on 06/07/2013 9:22:21 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

Obamacare defines full-time as 30 or more hours per week.

The federal fair labor practices standards do not define fulltime at all with employers being able to define it as they please.


48 posted on 06/07/2013 9:25:38 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

“Refers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours “

Who worked, 10 jobs, 1 job, any number of jobs. Full-time employees are traditionally known as those that work for one company 40 hours a week, not this new fangled propaganda as 34 hours and for any number of jobs combined. Hell, just a few years ago full-time was defined as 36 hours or more with one company. I guess Obama’s numbers didn’t look so good that way.


49 posted on 06/07/2013 9:28:18 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Once again, you need to sharpen your google-foo and learn on our own. You always ask everyone else to do your homework for you. Sorry, kid, you need to do you own research. Just spouting the Obama administration’s talking points don’t work around here.

LMFAO! I;m the one providing facts. You provide words and opinion backed up by nothing. To say that I spout Obama's talking points shows me just how stupid you truly are. Thanks for proving it so I won't waste my time talking to someone who is completely unable to understand.

50 posted on 06/07/2013 10:39:46 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson