[United States] Economy Adds 175,000 Jobs In May. Unemployment At 7.6%
27 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Employers added a solid 175,000 jobs in May and workers returning to the labor force pushed the unemployment rate up slightly to 7.6 percent, [URL="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm"]the government reported Friday[/URL].
The jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was the latest in a string of [URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/03/190305/economy-adds-165000-jobs-in-april.html"]decent[/URL]economic indicators that together show the U.S. economy gaining strength and shrugging off the effects of [URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/01/190143/feds-language-shift-signals-washington.html"]government spending constraints imposed by Congress[/URL], referred to as the sequester.
Professional and business services, comprised of better-paying white-collar jobs, led all sectors with an increase of 57,000 jobs in May, the Labor Department said. But manufacturers, a leader in the initial stages of recovery, shed another 8,000 jobs last month.
[B]
By the numbers:[/B]
Professional and business services, up 57,000.
Leisure and hospitality, up 43,000.
Retail, up 27,700.
Temporary help services, up 25,600.
Healthcare, up 10,700.
Construction, up 7,000.
Financial services, up 4,000.
Manufacturing, down 8,000.
Transportation and warehousing, down 3,900.
Government jobs, down 3,000.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/07/193312/economy-adds-175000-jobs-in-may.html[/URL]
the fact that government jobs are down is an even better sign of progress actually
more jobs and less government jobs means healthier overall economy
good
Thanks Obama :smile:
lies
Sorry that's not enough jobs, how about 7 million jobs, and stop being such a tight ass. :v:
[QUOTE=Loriborn;40937489]the fact that government jobs are down is an even better sign of progress actually
more jobs and less government jobs means healthier overall economy
good[/QUOTE]
no
wrong
not good
you want government jobs, government jobs means more government spending in the form of employee payments and bonuses, increasing both GDP and aggregate demand. government jobs also usually provide both security and benefits.
unless you are a follower of classical economics, you want more government jobs, not less
who is economy??
[QUOTE=RetTurtl3;40937606]Sorry that's not enough jobs, how about 7 million jobs, and stop being such a tight ass. :v:[/QUOTE]
This might cause problems if we had a 0% rate of unemployment.
[editline]7th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;40937683]unless you are a follower of classical economics, you want more government jobs than private ones[/QUOTE]
I don't think even Keynes would advocate 50%+ of the workforce being employed by the state.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;40937683]no
wrong
not good
you want government jobs, government jobs means more government spending in the form of employee payments and bonuses, increasing both GDP and aggregate demand. government jobs also usually provide both security and benefits.
unless you are a follower of classical economics, you want more government jobs than private ones[/QUOTE]
You want more than half the workforce to be employed by the government? I must be misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=_Kent_;40937711]You want more than half the workforce to be employed by the government? I must be misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th-Z6le3bHA[/media]
[QUOTE=_Kent_;40937711]You want more than half the workforce to be employed by the government? I must be misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]
um who would rate me disagree?
no economist besides the most crazy have ever advocated for the government to employ the majority of the work force
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40937694]This might cause problems if we had a 0% rate of unemployment.[/QUOTE]
Not really, we still have the mental ill ect, to cover for the losses, but i know where you're coming from!
[QUOTE=RetTurtl3;40937779]Not really, we still have the mental ill ect, to cover for the losses, but i know where you're coming from![/QUOTE]
No, it's that traditionally unemployment rates close to 0% are considered unsustainable.
[QUOTE=Bobie;40937693]who is economy??[/QUOTE]
Nevermind that! [I]Why[/I] is economy?
woah, thats deep
[QUOTE=_Kent_;40937711]You want more than half the workforce to be employed by the government? I must be misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]
you weren't misunderstanding, I just worded my last sentence completely wrong. obviously you wouldn't want more government jobs than corporate/private ones, but you would still want more government jobs than less government jobs
Hey, sweet, maybe this months' application bomb will prove fruitful.
Unemployment will rise again, dont be fooled.
With news like this, people are going to be searching for jobs instead of sitting around -- which increases the u%
[QUOTE=areolop;40938159]Unemployment will rise again, dont be fooled.
With news like this, people are going to be searching for jobs instead of sitting around -- which increases the u%[/QUOTE]
Want to bet on it?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40938177]Want to bet on it?[/QUOTE]
i think you've made enough bets, especially after the north korea one
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;40938183]i think you've made enough bets, especially after the north korea one[/QUOTE]
I won that one and got game DLC.
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/ZBs26nM.png[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40938177]Want to bet on it?[/QUOTE]
he may have a point. the unemployment rate isn't "true" unemployment. that number is gathered in different ways. that's why we had a falling unemployment rate even though most states had a negative net job growth rate.
They should get a more useful statistic than unemployment, something like people looking for work + people who would look for work if they thought they could get a job. I think that would be much clearer.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40938237]he may have a point. the unemployment rate isn't "true" unemployment. that number is gathered in different ways. that's why we had a falling unemployment rate even though most states had a negative net job growth rate.[/QUOTE]
Except he's claiming the unemployment rate is now going to climb. I'm betting him it's either going to stay stable or decline.
Wasn't that supposed to be the original definition of unemployment rate? The workforce that has no job but is looking for one?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;40938305]Wasn't that supposed to be the original definition of unemployment rate? The workforce that has no job but is looking for one?[/QUOTE]
Able to work and seeking a job
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40938247]Except he's claiming the unemployment rate is now going to climb. I'm betting him it's either going to stay stable or decline.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you are understanding. The unemployment rate counts those who are actively seeking work. Due to the economic downturn, a lot of people who [I]were[/I] seeking work gave up, removing themselves from the picture and causing unemployment to 'drop'. He's saying the rise in jobs will coax these people back into the job market, which will make them 'count' again, thus increasing unemployment.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40938468]I don't think you are understanding. The unemployment rate counts those who are actively seeking work. Due to the economic downturn, a lot of people who [I]were[/I] seeking work gave up, removing themselves from the picture and causing unemployment to 'drop'. He's saying the rise in jobs will coax these people back into the job market, which will make them 'count' again, thus increasing unemployment.[/QUOTE]
Yes I understand this. I doubt his prediction will hold however.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/RuYlGQl.png[/img]
It's been on a gradual decline for a few years now.
Even if the unemployment rate has fallen, the Labor Participation Rate has stayed pretty much stagnant, meaning there are probably more people moving from unemployed and looking to work to discouraged workers which are not included in the Unemployment rate.
[url]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.