From the article: "But economists still had concerns. They had predicted payrolls to jump by 150,000 or more last month. Job growth is expected to be a key issue as November's presidential election nears, and President Bush could be vulnerable. The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since he took office, giving him the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. Analysts are looking for monthly payroll gains of 300,000 or more for sustained job growth, and the economy remains far from that mark." The 112,000 new jobs is the equivalent of drawing with Leeds United at home. It sure looks good compared to last month's 1,000 jobs, though. The Bush Administration wants just enough growth to squeak through this election. Other than that, they're happy with stagnation as it keeps workers from getting uppity.
actually, you made a politically interesting point. it would enlightening to look at unemployment in swing states rather than simply nationwide. for policy purposes, nationwide is useful, but for the election, i don't think it matters if Mississippi's unemployment raise has increased 4%, they'll still vote for Bush (and vice versa for Mass).
Trevor, correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine a large percentage of the jobs lost in Michigan were manufacturing jobs. These jobs won't be coming back anytime soon if the Fed is correct in its assesment about structural vs. cyclical job loss. However, now that productivity gains have come back down to earth (witness the meager 2.7 increase in the 4th quarter) and corporate profits are on the way up, many companies should have the capital to invest in job creation and should realize that they're probably not going to squeeze much more out in productivity gains from incentive process re-engineering/automation. I expect the labor market to improve before the election. The dark cloud on the horizon, though, is the mounting federal deficit. Will it start affecting interest rates and possibly push us back into another recession?
I guess your, and my point as well, is that it's all relative. I don't care if the rest of the country is doing great economically. The only thing that matters to the people of Michigan is that manufacturing jobs are flying overseas faster than horny businessmen yearnin' for sweet asian man-love. And until they get the sense that this admin gives a damn about that or them for that matter, they'll vote with their wallets regardless of what their hearts or minds say.
Yes. And when they go overseas, they ain't coming back. Not only that, there's another problem that hasn't been discussed when it comes to the Big Three and their parts suppliers. They pull they same sh!t as Walmart when it comes to parts orders in that they dramatically underbid for supplies knowing that they can easily take that order overseas. Hell, four recently profitable parts manufacturers closed shop last year in Grand Rapids because they couldn't make a profit due to doing business with Ford, GM, and Chrystler. It's not that they couldn't get the business, it's that their clients refused to pay for their products at a fair market rate. It makes you wonder why your average car costs appoximately $25,000. Anyway, I digress. This is coming dangerously close to a thread-jack.
Someone's already keeping their eye on this. http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000124.html http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000165.html
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Released 1/27/04 REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT: DECEMBER 2003 Regional and state unemployment rates were generally stable in December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. No region and only three states recorded a shift greater than 0.3 percentage point. At 5.7 percent, the national jobless rate was little changed over the month, but has trended down since midyear. State Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted) Four states reported jobless rates below 4.0 percent in December. North Dakota again had the lowest rate, 3.2 percent, followed by South Dakota, 3.4 percent, Virginia, 3.6 percent, and Nebraska, 3.7 percent. Three states recorded rates over 7.0 percent. Alaska had the highest rate, 7.7 percent, followed by Michigan and Oregon, with rates of 7.2 percent each. In December, 33 states posted unemployment rates below that of the U.S. (5.7 percent), 14 states and the District of Columbia had higher rates, and 3 states reported the same rate as the U.S. (See table 3 and chart 1.) Over the month, 20 states and the District of Columbia registered jobless rate decreases, 18 states reported rate increases, and 12 states recorded no change. South Carolina experienced the largest monthly unemployment rate decrease from November (-0.7 percentage point), followed by Arkansas (-0.5 point). No state had a rate increase of more than 0.3 percentage point. Compared with December 2002, jobless rates were lower in 32 states, higher in 17 states, and unchanged in 1 state and the District of Columbia. Mississippi posted the largest rate drop over the year (-2.0 percentage points), and Utah recorded the next largest decline (-1.6 points). Four additional states reported rate decreases of at least 1.0 percentage point over the same period. Michigan registered the largest jobless rate increase from a year earlier (+1.0 percentage point), followed by Tennessee (+0.8 point) and South Dakota (+0.6 point). No other state recorded an over-the-year rate increase of more than 0.4 percentage point. Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) From November to December 2003, total nonfarm employment decreased in 27 states and increased in 23 states and the District of Columbia. The largest employment decreases occurred in Michigan (-32,900), Ohio (-14,400), California (-8,400), Maryland (-7,900), and Texas (-7,500). The largest over-the-month percentage decreases in employment were reported in Michigan (-0.7 percent), North Dakota (-0.4 percent), and Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, and Ohio (-0.3 percent each). The largest employment increases occurred in Illinois (+16,100), Washington (+6,200), Nevada (+5,600), Oregon (+5,200), and Kansas (+4,700). Alaska posted the largest over-the-month percentage increase in employment (+0.6 percent), followed by Nevada (+0.5 percent), Kansas and Wyoming (+0.4 percent each), and the District of Columbia, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Oregon (+0.3 percent each). (See table 5.) Over the year, employment increased in 27 states and the District of Columbia, decreased in 22 states, and was unchanged in 1 state. The largest over-the-year gains in employment occurred in Florida (+114,600), Georgia (+64,000), Arizona (+46,200), Texas (+43,900), and Nevada (+42,300). The largest percentage gains were reported in Nevada (+4.0 percent), Arizona (+2.0 percent), Alaska and Hawaii (+1.8 percent each), Florida and Georgia (+1.6 percent each), and Wyoming (+1.3 percent). The largest employment decreases were in Michigan (-78,800), Ohio (-66,900), Massachusetts (-42,600), South Carolina (-40,900), and Illinois (-38,100). South Carolina recorded the largest percentage decline in employment (-2.3 percent), followed by Michigan (-1.8 percent), Massachusetts (-1.3 percent), Ohio (-1.2 percent), and Connecticut (-1.0 percent). (See chart 2.)
No wonder my wife can't find a job. And I can't find a new job. Guess I won't be moving anytime soon...
From an article in the Post... Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month. The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not. "They're not recording the outside contractors - they're not reflecting something that is tremendously fundamental now to the American corporate scene, and that's outsourcing to outside contractors," Mayland said. The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics acknowledged the continuing discrepancies, and said it is investigating. Businesses are being squeezed by intense competition from other countries, and are holding down costs by not hiring new, full-time workers in the United States. Instead, they are outsourcing, working their existing employees harder
Surging US economy leads global recovery http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1142714,00.html The American growth rate along with the lagging employment levels are going to hurt the dollar. It will drop till manufacturing increases. China and Inda can stand that. Europe cannot. Europe is going to have to get it's act together. I wonder if the euro was a good idea. I suspect it was not. I suspect it gives the feeling of security to Europe where in fact they should be acting much more scared.
According to ABC News, 117,000 people were laid off during the same reporting period. That's a net gain of -5,000 jobs. Is that an example of "negative growth?" * * five points to whomever can name that reference.