Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.
Ok I'll print the article so all can read :
-----------------------------------------------------------Payrolls disappoint again
Gain of 21,000 falls far short of Wall Street forecasts; unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.
March 5, 2004: 12:31 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew in February at a far slower pace than the prior month, the government said Friday, in a report that disappointed Wall Street expectations for the fourth month in a row.
The persistent weakness in the labor market means the Federal Reserve will probably hold interest rates at the lowest level in more than 40 years for longer than expected.
But that weakness has also led to the slowest pace of wage growth for workers in 18 years, the longest average unemployment duration in 20 years and could step up the pressure on President Bush as he runs for re-election.
Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by just 21,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, compared with a downwardly revised gain of 97,000 in January. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent.
Economists, on average, had expected 125,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.
"This is a terrible number," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "The economic recovery is almost three years old, and the economy should be producing 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month."
On Wall Street, stock prices fell initially but turned up later in the morning, as traders looked forward to lower interest rates. Meanwhile prices soared in the bond market, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury down to 3.84 percent, the lowest in eight months. Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.
Related stories
Job boom still a hope, not a fact
M&A gain could mean job pain
Outsourcing: what to do?
Greenspan notes 'unease' about jobs
The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939. More than 700,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001.
Job woes could hurt Bush's bid for re-election. He has promised that tax cuts passed during his administration would create millions of jobs, but that prediction has not yet come true despite stronger economic growth.
"At this rate, the Bush administration won't create its first job for more than 10 years," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the likely Democratic nominee for president, said in a statement.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao comments on the latest employment numbers and on outsourcing.
Play video
(Real or Windows Media)
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, in an interview with CNNfn, pointed to the stable unemployment rate as a hopeful sign. But she acknowledged that the Bush administration was "concerned" about job growth and suggested U.S. workers needed retraining to prepare themselves for other jobs.
She also declined to stand by the administration's earlier forecast that it would create about 320,000 jobs a month this year.
"That was a Council of Economic Advisers report, by one agency in the federal government," she said, adding, "I'm not an economist."
Fed on hold; offshoring could take the blame
Slow job growth will also probably delay any interest-rate hike by the Fed, the nation's central bank, whose target for the fed funds rate, a key overnight bank lending rate, is currently 1 percent, the lowest level in more than 40 years.
Other measures of weakness
Slow payroll growth wasn't the only bad thing about the February employment situation. The details are also painful.
Heading Heading
Number of unemployed 8.2 million
Change in labor force down 392,000
Labor force participation rate 65.9 percent, lowest since 1988
Number of discouraged workers 484,000
Average unemployment duration 20.3 weeks, highest since 1984
Percent unemployed 27 weeks 22.9, near highest since 1983
Source: Labor Department
"The Fed's not seeing any wage pressure, and with sluggish job creation, I don't see how they can possilbly raise rates until mid-2005," said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research -- who made possibly the lowest payroll forecast on Wall Street after listening to the quarterly earnings conference calls of 207 companies, few of which said they were hiring.
Many economists believe that the robust, technology-driven productivity gains of the past several months will cool off this year and that businesses will need to hire more workers to keep up with demand. But that increased hiring is still a hope, not a reality.
"Businesses seem to be doing everything they can to increase profits without increasing hiring," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services. "Unfortunately for the labor market, they appear to be quite successful."
Some observers -- including politicians on the right and the left -- believe a trend towards offshore outsourcing is also crippling the labor market.
Most economists believe the impact of offshoring is small, but it's a growing trend, and weak payroll reports such as Friday's will likely add to the political pressure to enact measures to stop the flow of jobs overseas. The Joint Economic Committee held a hearing on the matter Friday morning.
In any event, some economists doubt consistent employment gains of 200,000 or 300,000 per month are coming any time soon, believing that health-care and other labor costs are discouraging new hiring.
"Firms are still very reluctant to hire," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "I'm looking at gains approaching 120,000 or 140,000 per month by the end of the year, which is barely enough to keep pace with [labor force] growth."
Wage growth still weak; could it hurt the economy?
In its report, the department said service industries such as education and health care added just 46,000 jobs in February.
Temporary help payrolls rose by 32,000. Typically, temp hiring is a sign employers are gearing up to make permanent hires. But temp payrolls have grown by 215,000 jobs since last April and little job growth has followed.
Construction industries cut 24,000 jobs, the first such loss since February 2003, likely related to bad weather in parts of the country in early February.
Manufacturing shed 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of falling factory payrolls. The sector has lost 3.3 million jobs since early 1998, and many of those jobs are never coming back, having been moved overseas or made obsolete by technological improvements.
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Economy
Unemployment
Outsourcing
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
On the bright side, average hourly wages rose 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $15.52. Wage growth is crucial for consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy. But average hourly wages have grown just 1.6 percent in the past year, the lowest level since 1986.
"In principle, rapid productivity should make wages rise, but it seems that until the job market tightens up a bit, all the productivity gains flow to corporate profits," Cheney of John Hancock Financial Services said.
Few economists, if any, believe the labor market is weak enough to trigger a recession. After all, higher corporate profits -- driven in part by job cuts -- have improved stock prices and household wealth. But if the pain lingers much longer, it could increase the chances that the economy's growth rate will slow down later this year.
"Unless the labor market gains some steam and momentum, both real income and confidence of consumers would be hurt," said Sohn of Wells Fargo.
So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence? Why would some one trying to increase confidence keep harping on what threats exist to the nation, FDR didn't do it?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Also, ShawnJ and SDW2001, I went to the bls.gov website and found some interesting things... Jobs have been created yes, at the same time about 3 M people lost their jobs and weren't rehired, meaning the people taking the new jobs are previously non-employed persons. Also of note is that I was right in saying the total number of the workforce has increased by about 5.4 M.
lso CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.
Naw they're sneaky about their bias. Nice spin plug for Kerry in there. And I like the way the Bush spokespersons is "concerned", not conerned. Like they didn't belive her. Though the rest of the article isn't so bad, mostly fact reporting and "things aren't as good as we hoped", which means I read as we're doing ok but could be better.
I don't think anyone would say the "economy is fine" as you suggesed we are (please don't put words into my mouth). I'm just saying that positive growth, even if its slow, is still good news considering 9/11 and recession.
I have to read your CNN articles (as if CNN is any less left leaning than Fox is right) with objectivity, have you read mine?
And kudos to your finger pointing skills. You're really good at it. Any solutions from the libercrats yet? So what is mr ready-for-prime-time Kerry going to do to stimulate the economy? Still waiting for you guys to weight on that. Getting tired of addressing these posts that dodge the real issue.
For the record I'm not asking soley to be snide (partially yes heh), but because truthfully I have no idea what he's said about it. I have yet to come across anything regarding Kerry's plans in this area.
The link to that place came from this discussion as a point of reference.
The link was quoted as support of his views on the issue being discussed. Which had nothing to do with my claim that this forum has been basically a democratic back-patting party among it's posters.
Just to note: Spin is efficiently defined at extracting non-information from facts. Stating a fact is not spin. 5.4 M people entered the workforce, roughly 2.5 M found jobs; over the same period about 3 M people lost jobs. Those are facts. This is spin: Bush's economic policies have not secured the job growth necessary to maintain a healthily employed population.
I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...
Naples, it doesn't help your quest for an 'intellectually honest' discussion when all you can do is yell "spin!" whenever anyone posts any information that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
Naples, it doesn't help your quest for an 'intellectually honest' discussion when all you can do is yell "spin!" whenever anyone posts any information that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
You guys are getting silly. he said unemployment rate is no longer considered relevant and it has been that way since Reagan, as if because he said it we all should accept it as "in stone" fact.
Just to note: Spin is efficiently defined at extracting non-information from facts. Stating a fact is not spin. 5.4 M people entered the workforce, roughly 2.5 M found jobs; over the same period about 3 M people lost jobs. Those are facts. This is spin: Bush's economic policies have not secured the job growth necessary to maintain a healthily employed population.
I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
I read somewhere that the jobs created to jobs lost ratio was actually pretty close.
I need to find the link to that article I read about 2 weeks ago.
No need to link, I found the data on the bls website. But this equivalence doesn't include the people entering the work force for the first time and not finding jobs.... If 3M people lose their jobs, 2.5 M people are newly employed, and a total of 5.4 M people enter the workforce, there are something like 6 M people who aren't employed but are in the workforce.
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).
But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....
I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...
No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).
But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....
I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Back patting party? What do you think that site dviant linked to was?
I felt like I'd bought a ticket to Conservoland while I was there.
Are you deft, man?
I referred to these discussions, this thread, this particular group of posts and those like this one. I made no mention of external sources.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
They've changed the way they count the unemployed since Reagan.
Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you deft, man?
I referred to these discussions, this thread, this particular group of posts and those like this one. I made no mention of external sources.
The link to that place came from this discussion as a point of reference.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.
Ok I'll print the article so all can read :
-----------------------------------------------------------Payrolls disappoint again
Gain of 21,000 falls far short of Wall Street forecasts; unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.
March 5, 2004: 12:31 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew in February at a far slower pace than the prior month, the government said Friday, in a report that disappointed Wall Street expectations for the fourth month in a row.
The persistent weakness in the labor market means the Federal Reserve will probably hold interest rates at the lowest level in more than 40 years for longer than expected.
But that weakness has also led to the slowest pace of wage growth for workers in 18 years, the longest average unemployment duration in 20 years and could step up the pressure on President Bush as he runs for re-election.
Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by just 21,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, compared with a downwardly revised gain of 97,000 in January. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent.
Economists, on average, had expected 125,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.
"This is a terrible number," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "The economic recovery is almost three years old, and the economy should be producing 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month."
On Wall Street, stock prices fell initially but turned up later in the morning, as traders looked forward to lower interest rates. Meanwhile prices soared in the bond market, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury down to 3.84 percent, the lowest in eight months. Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.
Related stories
Job boom still a hope, not a fact
M&A gain could mean job pain
Outsourcing: what to do?
Greenspan notes 'unease' about jobs
The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939. More than 700,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001.
Job woes could hurt Bush's bid for re-election. He has promised that tax cuts passed during his administration would create millions of jobs, but that prediction has not yet come true despite stronger economic growth.
"At this rate, the Bush administration won't create its first job for more than 10 years," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the likely Democratic nominee for president, said in a statement.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao comments on the latest employment numbers and on outsourcing.
Play video
(Real or Windows Media)
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, in an interview with CNNfn, pointed to the stable unemployment rate as a hopeful sign. But she acknowledged that the Bush administration was "concerned" about job growth and suggested U.S. workers needed retraining to prepare themselves for other jobs.
She also declined to stand by the administration's earlier forecast that it would create about 320,000 jobs a month this year.
"That was a Council of Economic Advisers report, by one agency in the federal government," she said, adding, "I'm not an economist."
Fed on hold; offshoring could take the blame
Slow job growth will also probably delay any interest-rate hike by the Fed, the nation's central bank, whose target for the fed funds rate, a key overnight bank lending rate, is currently 1 percent, the lowest level in more than 40 years.
Other measures of weakness
Slow payroll growth wasn't the only bad thing about the February employment situation. The details are also painful.
Heading Heading
Number of unemployed 8.2 million
Change in labor force down 392,000
Labor force participation rate 65.9 percent, lowest since 1988
Number of discouraged workers 484,000
Average unemployment duration 20.3 weeks, highest since 1984
Percent unemployed 27 weeks 22.9, near highest since 1983
Source: Labor Department
"The Fed's not seeing any wage pressure, and with sluggish job creation, I don't see how they can possilbly raise rates until mid-2005," said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research -- who made possibly the lowest payroll forecast on Wall Street after listening to the quarterly earnings conference calls of 207 companies, few of which said they were hiring.
Many economists believe that the robust, technology-driven productivity gains of the past several months will cool off this year and that businesses will need to hire more workers to keep up with demand. But that increased hiring is still a hope, not a reality.
"Businesses seem to be doing everything they can to increase profits without increasing hiring," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services. "Unfortunately for the labor market, they appear to be quite successful."
Some observers -- including politicians on the right and the left -- believe a trend towards offshore outsourcing is also crippling the labor market.
Most economists believe the impact of offshoring is small, but it's a growing trend, and weak payroll reports such as Friday's will likely add to the political pressure to enact measures to stop the flow of jobs overseas. The Joint Economic Committee held a hearing on the matter Friday morning.
In any event, some economists doubt consistent employment gains of 200,000 or 300,000 per month are coming any time soon, believing that health-care and other labor costs are discouraging new hiring.
"Firms are still very reluctant to hire," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "I'm looking at gains approaching 120,000 or 140,000 per month by the end of the year, which is barely enough to keep pace with [labor force] growth."
Wage growth still weak; could it hurt the economy?
In its report, the department said service industries such as education and health care added just 46,000 jobs in February.
ALLALAKAZARCACOCTDEDCFLGAHIIDILINIAKSKYLAMEMDMAMIM NMSMOMTNENVNHNJNMNYNCNDOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVTVAWAW VWIWY
Temporary help payrolls rose by 32,000. Typically, temp hiring is a sign employers are gearing up to make permanent hires. But temp payrolls have grown by 215,000 jobs since last April and little job growth has followed.
Construction industries cut 24,000 jobs, the first such loss since February 2003, likely related to bad weather in parts of the country in early February.
Manufacturing shed 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of falling factory payrolls. The sector has lost 3.3 million jobs since early 1998, and many of those jobs are never coming back, having been moved overseas or made obsolete by technological improvements.
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Economy
Unemployment
Outsourcing
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
On the bright side, average hourly wages rose 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $15.52. Wage growth is crucial for consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy. But average hourly wages have grown just 1.6 percent in the past year, the lowest level since 1986.
"In principle, rapid productivity should make wages rise, but it seems that until the job market tightens up a bit, all the productivity gains flow to corporate profits," Cheney of John Hancock Financial Services said.
Few economists, if any, believe the labor market is weak enough to trigger a recession. After all, higher corporate profits -- driven in part by job cuts -- have improved stock prices and household wealth. But if the pain lingers much longer, it could increase the chances that the economy's growth rate will slow down later this year.
"Unless the labor market gains some steam and momentum, both real income and confidence of consumers would be hurt," said Sohn of Wells Fargo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Happy now?
Originally posted by dviant
So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence? Why would some one trying to increase confidence keep harping on what threats exist to the nation, FDR didn't do it?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Also, ShawnJ and SDW2001, I went to the bls.gov website and found some interesting things... Jobs have been created yes, at the same time about 3 M people lost their jobs and weren't rehired, meaning the people taking the new jobs are previously non-employed persons. Also of note is that I was right in saying the total number of the workforce has increased by about 5.4 M.
I need to find the link to that article I read about 2 weeks ago.
Originally posted by jimmac
lso CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.
Naw they're sneaky about their bias. Nice spin plug for Kerry in there. And I like the way the Bush spokespersons is "concerned", not conerned. Like they didn't belive her.
I don't think anyone would say the "economy is fine" as you suggesed we are (please don't put words into my mouth). I'm just saying that positive growth, even if its slow, is still good news considering 9/11 and recession.
I have to read your CNN articles (as if CNN is any less left leaning than Fox is right) with objectivity, have you read mine?
And kudos to your finger pointing skills. You're really good at it. Any solutions from the libercrats yet? So what is mr ready-for-prime-time Kerry going to do to stimulate the economy? Still waiting for you guys to weight on that. Getting tired of addressing these posts that dodge the real issue.
For the record I'm not asking soley to be snide (partially yes heh), but because truthfully I have no idea what he's said about it. I have yet to come across anything regarding Kerry's plans in this area.
Originally posted by jimmac
The link to that place came from this discussion as a point of reference.
The link was quoted as support of his views on the issue being discussed. Which had nothing to do with my claim that this forum has been basically a democratic back-patting party among it's posters.
You really are a spin machine.
I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok I'll print the article so all can read :
-----------------------------------------------------------Payrolls disappoint again
-----------------------------------------------------------
Happy now?
What does this article have to do with your claim that the unemployment rate is no longer used since Reagan? Maybe I missed it.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Naples, it doesn't help your quest for an 'intellectually honest' discussion when all you can do is yell "spin!" whenever anyone posts any information that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
You guys are getting silly. he said unemployment rate is no longer considered relevant and it has been that way since Reagan, as if because he said it we all should accept it as "in stone" fact.
Prove it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What does this article have to do with your claim that the unemployment rate is no longer used since Reagan? Maybe I missed it.
His point was that the unemployed are COUNTED differently than they were under Reagan.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Just to note: Spin is efficiently defined at extracting non-information from facts. Stating a fact is not spin. 5.4 M people entered the workforce, roughly 2.5 M found jobs; over the same period about 3 M people lost jobs. Those are facts. This is spin: Bush's economic policies have not secured the job growth necessary to maintain a healthily employed population.
I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
Originally posted by midwinter
His point was that the unemployed are COUNTED differently than they were under Reagan.
Where does it say that, I am getting dizzy. Please stop.
Originally posted by msantti
I read somewhere that the jobs created to jobs lost ratio was actually pretty close.
I need to find the link to that article I read about 2 weeks ago.
No need to link, I found the data on the bls website. But this equivalence doesn't include the people entering the work force for the first time and not finding jobs.... If 3M people lose their jobs, 2.5 M people are newly employed, and a total of 5.4 M people enter the workforce, there are something like 6 M people who aren't employed but are in the workforce.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where does it say that, I am getting dizzy. Please stop.
Chu-Bakka: "They've changed the way they count the unemployed since Reagan."
It's on THIS page. Just scroll up.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).
But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....
I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...
Originally posted by billybobsky
No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).
But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....
I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...
See ya, have a good day.