It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The latest evidence seems to suggest the latter. In fact, the new report from Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the U.S. economy added 192,000 jobs in March, roughly in line with economists’ expectations. The unemployment rate remained the same at 6.7%. For the second consecutive month, public-sector layoffs did not drag down the overall employment figures. Though jobs reports over the last few years have shown monthly government job losses, in March, the private sector added 192,000 while the public sector broke even. That could be a whole lot better, but at least it wasn’t a negative number.
It's not called "jobs growth" in my book. It's called jobs recovery and we're not anywhere near back where we should be. In addition, the actual unemployment numbers are at least twice what you reported. I include people earning much less than they did - as in a blue color guy who now has to work at Home Depot or Walmart. Believe the number if you want. All one has to do is look at retail sales numbers, look at restaurant receipts and any other kind of discretionary spending to see this is a big fail so far. The restaurants here in Brooklyn, that always had a wait at the door are now walk in and sit. I can imagine other places around the country, that are less populated, must really be hurting.
Skymon612
www.msnbc.com...
It is government jobs that are being lost or not created not private sector. Many people thought that having a progressive president would result in more government jobs and less private. According to the latest job report the facts speak loudly and differently. More private sector jobs seem to be available vs. government.
The latest evidence seems to suggest the latter. In fact, the new report from Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the U.S. economy added 192,000 jobs in March, roughly in line with economists’ expectations. The unemployment rate remained the same at 6.7%. For the second consecutive month, public-sector layoffs did not drag down the overall employment figures. Though jobs reports over the last few years have shown monthly government job losses, in March, the private sector added 192,000 while the public sector broke even. That could be a whole lot better, but at least it wasn’t a negative number.
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2014
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 192,000 in March, and the unemployment rate
was unchanged at 6.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment grew in professional and business services, in health care, and in mining
and logging.
Household Survey Data
In March, the number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 10.5 million,
and the unemployment rate held at 6.7 percent. Both measures have shown little movement
since December 2013. Over the year, the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment
rate were down by 1.2 million and 0.8 percentage point, respectively. (See table A-1.)
BLS report
xuenchen
We had a good employment run in the early and mid 00's.
Until the Global NWO ultra-Progressives invaded Congress starting in Jan 2007 and kick-spurted the financial crisis.
Now they still can't seem to get it back (by choice) and they have successfully stagnated the economy.
xuenchen
We had a good employment run in the early and mid 00's.
Until the Global NWO ultra-Progressives invaded Congress starting in Jan 2007 and kick-spurted the financial crisis.
Now they still can't seem to get it back (by choice) and they have successfully stagnated the economy.
neo96
49 months of 'job growth' eh ?
That was right around the time them evil Republicans were put in charge of the house.
And Obama gets 'credit '
LOL wow.
xuenchen
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
By all means....
show us.
Obama can't get that U3 down to under 5%.
Why ????
The unemployment rate number people talk about and analyze every time the new jobs numbers come out — such as the 6.7 percent rate reported Friday morning — is not the “real” unemployment rate.
While some (we’re looking at you, Donald Trump) argue that joblessness is vastly higher than the Labor Department reports, a more routine critique is that it would be better to focus on one of the government’s own, broader measures of unemployment. It is known as U-6, the most widely defined form of unemployment out of six Bureau of Labor Statistics classifications. It was 12.7 percent in March, up from 12.6 percent in February but down from 13.8 percent a year ago.
(The more widely reported joblessness number is known formally as U-3. Economic data hipsters are free to explain their own preference for the little-watched U-4 or U-5 in the comments.)
The people who count as unemployed for purposes of U-6 include all those unemployed under the conventional definition, but also people who say they have given up looking for work out of frustration with the economy and people who are working at a part-time job but would prefer full-time work. It’s not necessarily more “real” than the regular unemployment rate; it’s just capturing different things.
That gap was 3.8 percentage points right before the recession began at the start of 2008, and peaked at 7.3 percentage points in both 2010 and 2011. In March it was 6 percentage points — actually widening a bit from February, as U-3 was unchanged and U-6 ticked up.