In yet another show of strength for the economy of the United States of America, the unemployment rate hit a 4-year low in June. The next time a liberal tells you that this is a jobless recovery, hit them with this knowledge. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={20B8B464-34A7-4893-8118-E17E22217F05}&siteid=mktw U.S. jobless rate falls to 5% Nonfarm payrolls rise 146,000 in June By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4-year low of 5% in June as the economy added 146,000 payroll jobs, the Labor Department said Friday. Including upward revisions to April and May payrolls, June payroll growth was close to the 194,000 expected by Wall Street economists. May's payrolls were revised to 104,000 from 78,000 previously. Economists had expected the jobless rate to remain at 5.1%, according to a survey conducted by MarketWatch. See Economic Calendar. The bond market extended its losses following the report. Stock futures gained. The dollar rose. See Indications. The unemployment rate was last at 5% in September 2001. Read the full report. Average hourly earnings rose 3 cents, or 0.2%, to $16.06 in June, as expected. Earnings are up 2.7% in the past year. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours in June. The factory workweek was also unchanged at 40.4 hours. Total hours worked in the economy rose 0.2%. Among 278 industries, 55% were hiring in June, down from 57% in May. The report shows continued, slow improvement in the labor market, outside the manufacturing sector. The report is not likely to have much impact on the Federal Reserve's deliberations about whether to keep raising interest rates. The Federal Open Market Committee will have the July employment report in hand when it next meets on Aug. 9. In June, the survey of some 400,000 business establishments indicated modest growth of 150,000 jobs in services, while goods-producing industries lost 4,000 jobs, including 24,000 in manufacturing. It was the largest loss of factory jobs since January. Factory employment has fallen by 96,000 since August. In June, job losses were concentrated in the auto sector, which lost 18,000 jobs. Among 84 manufacturing industries, 35.7% were hiring in June, the lowest percentage since October 2003. Construction firms added 18,000 jobs. In the services, professional and business services added 56,000 jobs in June. Temp help jobs contributed 9,000 jobs. Health-care added 25,000 jobs. Retail added 2,000 jobs in June, while leisure and hospitality added 19,000 jobs. The figures are seasonally adjusted. In a separate survey of 60,000 households, employment rose by 163,000, while unemployment fell by 161,000. The number of people not in the labor force increased by 240,000, helping to drive the jobless rate lower. The labor participation rate fell to 66% from 66.1%, while the employment-to-population ratio remained at 62.7%. The number of people who've been out of work longer than six months fell sharply in June to 1.31 million from 1.53 million in May, representing 17.8% of all persons officially classified as unemployed. The average duration of unemployment fell to 17.1 weeks from 18.8 weeks.
Nonfarm payrolls rise 146,000 in June And how many jobs need to be created to keep up with population growth?
this economy has never been bad. it would be great if all these oil problems weren't around. i did hear today that i think saudi arabia said they would be willing to build another refinery with us.
The unemployment rate is as low as it's been since August 2001. That answers your question. No more qualifications from you lefties. You liberals simply cannot accept that the economy is back strong again. It just doesn't compute for you that George Bush has led us back.
Personaly, I think US economy is pretty strong right now. You are right that it's much better than in 2001. I believe it recovered some 18 months ago already. However, economy is in cycle, as always. As much as Clinton had impact on those prosperous years and surplus, is Bush "leading" US back. That being said, the huge debt balloon still has to be dealt with, no one can borrow forever. IMHO, people who refused to give credit to Bill and called him lucky to have good years, shouldn't make such a big deal of the Bush led recovery.
This logic does not hold. Every economy policy move Bush has made has been with a mind to stimulate the economy, whereas Clinton's moves were exactly the opposite (greater regulation, higher taxes, anti-energy/pro-environment policies). Apples and oranges.
I can accept that the economy is doing pretty well, no problem. I won't give George W. credit, however. I'm sure your side will blame the next Democratic president (whenever that is) when he/she raises taxes to start offsetting these grotesque budget deficits that good ole George "Fundamentalist Christian Businessman" Bush seems to ignore.
Really? Maybe greater regulation for some industries, higher taxes for some industries and tax payers, and anti-energy/pro-environment policies aren't so bad for economy. You want proof? Look at the numbers, not only economy itself but also the surplus. Well, if that's pure luck, I wouldn't oppose to that luck. You can NOT change the rule during a game, by saying that economy is better now because Bush's policies are all economy stimulations, but Clinton's policies were bad even if the economy were even better at the time. That's not the logic I learnt at school, certainly not convincing.
Please elaborate how your measurement techniques are superior to those of the Labor Department. Thanks in advance.
I think he means you can have 100 $10,000 annual jobs or 100 $50,000 annual jobs and the latter is of better quality than the other.
Anybody else find it hilarious that TJ couldn't even wait to end the title of the thread before he started with the broad sweeping flames against liberals?
I am almost POSITIVE that taxes are established by Congress and not the president. Also, isn't the Federal Reserve in charge of interest rates? Face it, neither Clinton nor Bush were "responsible" for their respective economic prosperity. Of course, in Clinton's presidency, the entire world didn't hate us (i can't help myself ).
Please excuse yourself from all future discussions involving the economy, finance, or just money in general. Thanks in advance. You're done.
Explain these facts: 1. 146,000 jobs were added last month while needing 140,000 to keep pace with population growth (that is 6,000 net jobs texxx) 2. US Jobless Rate Hits 4-Year Low Mehtinks the reported jobless rate understates reality. Methinks the politicians cooked the formula for the jobless rate to make themselves look good. So GWB gets all of the credit? Just as you gave Clinton all of the credit back in the 90s?
That's why I quoted the unemployment rate. You're reduced to quibbling about technicalities. I take that as a sign that's your grasping for straws, as you should be on this argument. The economy's back, b***h! Sorry to be the bearer of good news!
i thought population growth in the US was virtually stagnant. presidents don't deserve credit for economies...particularly for the economy during the period in which they serve as president.
