US unemployment rate falls to new two-year low of 8.8%

[Gerald]

The US unemployment rate fell to a new two-year low in March of 8.8%, from 8.9% in February.

It was the fourth monthly fall in a row. The unemployment rate has fallen by a percentage point during the last four months.

Employers created 216,000 jobs in March, the US Department of Labor said, higher than market expectations.

Other economic data showed a slight dip in manufacturing in March, although the report was seen as broadly positive.

The Institute for Supply Management's (ISM) index of national factory activity dipped to 61.2 last month from 61.4 in February.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12935003

Note: 1 April 2011 Last updated at 15:49 GMT

[Ducimus]

Could have fooled me. My employer laid off more people the other day.

[The Third Man]

Isn't this the measure of new unemployment claims? It doesn't show hiring....it shows unemployment claims, not those who's claims have expired or those who have given up looking for work.

[mookiemookie]

Isn't this the measure of new unemployment claims?

No. The non-farm payrolls report (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) is just that - payrolls.

[The Third Man]

No. The non-farm payrolls report is just that - payrolls.

But this isn't the 'non-farm payrolls report ', its the un-employment 'claims' report.

[AVGWarhawk]

although the report was seen as broadly positive.


By whom?

[mookiemookie]

But this isn't the 'non-farm payrolls report ', its the un-employment 'claims' report.

No, it isn't. This is the non-farms payroll report. If you would have looked at the link I provided, you would see that.

[Gerald]

By whom? Economic analysts, Perhaps

[The Third Man]

No, it isn't. This is the non-farms payroll report. If you would have looked at the link I provided, you would see that.

I didn't see it because the OP stated it as un-employment report. I think if you want to look toward the 'non-farm payrolls report' you could post it as a new topic. I'll watch it then.

Stop Trolling Me!

[vienna]

Must be the result of all those "job-killing" policies of the Obama administration... :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Must be the result of all those "job-killing" policies of the Obama administration... :DL


These are probably government jobs! After all manufacturing was down. Who needs new employees when business is down? :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

These are probably government jobs! After all manufacturing was down. Who needs new employees when business is down? :hmmm:

Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, leisure and hospitality, and mining. Employment in manufacturing continued to trend up.

Source. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

[The Third Man]

The number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, at 8.2 million, was little changed in March.



Thank you for providing a link to a government site.

[Platapus]

It is a move in the right direction. :yep:

[Platapus]

Could have fooled me. My employer laid off more people the other day.

Perhaps there is more to the economy of the entire country than the company you work for? :D

[The Third Man]

Perhaps there is more to the economy of the entire country than the company you work for? :D

some kind of wizard here. :D

you and mookie should get together. lol

[TorpX]

I'm not impressed. This is like when they tell us that inflation is low, but the numbers do not count food or energy because they are too "volatile". This makes perfect sense if you do not eat and live a pre-industrial lifestyle.


Also: If you look beneath the "strong" numbers that headline April's jobs reports you quickly find plenty of other, distinctly weaker numbers.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12940054

[AVGWarhawk]

Source. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

your source is contridictory to what is stated in the original post. Manufacturing dipped in the OP. Here yours say it is trending up. :doh: Double talk!

[Ducimus]

Perhaps there is more to the economy of the entire country than the company you work for? :D

Obviously. But i only give a rats ass about local conditions, because those are what effect me. I could care less if Johnny whats his face in Timbucktoo has a job. That has no bearing on my well being at all.

[mookiemookie]

I'm not impressed. This is like when they tell us that inflation is low, but the numbers do not count food or energy because they are too "volatile". This makes perfect sense if you do not eat and live a pre-industrial lifestyle.


Also:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12940054


Indeed. The figured have been monkey with so much that to say they're an accurate census of everyone who's employed or unemployed is not true. A lot of what's used is estimation and statistical modelling.

What the value of the numbers is is that they're data points in a longer series. The news media latches on to each month's release like it's a huge deal, but ignores the context of the data. It's as if someone were telling you a story one word at a time, one a month. You wouldn't focus on the individual word so much as you would look at what came before it so as to form a sentence. So it's more important to say that 8.8% this month is less than 9.8% last month than to scrutinize 8.8% and say the true rate of unemployment is...say 8.9% or 10% of 15% or whatever instead. If you calculate the number using the same methodology as you used last month, you'll track the general trend of the economy and as they say in my business, the trend is your friend.

There's also the case that total employment is sort of a lagging indicator in the economy. Businesses generally don't hire new workers until economic conditions have improved enough or are expected to improve enough in the near term to warrant adding workers. But that's not to say that there's no forward looking data in the non-farm payrolls report either. Hours worked and temporary hours worked are a good indicator of the future direction of the economy - businesses adjust the hours their workers are scheduled for, or will bring on temps before they go to the expense of hiring or firing permanent employees. Income is another good one - if the labor market is slack, then employees don't have as much leverage to demand raises. They can be replaced with someone who's out of work and willing to do their job at their old rate. Conversely, if you see income increasing, it means that the labor market is tighter and employers are more willing to pay up to keep the employees that they have.

So there's value in the data. It just takes a little digging and thinking for yourself, rather than swallowing what the news media feeds you.

[mookiemookie]

your source is contridictory to what is stated in the original post. Manufacturing dipped in the OP. Here yours say it is trending up. :doh: Double talk!

The ISM report is a measurement of manufacturing activity for March. They take a survey of respondents and ask questions like "did you make more product this month than you did last month?" and "what percentage of capacity is your operation currently running at?" in order to get a read on actual manufacturing activity.

The payroll report is simply payrolls - employees only. So you can have a one month dip in manufacturing due to all kinds of factors - weather, supply shortages, order cancellations, etc - but if you're a manufacturer and foresee stronger economic times in general going forward, you may be hiring workers to ensure you can ramp up your operation when needed. So it is possible to have both.

[The Third Man]

I love reading cut and paste without any thought.


Thank You Mookie. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

you may be hiring workers to ensure you can ramp up your operation when needed.


Companies do not ramp up workers to cover 'possible' needs. You work the employees overtime when required. If manufacturing is down there is not hiring. I truly do not think the article is taking into account weather and locusts for down turn in manufacturing. It is purely a numbers game.

[Ducimus]

It is purely a numbers game.
How did that phrase go..... :hmmm:
Oh yea..... "Lies, damn lies, and statistics". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics)

[mookiemookie]

Companies do not ramp up workers to cover 'possible' needs. You work the employees overtime when required. Again, that's what you do before hiring more workers, hence the value of looking at the hours worked component of the nonfarm payrolls report.

If manufacturing is down there is not hiring. I truly do not think the article is taking into account weather and locusts for down turn in manufacturing. It is purely a numbers game. Exactly why I said you need to look at the numbers in the context of a longer series. A one month dip can be an aberration if the past 4 months have seen increases. There's a lot of "noise" in the data.

[AVGWarhawk]

Again, that's what you do before hiring more workers, hence the value of looking at the hours worked component of the nonfarm payrolls report.

Exactly why I said you need to look at the numbers in the context of a longer series. A one month dip can be an aberration if the past 4 months have seen increases. There's a lot of "noise" in the data.


Agreed! I suspect and often have that these 'reports' are only thrown out there for the markets to see and producing a possible spike in trading etc.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed! I suspect and often have that these 'reports' are only thrown out there for the markets to see and producing a possible spike in trading etc.

:yep: