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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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?

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

some kind of wizard here.

you and mookie should get together. lol

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Isn't this the measure of new unemployment claims?

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

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

By whom?

Economic analysts, Perhaps

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

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.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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!

[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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by 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:


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.

I love reading cut and paste without any thought.


Thank You Mookie.