More economic good news: 173,000 jobs added, unemployment drops to 5.1%

[rightwinger]

Cue outrage over workforce participation rate

Employers added 173,000 jobs in a key report that could help the Federal Reserve decide whether to raise interest rates later this month.
The unemployment rate fell from 5.3% to 5.1%, lowest since March 2008.


Jobs

 

[A Perez]

Cue outrage over workforce participation rate

Employers added 173,000 jobs in a key report that could help the Federal Reserve decide whether to raise interest rates later this month.
The unemployment rate fell from 5.3% to 5.1%, lowest since March 2008.


Jobs

Conservatives are composing their comments explaining how this is bad. Please be patient.

 

[Mac1958]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

 

[Dot Com]

yabut the President is a non-republican!!!

 

[Claudette]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Yup and 5.1 isn't the true figure. Oh and the Fed is getting ready to let inflation loose. Something they have been controlling since 2008. I'm looking forward to that as I'm sure most of America is. NOT

 

[rightwinger]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Yup and 5.1 isn't the true figure. Oh and the Fed is getting ready to let inflation loose. Something they have been controlling since 2008. I'm looking forward to that as I'm sure most of America is. NOT

5.1% is the true U3 number used to measure employment
Of you want to talk U6 you can start with how that number has dropped by 6%

 

[pinqy]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

You are correct, but is it "dropping out" or "leaving?" Those not in the labor force, want a job now went down. Marginally attached went down . Discouraged workers went down. The drop in the labor force was people who don't want or need a job.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Where are you getting that number from?

 

[Claudette]

Sure hope you're right. UE sucks and there are plenty of people out there who have just stopped looking and are no longer counted.

 

[pinqy]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Yup and 5.1 isn't the true figure. Oh and the Fed is getting ready to let inflation loose. Something they have been controlling since 2008. I'm looking forward to that as I'm sure most of America is. NOT

5.1% is the true U3 number used to measure employment
Of you want to talk U6 you can start with how that number has dropped by 6%

He was not saying the number was wrong...He was saying that the drop in UE rate was causeed by a greater drop in the unemployed than a gain in employment, meaning the labor force shrunk.

He's perfectly correct: that's what happened.

It's not bad, though.

 

[pinqy]

Sure hope you're right. UE sucks and there are plenty of people out there who have just stopped looking and are no longer counted.

Discouraged workers dropped again...down to 624,000...less than half its height of 1,300,000 in 2010

 

[Mac1958]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

You are correct, but is it "dropping out" or "leaving?" Those not in the labor force, want a job now went down. Marginally attached went down . Discouraged workers went down. The drop in the labor force was people who don't want or need a job.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Where are you getting that number from?

Given the uneven (at best) growth in the economy for the last five years, it's very tough for me to believe that there are many people who don't want or need a job. And I'm an investment advisor, CFP/ChFC/CLU, and 250,000 is on the lower end of the estimates I've heard. I was at a Goldman Sachs conference a few years ago (right when QE was hitting) and the number they supposedly use is 325,000. That seems a little fat to me, but escape velocity has different definitions, I guess.

173,000 at this point in a "recovery" simply isn't good.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?

 

[bedowin62]

As of February 2015, the most recent month available, 45.7 million people are receiving food stamps, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).


wow yea!! roaring economy!!

 

[Mac1958]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?

Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.

There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.

 

[rightwinger]

As of February 2015, the most recent month available, 45.7 million people are receiving food stamps, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).


wow yea!! roaring economy!!

The wonders of supply side economics

Trickle down never seems to reach the lowest levels does it?

 

[edthecynic]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Pure bullshit!

First of all there were UPWARD revisions for the previous 2 months, and secondly it takes only 111,853 jobs per month to maintain the previous 5.3% rate and keep up with population growth.

From the BLS report:

"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from
+231,000 to +245,000, and the change for July was revised from +215,000 to
+245,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined
were 44,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job
gains have averaged 221,000 per month."

 

[Derideo_Te]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?

Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.

There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.

Yes, there are a lot of factors to consider. The mere fact that we haven't had another recession since 2008 is making some people nervous. But past performance is no guarantee, right?

So what we have now is similar, but different. Taking just one factor into consideration and trying to extrapolate it as a bellwether is no longer reliable IMO.

Where I work one division is laying off consultants wholesale while another is hiring at a rate I have never seen before. Is this just a redirection of priorities from the C level or is it in response to the broader economy?

So I have given up trying to read the tea leaves, smoke signals, entrails, bones, Tarot cards, etc and simply make sure that I can survive whatever damage the markets might throw at me. Everything else is just noise as far as I am concerned.

 

[Mac1958]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Pure bullshit!

First of all there were UPWARD revisions for the previous 2 months, and secondly it takes only 111,853 jobs per month to maintain the previous 5.3% rate and keep up with population growth.

From the BLS report:

"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from
+231,000 to +245,000, and the change for July was revised from +215,000 to
+245,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined
were 44,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job
gains have averaged 221,000 per month."

If the numbers are revised upward, great.

Also, August is known as being a fairly inaccurate figure.

We'll see. Calm down.
.

 

[Mac1958]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?

Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.

There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.

Yes, there are a lot of factors to consider. The mere fact that we haven't had another recession since 2008 is making some people nervous. But past performance is no guarantee, right?

So what we have now is similar, but different. Taking just one factor into consideration and trying to extrapolate it as a bellwether is no longer reliable IMO.

Where I work one division is laying off consultants wholesale while another is hiring at a rate I have never seen before. Is this just a redirection of priorities from the C level or is it in response to the broader economy?

So I have given up trying to read the tea leaves, smoke signals, entrails, bones, Tarot cards, etc and simply make sure that I can survive whatever damage the markets might throw at me. Everything else is just noise as far as I am concerned.

I can understand that, and when this stuff becomes political the bullshit starts flying.

Unfortunately, I have to do some tea leaf reading, so my task is to keep my freaking blood pressure down.

The horrific mess of the Meltdown and the fundamentally changing economy, on a macro level, are at the foundation of this uncertainty.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.

This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.

Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.

We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.

Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?

Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.

There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.

Yes, there are a lot of factors to consider. The mere fact that we haven't had another recession since 2008 is making some people nervous. But past performance is no guarantee, right?

So what we have now is similar, but different. Taking just one factor into consideration and trying to extrapolate it as a bellwether is no longer reliable IMO.

Where I work one division is laying off consultants wholesale while another is hiring at a rate I have never seen before. Is this just a redirection of priorities from the C level or is it in response to the broader economy?

So I have given up trying to read the tea leaves, smoke signals, entrails, bones, Tarot cards, etc and simply make sure that I can survive whatever damage the markets might throw at me. Everything else is just noise as far as I am concerned.

I can understand that, and when this stuff becomes political the bullshit starts flying.

Unfortunately, I have to do some tea leaf reading, so my task is to keep my freaking blood pressure down.

The horrific mess of the Meltdown and the fundamentally changing economy, on a macro level, are at the foundation of this uncertainty.
.

If this is your job then you definitely need a means of destressing yourself outside of work.

Yes, the economy will change because it always changes. The economy of the 80's was different from the 70's and so on.

Your problem is figuring out where it is going to be in the future hence the tea leaf reading and more importantly, getting that reading right.

There is only one way that I have ever found that comes close to pointing out which way things are heading. That is trend analysis. And yes, it is a lot of work and a lot of factors need to be included for it give any kind of reading. On top of that you also need to make judgment calls based on whether those trends will continue, strengthen or die off.

But at least you are looking at data and not whatever opinion is being spouted by some talking head or blogger.