Shhhhhh.......unemployment #'s dropped again

[sirs]

....don't pass it along.  At least until Obama takes office
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unemployment Rate Drops to 4.5 Percent

Mar 9, 2007
By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.5 percent in February even as big losses of construction and factory jobs restrained overall payroll growth. Wages grew briskly.

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, offered a somewhat mixed picture of the employment climate.

The slight decline in the politically prominent jobless rate, from 4.6 percent in January, came as hundreds of thousand of people left the work force for various reasons.

Employers, meanwhile, added 97,000 new jobs to their payrolls in February, the fewest in two years, as bad winter weather forced construction companies to slash 62,000 jobs, the most since 1991. Factories, feeling the strain of the troubled housing and auto industries, also continued to cut jobs. They eliminated 14,000 positions last month.

On a more encouraging note, job gains in the previous two months turned out to be stronger than previously estimated. Employers added 226,000 new jobs in December, versus the 206,000 last estimated. Payrolls grew by 146,000 in January, up from a previous estimate of 111,000.

The new tally of jobs added to the economy in February was close to economists' forecast for a gain of around 100,000. They had predicted the unemployment rate would hold steady at 4.6 percent.

Workers' wages grew quickly last month.

Average hourly earnings rose to $17.16, a 0.4 percent increase from January. That was slightly faster than the 0.3 percent gain economists were expecting. Over the 12 months ending in February, wages grew by 4.1 percent.

Strong wage growth is welcome by workers and supports consumer spending, a key ingredient to the country's economic health. But a rapid pickup - if sustained and not blunted by other economic forces - can raise fears about inflation. Spiraling inflation would whittle away any wage gains, hurting workers' wallets, and isn't good for the overall economy, either.

The Federal Reserve, which had steadily boosted interest rates for two years to fend off inflation, has left rates alone since August. The Fed - which said it will keep a close eye on inflation - meets later this month to consider interest rate policy.

The new employment figures come as President Bush continues to get lukewarm ratings for his economic stewardship. Just 41 percent of the public approves of the president's handling of the economy, compared with 57 percent who disapprove, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

Democrats, who accuse Bush of not doing enough to close the gap on economic inequality, say a top priority is getting final agreement in Congress on legislation to boost the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. The wage hasn't budged for nearly 10 years. Democrats also are pushing legislation making it easier for workers to start unions against company wishes.

Although construction companies and factories eliminated jobs last month, other employers, including health care providers, financial firms and retailers boosted hiring.

Analysts expect the unemployment rate, which dropped to a six-year low of 4.6 percent last year, will creep up this year as economic growth slows. Some believe the jobless rate could climb to close to 5 percent by the end of this year. The economy expanded by 3.3 percent last year, the best showing in two years. Growth, however, is expected to ebb to around 2.7 percent for all of 2007.

Article


Oh yea, trade edficit also shrank, if anyone was paying attention

[_JS]

The problem is in the long-term.

Factories, feeling the strain of the troubled housing and auto industries, also continued to cut jobs. They eliminated 14,000 positions last month.

Strong wage growth is welcome by workers and supports consumer spending, a key ingredient to the country's economic health. But a rapid pickup - if sustained and not blunted by other economic forces - can raise fears about inflation. Spiraling inflation would whittle away any wage gains, hurting workers' wallets, and isn't good for the overall economy, either.

In other words, shifting the workforce is not likely to really provide any long-term beneficial gains. For example, a small town near where I live has a Carter's plant that makes children's clothing. They shut their doors, despite being a productive plant and Carter's making a good deal of profit last year. It was a "strategic" company decision. The mayor of the town said it was "bad" but that he was glad that a new Super Wal-Mart was being built in the town so that former employees, some having worked for Carter's for two decades or more, could go to work for Wal-Mart.

The problem, of course, is that it isn't a lateral transfer for most of the industrial employees. On a national scale we have to look at how much of a consumer-spending-driven economy we can support with so little productive foundation beneath it. Else we will rely on speculative conditions such as the housing bubble or rapidly raising wages to fuel a consumer spending spree.

And before anyone starts, it isn't one sides fault nor does either side have the cure.

[kimba1]

this is great
but again notice it never said what jobs are available.
how hard can it be to just say what fields of work is hiring?
as someone who used to be unemployed the hardest thing for me was getting information abot what jobs are out there.
telling someone to look it up -is still a lameass answer.
in fact it not even an answer.

[Plane]

this is great
but again notice it never said what jobs are available.
how hard can it be to just say what fields of work is hiring?
as someone who used to be unemployed the hardest thing for me was getting information abot what jobs are out there.
telling someone to look it up -is still a lameass answer.
in fact it not even an answer.

The government is hireing security and translators, they can't get enough

[sirs]

The problem is in the long-term....The problem, of course, is that it isn't a lateral transfer for most of the industrial employees. On a national scale we have to look at how much of a consumer-spending-driven economy we can support with so little productive foundation beneath it. Else we will rely on speculative conditions such as the housing bubble or rapidly raising wages to fuel a consumer spending spree.  And before anyone starts, it isn't one sides fault nor does either side have the cure.

Kinda missed my point, but oh well

[The_Professor]

The problem is in the long-term.

Factories, feeling the strain of the troubled housing and auto industries, also continued to cut jobs. They eliminated 14,000 positions last month.

Strong wage growth is welcome by workers and supports consumer spending, a key ingredient to the country's economic health. But a rapid pickup - if sustained and not blunted by other economic forces - can raise fears about inflation. Spiraling inflation would whittle away any wage gains, hurting workers' wallets, and isn't good for the overall economy, either.

In other words, shifting the workforce is not likely to really provide any long-term beneficial gains. For example, a small town near where I live has a Carter's plant that makes children's clothing. They shut their doors, despite being a productive plant and Carter's making a good deal of profit last year. It was a "strategic" company decision. The mayor of the town said it was "bad" but that he was glad that a new Super Wal-Mart was being built in the town so that former employees, some having worked for Carter's for two decades or more, could go to work for Wal-Mart.

The problem, of course, is that it isn't a lateral transfer for most of the industrial employees. On a national scale we have to look at how much of a consumer-spending-driven economy we can support with so little productive foundation beneath it. Else we will rely on speculative conditions such as the housing bubble or rapidly raising wages to fuel a consumer spending spree.

And before anyone starts, it isn't one sides fault nor does either side have the cure.

A problem exists in that years before now, nations paying higher wages such as the U.S. could get by with paying those wages because we could leverage advanced technology and so our per unit costs were competitive. Now, many nations have access to the same technology and so the competitive position has changed. How do we adjust to this? I honestly so not know; as you indicate, it is not an easy issue to resolve. A friend of mine had a textile factory in Massachusetts. He closed it in 1990. He was getting killed by imported fabric. He went to his employess and told them this and that he would have to reduce their pay by 20% the first year and then 10% the next year in order to stay in business. The union said NYET! They said they would NOT accept this reduction. He closed the plant two years later and now is just an import distributor, no longer making anything.