Unemployment goes up again to 9%

[R.R.]

Obama is ruining the country.

Unemployment Rate rose to 9.0%

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the national unemployment rate for April 2011 has bounced back up to 9.0% from 8.8% in March.

There were a large number of state and local government jobs that persons lost.  More people were looking for work in April than in March.

13.7 million Americans were without jobs in April 2011 which is nearly double what the figure was before December 2007 when the recession started.

The underemployment rate - which counts the number of people who are working part-time as desired instead of full-time as well as people who have quit looking for work - is up to 15.9%.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/unemployment-rate-rises-to-9-0-march-2010-report

[kimba1]

so which is it?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-april-jobs-report-20110506,0,6724981.story

actually both can happen ,

[R.R.]

What it is, is that this country is in serious trouble and we need to make a change at the top. Obama's policies have been a disaster for this country adding unemployent and huge amounts of debt.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is zero evidence that the Republicans have any sort of better plan to provide more jobs. They were not much good at this during Juniorbush's term.

The economy is improving. Companies are raking in money, but choose to work the employees they have harder, rather than hiring more people.

[kimba1]

actually I have`nt really followed what republican has proposed as a solution but my impression is a hands off approach and simply let it fix itself. I got this idea when the bailout was 1st proposed during bush term and republicans in the house really did propose a hands off approach.

[Kramer]

Fuzzy Math


http://nationaljournal.com/economy/u-s-adds-244-000-jobs-in-april-but-unemployment-rises-20110506

U.S. Adds 244,000 Jobs in April, but Unemployment Rises

U.S. employment growth accelerated last month as the economy added 244,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate rose to 9 percent, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

The report easily bested analysts' expectations for a decidedly mediocre jobs report and marked the fastest rate of employment growth since last year when census hiring inflated numbers. Private-sector growth clocked in at 268,000, the highest level since 2006. The public sector continued to lose ground, shedding 24,000 jobs in April.

Hiring in the service sector drove the gains, with sizable jumps in retail trade (up 57,000), professional and business services (up 51,000), leisure and hospitality (up 46,000), and health care (up 37,000). Goods-producing sectors showed less of a bump, and construction job levels didn't budge, a reflection of how depressed the housing market continues to be.

The number of long-term unemployed--defined as those individuals being out of work for more than 26 weeks--fell 283,000 to 5.8 million, and their share of  unemployment fell to 43.4 percent.

Payroll jobs numbers and the unemployment rate are calculated from two separate surveys, which helps explain the conflicting readings of faster job growth and higher unemployment. The precise reason for the discrepancy isn't yet clear, but the unemployment survey has a smaller sample size and tends to be more volatile than payroll numbers, which are generally a more reliable indicator of labor market health.

April's unemployment-rate rise also followed a steep, full percentage-rate drop over the prior four months, which had surprised analysts as being stronger than expected.

Although Friday's numbers certainly mark an improvement over previous reports, it will take another two and a half years before the economy reaches prerecession employment levels. How long after that it will need to add enough jobs to compensate for population growth will depend on how many people rejoin the labor force. Without question, it would be many more months.

There are some other reasons for caution, says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Average hours of work didn't increase, and wages, while up nominally, didn't really rise once adjusted for inflation. "This does give me pause," she said, adding that "we really need to be seeing job growth above 300,000 to be getting the unemployment rate down."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, welcomed the improved numbers in a statement but pointed to uncertainty as the reason the labor market hasn't improved more rapidly.

"Job growth in America is still nowhere close to what it should be," he said. "Our economy continues to suffer from the uncertainty being caused for private-sector job creators by the Democrats who run Washington."

Austan Goolsbee, head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, also said that growth needed to quicken but attributed some of the improvement so far to White House initiatives such as the payroll-tax holiday and investment incentives.

These initiatives "are creating the conditions for companies to add new jobs and foster the industries of the future," he said. "We will continue to work with Congress to find ways to reduce spending, so that we can live within our means without neglecting the investments in education, infrastructure, and clean energy that will strengthen our economy."

Although the monthly job-creation estimates attract enormous attention among both investors and the general public, they are precarious numbers. The Labor Department frequently overhauls them a month later. And because the net change in new jobs per month is a minuscule fraction of all jobs in the country, the numbers are often volatile from month to month.

The Labor Department also revised upward its job-growth figures for February and March. March's increase was changed to 221,000 from 216,000. February's was raised to 235,000 from 194,000.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is a difference between justifying pinning the blame for unemployment and ending unemployment. It is pretty clear that neither the present administration nor the previous one is entirely to blame for the economic crisis.It is also clear that the solution cannot come entirely from the government, either. There are policies that would lose some jobs here and gain more there,and vice versa.

Unemployment is a fluid situation. There are no days when some people find new jobs and others lose jobs.

[Plane]

There is a difference between justifying pinning the blame for unemployment and ending unemployment. It is pretty clear that neither the present administration nor the previous one is entirely to blame for the economic crisis.It is also clear that the solution cannot come entirely from the government, either. There are policies that would lose some jobs here and gain more there,and vice versa.

Unemployment is a fluid situation. There are no days when some people find new jobs and others lose jobs.

Well said!

Have we learned anything recently that we ought to use in the future?

[Xavier_Onassis]

We should have learned that the Fed injecting a lot of money into the economy resulted in making the effects of this recession less damaging: 9% unemployment is not good, but it twice as good as 18% and three times better than 27%.

Rescuing the car companies has prevented the collapse of US branded autos.

But we have this swarm of neo-racist morons who believe that nothing Obama has done or could do is good news.

[Kramer]

We should have learned that the Fed injecting a lot of money into the economy resulted in making the effects of this recession less damaging: 9% unemployment is not good, but it twice as good as 18% and three times better than 27%.

Rescuing the car companies has prevented the collapse of US branded autos.

But we have this swarm of neo-racist morons who believe that nothing Obama has done or could do is good news.

There is plenty Obama could do that would be good news -- sadly he hasn't done them yet.

[Amianthus]

We should have learned that the Fed injecting a lot of money into the economy resulted in making the effects of this recession less damaging: 9% unemployment is not good, but it twice as good as 18% and three times better than 27%.

Projections of unemployment without the injection of funds show that the unemployment would have been about the same, ie, the injection of cash did not help.

Rescuing the car companies has prevented the collapse of US branded autos.

Funny, Ford recovered best of the three, and it took no money.

[kimba1]

well I believe ford was in good finacial standing before all this happened. But I like what GM  did with thier money and publicly stated they will do everything to pay the money back and get rid of the name "GOVERNMENT MOTERS"

funny thing is it was reveled all three shared alot of the same venders so it maybe possible ford would of collasped if the other two tanked.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bailing out Chrysler and GM clearly helped Ford as well, by keeping suppliers in business. The Ford family owns a very large share of Ford Motor Co, while GM and Chrysler had no such shareholder backing.

We are better off having three US brands than one.

In the UK, all the major auto manufacturers are foreign-owned. Only tiny ones like Morgan and Lotus are still in British hands.