Where is the US economy headed?

When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."

okie wrote:

When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."

The "year that ended in March 2009" describes the time frame between April 2008 and March 2009, right?

So, job losses during that period were even worse than originally estimated? That doesn't sound good.

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."

The "year that ended in March 2009" describes the time frame between April 2008 and March 2009, right?

So, job losses during that period were even worse than originally estimated? That doesn't sound good.

Thats what it sounds like, but now that leaves me wondering, why that time frame, that does not match up to anything, such as a fiscal year. That seems to be more ancient history than would be deserving of updates? March, 2009 was almost a year ago. Is this an effort by Obama's people to fudge the numbers to lay more blame onto Bush? Keep a sharp eye out on this.

The numbers are out for January:
U-3...the widely cited statistic for unemployment, dropped, unexpectedly, to 9.7% from 10.0%.
That is good, but U-3 excludes people who are unemployed and who -for the moment- have given up looking.
U-6...is a number many of us follow more closely, tracking people who have jobs but aren't getting the number of hours they want. That fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The average work week increased slightly.
I find it troubling that workers aged 55 and over are gaining employment, but they are returning to jobs that pay less than what they used to earn.
This creates a downward pressure on wages overall which is not good for a consumer driven economy like ours.

realjohnboy wrote:

The numbers are out for January:
U-3...the widely cited statistic for unemployment, dropped, unexpectedly, to 9.7% from 10.0%.
That is good, but U-3 excludes people who are unemployed and who -for the moment- have given up looking.
U-6...is a number many of us follow more closely, tracking people who have jobs but aren't getting the number of hours they want. That fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The average work week increased slightly.
I find it troubling that workers aged 55 and over are gaining employment, but they are returning to jobs that pay less than what they used to earn.
This creates a downward pressure on wages overall which is not good for a consumer driven economy like ours.

rjb, the thing to remember about this is that this number is accomplished with a telephone survey. It is much like a poll, and I believe it is subject to the temptations of the people gathering the information to skew the numbers if they want to. When driving in to work, a guy calling a local talk show said he was highly skeptical of the number, given their are no new jobs being added, and I agree. If there is any skullduggery going on, we will find out about it however.

Seriously, cyclops, how do you change numbers that are a year old. That is telling me that either some hanky panky is going on, or the numbers they are doing there in the first place are rather worthless, and neither of the two possibilities are very encouraging about the work our government is doing. And you guys want these people to take care of our health, come on folks, get real.

Is there anything which Obama's minions don't manipulate, in your mind, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is there anything which Obama's minions don't manipulate, in your mind, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

I have not yet been highly suspicious of Obama cooking numbers yet, although a mild suspicion has been lurking, but moreso about what he may do in the future than up until now. Knowing a bit about his personality, I would not be surprised to see this become a bigger issue with this administration. We already know that many things have been misrepresented during the health care debate, but so far we have not seen any great suspicions in regard to the Labor Department, but it would not surprise me at all. I am not yet making any assertions, but lets just say we need to keep a sharp watch on it.

The Labor Market: Turning the Corner [Bob Stein]

The labor market has clearly turned the corner and will improve substantially in the year ahead. Although payrolls fell slightly in January, civilian employment " an alternative measure of jobs that includes self-employment " soared 785,000. In the past three months, private payrolls have declined an average of 20,000, while civilian employment has increased an average of 110,000. One reason payrolls seem to be lagging a little is that companies are aggressively expanding hours. Total hours have increased at a 1.8 percent annual rate in the past three months, the equivalent of about 200,000 jobs per month. In other words, the demand for labor is there, it’s just that firms are meeting it by increasing hours. But they can’t do this forever, so we are likely on the cusp of large payroll gains. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has dropped to 9.7 percent from 10.1 percent and even the more comprehensive measure of unemployment (that includes “discouraged workers” and those working part-time but who say they want full-time hours) has dropped to 16.5 percent from 17.4 percent. Payroll gains have gone from being isolated in education/health and then temps to now manufacturing and retail. The share of industries increasing payrolls is 47 percent versus 17 percent at the low in March 2009. Given the rapid economic growth we’ve had since the fall, job gains will get much more widespread in the months ahead.

" Bob Stein is senior economist with First Trust Advisers.

02/05 12:12 PMShare

Can you give a link to the full article, please? The snippet you quote does not discuss the petering-out of the boost from the stimulus money.