11-07-2005 21:44									#1
	Let the good times roll -- 146,000 new jobs added Put an end to popups!

Apologies for the tardiness. I was on vacation.

In June, 146,000 new jobs were added to the US economy, after a revised 292,000 and 104,000 were added in April and May, respectively. This is a 180,000 average number of jobs added each month for the quarter, which is respectable.

Also notable is that the private sector is now in expansion. The last phase of the recovery in the private sector -- employment growing to the point where it was before the recession -- is now complete. At the beginning of the recession, the number of government jobs grew, but the number of private sector jobs shrank. Now, the number of government jobs is steady, while private sector jobs are growing. This is good news.

	11-07-2005 21:48									#2
	Remove this text

Good stuff..

by the way is this new jobs as in the amount of people who got laid off is reduced from the original number and this is the total?

	11-07-2005 21:49									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm confused by the question. Just look at it as the total number of jobs. We have 146,000 more than last month. An average of 180,000 were added each month over the last quarter.

	11-07-2005 21:52									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Example: 146 000 got new jobs, however 200 000 lost their jobs, thus the total is -54 000 jobs.

So, is this new jobs when the lost jobs are taken into account or not?

	11-07-2005 21:53									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The last phase of the recovery in the private sector -- employment growing to the point where it was before the recession -- is now complete.

Does that mean that you're facing recession again?

	11-07-2005 21:53									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Yes, the lost jobs are taken into account in this figure. This is the net figure.

	11-07-2005 21:54									#7
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Az quote: The last phase of the recovery in the private sector -- employment growing to the point where it was before the recession -- is now complete. Does that mean that you're facing recession again?

No.

Well, sometime in the future we will have another recession, as our economic system dictates.

	11-07-2005 21:54									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

yeah net was the word I was looking for .. damn my english gets worse by the day!

In THAT case, awesome figure

	11-07-2005 21:56									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

except that economists, and the markets, expected 200,000+ jobs to be created. So the US economy is weaker then expected.

The dollar pulled back on Monday from 19-month highs against the British pound and 14-month highs versus the euro after disappointing U.S. jobs data put the brakes on the currency's robust rally this year.
http://today.reuters.com/business/n...7&imageid=&cap=

	11-07-2005 21:59									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't think the economists and the markets had a good idea of what to expect. So you should follow what has been reported rather than what they expected to be reported.

	11-07-2005 22:03									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Umm, no.

The markets and economists expectations put your numbers into perspective.

The US economy is not performing as well was expected indicating weaknesses.

"The non-farm payroll report recorded yet another month of sub-par job growth that is consistent with our view that the US economy has switched into a lower gear," said David Rosenberg, economist at Merrill Lynch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4665887.stm

	11-07-2005 22:09									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The markets didn't expect 292,000 in April, so the economy is stronger than expected. They didn't expect 146,000 in June, so the economy is weaker than expected. Point being that it's not fruitful to look at these expectations, especially so closely on a month-to-month basis. It's only fruitful to do this if you're a day trader.

Anyway, the market expected 195,000 while economists polled by Briefing.com expected 175,000. Hardly much off from what was reported, especially if you consider that April and May preliminary figures were revised upward by 44,000 in this report.

Last edited by DanS on 11-07-2005 at 22:25

	11-07-2005 22:35									#13
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

By how much did your population increase at the same time?

	11-07-2005 22:39									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Tough to know. About 240,000, if we go by rough historical averages.

	11-07-2005 22:43									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So, would that be a net loss of 60,000 when compared to the total population?

	11-07-2005 22:50									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

While the population may grow by 240,000, the workforce doesn't grow by 240,000. The rule of thumb is that the US needs about 150,000 new jobs each month to absorb growth in the workforce. However, the US is somewhat unique in that the growth in the workforce is tied to immigration, which may increase or decrease, as conditions in the labor markets fluctuate. For instance, fewer immigrants might come, if companies aren't creating enough jobs for them.

	11-07-2005 22:51									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Babies don't work Spiff.

	11-07-2005 22:52									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

shhhhhhhhhh

	11-07-2005 22:52									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Pekka yeah net was the word I was looking for .. damn my english gets worse by the day! In THAT case, awesome figure

Not particularly. 150 000 a month are needed just to keep pace with population growth.

Employment as a percentage of the available labour force is still well down in the US.

180 000 a month is just above treading water, and is not particularly large.

There have been months in the last 2 years when the Canadian economy added 130 000+ jobs, despite being 1/9 the size

	11-07-2005 22:53									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh, and we didn't go through a recession first either...

	11-07-2005 22:55									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Canada has higher unemployment than the US, on the other hand...

	11-07-2005 22:56									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Not particularly. 150 000 a month are needed just to keep pace with population growth. Employment as a percentage of the available labour force is still well down in the US. 180 000 a month is just above treading water, and is not particularly large. There have been months in the last 2 years when the Canadian economy added 130 000+ jobs, despite being 1/9 the size

True dat, yo.

	11-07-2005 22:57									#23
	Suffering from ads?

so you've pretty much cried wolf again dan. yet again, bush hasnt done jack **** to help the economy.

	11-07-2005 22:58									#25
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Canada has higher unemployment than the US, on the other hand...

We also have a much higher participation rate.

Our employment rate is higher than yours.

	11-07-2005 22:59									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS Canada has higher unemployment than the US, on the other hand...

http://www.econ.ubc.ca/riddell/canusune.pdf

quote: Both Canada and the US measure employment, unemployment and labour force participation using concepts and surveys (the monthly Labour Force Survey (LFS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) respectively) that are very similar. Indeed, for many years analysts and statistical agencies in both countries treated any differences in recorded unemployment as reflecting behavioural differences rather than differences in the definitions of labour force status.2 However, detailed comparisons of the LFS and CPS questionnaires and associated definitions revealed a number of differences in the way similar concepts are implemented in the two countries (Zagorsky, 1996; Statistics Canada, 1998). Perhaps surprisingly, these apparently small differences are quantitatively important. As a consequence, Statistics Canada now reports on a regular basis the Canadian unemployment rate measured using US concepts. The bottom line in Figure 1 shows the contribution of measurement differences to the unemployment rate gap over the 1976 - 2002 period. This "differences in concepts" component shows the effect of adjusting Canada's official unemployment rate so that it is measured in a comparable manner to the official US rate. The importance of this adjustment has evidently grown over time. In the late 1970s, the use of US concepts lowered Canada's unemployment rate by approximately 0.2 percentage points. In contrast, this adjustment lowered the Canadian rate by 0.4 to 0.5 points in the 1980s and 0.6 to 0.8 percentage points during the 1990s. At present one needs to reduce the official Canadian rate by 0.7 to 0.9 percentage points to make it comparable to the US measure.

	11-07-2005 23:01									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Much higher? As I recall the numbers, that's an exaggeration.

	11-07-2005 23:02									#28
	Tired of ads?

uh oh

the five economic no ons of bush

1 - Deficit spending; reduces the Feds policy and reduces its effects
2- Deficit spending; increases our trade deficit, further mortgaging our future
3 - Tax cuts for the rich; leads to deficit spending
4 - Deficit spending - crowds the **** outta investment and the private sector
5 - Deficit spending - reduces national and public savings

	11-07-2005 23:03									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS Much higher? As I recall the numbers, that's an exaggeration.

~2% IIRC

we have one of the highest participation rates in the world

	11-07-2005 23:04									#30
	Suffering from ads?

Canada is 67.2% participation in June 2005...US is 66% in June 2005.