Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Unemployment falls 4.4%, 180,000 Jobs Added

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    Unemployment falls 4.4%, 180,000 Jobs Added

    Unemployment falls 4.4%, 180,000 Jobs Added
    04/06/07
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- If you were looking for a job as a teacher last month, you were in luck. Same goes for health workers, retail clerks and building contractors.
    All told, the economy added 180,000 new jobs, dropping unemployment to a 4.4 percent rate that matched a five-year low.

    The mostly positive snapshot of the nation's employment climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, showed that companies ramped up hiring and paid workers more. That's good news for employees and jobseekers, and bodes well for the national economy, too, which is suffering a sluggish spell and a painful housing slump.

    "For most people, the job market is still hitting on a lot of cylinders, especially for people who are willing to upgrade their skills. It is not leaving a large number of people stranded," said John Challenger, chief of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an employment research firm. "But there are pockets where people are having a difficult time," he said.

    Those include people looking for work at factories, where jobs in March were cut for the ninth straight month. Makers of autos, furniture, clothing and textiles all eliminated jobs last month. Another soft spot: residential construction, a casualty of the housing slump.

    But there were many more job winners than losers. Construction jobs led the way, especially for contractors and for commercial building. Retailers, health care providers, educational services and leisure and hospitality companies were among those boosting their payrolls.

    "Businesses have a very good appetite for hiring workers. The job market is sturdy," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It is a good time to be looking for a job, particularly if you have skills and education."

    Against that backdrop, unemployment fell from 4.5 percent in February to 4.4 percent in March. That matched the rate in October -- the lowest in five years.

    Here, too, there were winners and losers.

    The unemployment rate for Hispanics dropped to 5.1 percent, a three-month low, while the rate for blacks climbed to 8.3 percent, a three-month high. The rate for women held steady at 3.8 percent. The rate for men declined to 4 percent.

    The economy ended up adding 32,000 more jobs in January and February combined than the government estimated a month ago. Economists found that encouraging in assessing the health of the job market and the overall economy.

    Workers' paychecks grew last month.

    Average hourly earnings climbed to $17.22, up from $16.55 a year earlier. That represented a solid 4 percent increase.

    Wage growth is good for workers and supports consumer spending, which is indispensable to the economy's good health. But a rapid pickup -- if prolonged and not blunted by other economic forces -- can raise fears about inflation.

    Spiraling inflation would whittle away any wage gains, hurting workers' wallets. The Federal Reserve's biggest concern is that inflation could flare up.

    Even so, many economists predict the Fed will keep interest rates where they are for much of this year.

    In a separate report, the Fed said consumers borrowed less freely in February; they boosted their use of credit at a 1.5 percent pace, the slowest in four months. The moderation reflected less demand for auto, educational and other loans.

    The new employment figures come as President Bush continues to cope with a lackluster job-approval rating of 35 percent from the American public, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. On the economy, just 38 percent approve of the president's stewardship while 60 percent disapprove, the poll shows.

    Tapping into that discontent, Democrats are championing policies to close the gap between low- and high-income workers and make it easier for workers to form unions against company wishes. They're also taking a harder stance regarding the administration's free-trade deals.

    Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, in an interview with The Associated Press, said the latest employment figures are a testament to the administration's economic policies and to the drive of the U.S. work force.

    "These numbers show we are competing successfully in a very competitive global economy," he said. Addressing the weakness in factory employment, Gutierrez said: "Any job lost is painful. ... We need to stay focused on job training and preparing ourselves" for an even more competitive climate in the future.

    In March, there were some challenges for jobseekers, too. For one thing, the job hunt got longer.

    The average time that the 6.7 million unemployed people spent searching for jobs was 17.3 weeks in March, compared with 16.4 weeks in February.

    "Opportunities are expanding, but it doesn't mean everybody's job search is easy," said Challenger. "But people who really want to look hard and stay at it are finding work."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/b...sjobcount.html

    10:59 a.m. January 8, 2007

    WASHINGTON – The economy has cranked out fewer jobs under President Bush – by millions – than it had by the same point in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/b...sjobcount.html

    10:59 a.m. January 8, 2007

    WASHINGTON – The economy has cranked out fewer jobs under President Bush – by millions – than it had by the same point in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
    We had all of the good paying factory jobs in the 80's and early 90's, and the US did not have the burden of 15 million illegals on our economy either. These good jobs have either been sent over seas or given to illegals who will work at a much lower payrate. Just think about how low our unemployment would be if we did not have to shoulder all of these illegals. Unemployment percent is based on the percentage of the population that has applied for unemployment benefits during each quarter. Fortunately, illegals to not get unemployment benefits..........YET!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Couch
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    We had all of the good paying factory jobs in the 80's and early 90's, and the US did not have the burden of 15 million illegals on our economy either. These good jobs have either been sent over seas or given to illegals who will work at a much lower payrate. Just think about how low our unemployment would be if we did not have to shoulder all of these illegals. Unemployment percent is based on the percentage of the population that has applied for unemployment benefits during each quarter. Fortunately, illegals to not get unemployment benefits..........YET!

    Nice response.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    We had all of the good paying factory jobs in the 80's and early 90's, and the US did not have the burden of 15 million illegals on our economy either. These good jobs have either been sent over seas or given to illegals who will work at a much lower payrate. Just think about how low our unemployment would be if we did not have to shoulder all of these illegals. Unemployment percent is based on the percentage of the population that has applied for unemployment benefits during each quarter. Fortunately, illegals to not get unemployment benefits..........YET!
    In 1986 there were an estimated 12 million illegal aliens from Mexico. So your argument is flawed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...n_1930_to_2000

  6. #6
    "In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating for the first time, in theory at least, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 undocumented workers. In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted. Most were from Mexico. Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980, 4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA) and 7,841,000 in 2000. Adding in another 12,000,000 illegals of which about 80% are thought to be Mexicans would bring the Mexican family total to over 16,000,000 -- about 16% of the Mexican population."

  7. #7
    I love that map on there. All of the worst countries are the ones that contribute most heavily to our immigrant populations. Terrific.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    In 1986 there were an estimated 12 million illegal aliens from Mexico. So your argument is flawed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...n_1930_to_2000
    Numbers do not lie, no matter how hard you try to spin them bgmc31.
    Center for Immigration Studies 2002"
    Immigrant population 1900 - 2002
    Number of Immigrants living in the US, both legal and illegal (in Millions)
    1900 10.3
    1910 13.5
    1920 13.9
    1930 14.2
    1940 11.6
    1950 10.3
    1960 9.7
    1970 9.6
    1980 14.1
    1990 19.8
    2000 31.1
    2002 33.1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Numbers do not lie, no matter how hard you try to spin them bgmc31.
    Center for Immigration Studies 2002"
    Immigrant population 1900 - 2002
    Number of Immigrants living in the US, both legal and illegal (in Millions)
    1900 10.3
    1910 13.5
    1920 13.9
    1930 14.2
    1940 11.6
    1950 10.3
    1960 9.7
    1970 9.6
    1980 14.1
    1990 19.8
    2000 31.1
    2002 33.1
    Not trying to spin anything Logan. You produced numbers... so did I. Why are mine wrong and your's aren't. If you are too lazy to click the link I provided, then you should have read Vinlander's last post. It spells it out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    Not trying to spin anything Logan. You produced numbers... so did I. Why are mine wrong and your's aren't. If you are too lazy to click the link I provided, then you should have read Vinlander's last post. It spells it out.
    Wikpedia vs. Centers for Immigration Studies
    I can go on Wikpedia as a member and post an article about any topic that I choose. I have spelled it out for you, but you need the capacity to understand it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Your adolescent attempts to insult me are downright comical Logan. Stats are stats, you've listed several Wiki articles are evidence of your arguments in the past. You are a hypocrite of monumental proportions!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    Your adolescent attempts to insult me are downright comical Logan. Stats are stats, you've listed several Wiki articles are evidence of your arguments in the past. You are a hypocrite of monumental proportions!!!
    come on, if common sense won't steer you in the direction of logic than no article can help you. So is it your stance that these millions of illegal immigrants are Good for our economy than?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/b...sjobcount.html

    10:59 a.m. January 8, 2007

    WASHINGTON – The economy has cranked out fewer jobs under President Bush – by millions – than it had by the same point in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
    This is fundamentally misleading. A better measure of economic health is the unemployment rate which, by the way, is currently about a point lower than it was under Clinton in his best year.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    come on, if common sense won't steer you in the direction of logic than no article can help you. So is it your stance that these millions of illegal immigrants are Good for our economy than?

    Absolutely not!!! I think illegal immigration is extremely harmful to our economy, but I don't think it's a big a factor as the out sourcing of jobs to oversees companies for cheap labor. My issue is there isn't really much difference, IMO, in paying illegal mexican immigrants $3 to pick oranges and paying some Indian in India $5 to take customer service calls for our major corporations.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    Absolutely not!!! I think illegal immigration is extremely harmful to our economy, but I don't think it's a big a factor as the out sourcing of jobs to oversees companies for cheap labor. My issue is there isn't really much difference, IMO, in paying illegal mexican immigrants $3 to pick oranges and paying some Indian in India $5 to take customer service calls for our major corporations.
    Totally agree. I have as much of a problem with the outsourcing of American jobs as I do with illegal immigrants working for pennies and pushing down the payrate of the existing US hel jobs. It isn't even a political party issue any longer, both parties have done absolutely nothing about this. Republicans are pandering to big business for cheap labor, and the Democrats are pandering for hispanic voting blocks. What the hell are we left with, Ralph Nader?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •