| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:46 pm U.S.: 146K Jobs Added in June; Jobless Rate Down to 5.0% |
|
| Quote: |
146,000 Jobs Added in June, Jobless Rate Down
Friday, July 08, 2005
WASHINGTON � U.S. employers added 146,000 jobs in June, below Wall Street forecasts, but job growth was revised up for April and May and unemployment rate fell to its lowest point since September 2001.
The latest snapshot of the nation's jobs climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, supported the view of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues that the labor market continues to improve gradually.
June's tepid employment growth came in below analyst expectations for 188,500 new jobs in the month. But the Labor Department (search) revised up job growth in April and May to 292,000 and 104,000, respectively � boosting the two-month count by 44,000 payroll jobs.
The decline in the unemployment rate (search) to 5.0 percent was a nice surprise, since Wall Street had expected it to hold at 5.1 percent. The drop was mostly due to a paltry 1,000 increase in the work force, which includes those looking for work as well as those who have jobs.
"It all suggests that the labor market is improving a bit. But it's kind of anemic compared with what we were expecting. It really does validate the Fed's view. There is a gradual improvement in the labor market. But it is very gradual," said William Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.
Factory payrolls shrank for the fourth straight month as auto assembly and parts plants cut back on production. A glut of inventories has prompted many automakers to slow production lines until demand can catch up. Some 96,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since August 2004.
While 18,000 workers were hired in the construction industry last month, most of June's employment growth came in the service sector. Professional and business services jobs rose 56,000, education and health services were up 38,000 and leisure and hospitality payrolls grew 19,000.
In a sign of underlying weakness, the length of the average workweek was 33.7 hours, unchanged from May's downwardly revised length. The factory workweek was also unchanged at 40.4 hours, while overtime held at 4.4 hours.
Employers typically increase the length of the workweek before taking on new workers, so a lack of growth in that area can mean scant hiring ahead.
Average hourly earnings rose 3 cents to $16.06 and have risen 2.7 percent over the year.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Summer internship deadline March 1, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:56 am |
|
Its great that they add jobs, but they add skilled jobs that require a degree in something. Some of our parents parents didn't have much money, and I know that neither of my parents were able to afford to go to college. Fortunately my mom has found a nice job, a well paying job for that matter, so thank goodness, I know I'm taken care of, but there are many many many people who aren't as lucky, and what about them?
I think we need to create some jobs that don't require a college education. I'm sure that there are many people who wouldn't care what the job was as long as they could make minimum wadge and bring in something for their families.
But huzzah for this, people can get jobs now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
Job rate lowest in 4 years. Great news to me. I hear that years ago 8% was considered good, but now we have to butcher Bush for 5%. The Left just can't seem to accept that the economy's going well and getting much better.
And did you know that the government got $25 million MORE in revenue than was expected this year? Proof that tax cuts DO work.  The Bush tax cuts are WORKING? How could that be?
Better economy and economic security in the minds of the people makes them spend more, which brings in more sales taxes, more employees (employee taxes), etc.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
charlie
American Soldier
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 598
Location: In The United States
|
| Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:11 pm |
|
Jobs are forming where I live more since Bush is in office.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:54 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Job rate lowest in 4 years. Great news to me. I hear that years ago 8% was considered good, but now we have to butcher Bush for 5%. The Left just can't seem to accept that the economy's going well and getting much better. |
Okay, first of all, If our economy is going well and getting much better, why then how come people are still getting laid off? And did you know that if you run out of unemployment (which you do in around 6 months) they don't count you as unemployed? So part of the reason its only 5% is because a lot of people have run out of unemployment. And what about GM, they laid off around 25,000 people a month or two ago. Great economy we have!
Last edited by Starbuck on Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:55 pm |
|
Simple, still suffering from the Clinton economy when he was in office. It makes it hard on the next president to try to straighten things out, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Job rate lowest in 4 years. Great news to me. I hear that years ago 8% was considered good, but now we have to butcher Bush for 5%. The Left just can't seem to accept that the economy's going well and getting much better. |
Okay, first of all, If our economy is going well and getting much better, why then how come people are still getting laid off? |
It's called, simply put, the ECONOMY. Throughout HISTORY people are laid off. This is nothing new to a person who knows a thing about the economy. Just because people are still getting laid off doesn't mean that the economy's doing bad--it's doing well. Low unemployment rate, increased personal security in the ecnomy, etc.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:03 pm |
|
Don't ignore the rest of my post. Did you know that if you run out of unemployment you are no longer concidered unemployed and therefore not counted in those surveys?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:12 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Don't ignore the rest of my post. Did you know that if you run out of unemployment you are no longer concidered unemployed and therefore not counted in those surveys? |
Yes, but that number is small. And then the same thing goes for the Clinton years, too. If you've given up on being employed, though, then you shouldn't be counted. I don't feel it important and necessary to be included in these numbers.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:17 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Yes, but that number is small. And then the same thing goes for the Clinton years, too. If you've given up on being employed, though, then you shouldn't be counted. I don't feel it important and necessary to be included in these numbers. |
How do you know the statistics of how small that number is if they aren't reported?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Yes, but that number is small. And then the same thing goes for the Clinton years, too. If you've given up on being employed, though, then you shouldn't be counted. I don't feel it important and necessary to be included in these numbers. |
How do you know the statistics of how small that number is if they aren't reported? |
It's logical that most people would not be unemployed for a significantly large amount of time. I figure that most people wouldn't not want to work, and that a significantly small portion of the population cares not for being employed. It's called logic.
And if you stop looking for employment, you shouldn't be counted.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:48 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | It's logical that most people would not be unemployed for a significantly large amount of time. I figure that most people wouldn't not want to work, and that a significantly small portion of the population cares not for being employed. It's called logic.
And if you stop looking for employment, you shouldn't be counted. |
Okay, lets start with your arrogance. How do you know that they've stopped looking for work? Haven't you figured that some people were born into poverty and couldn't afford college. And FYI most jobs require a college degree in something. Now onto your Ignorance. You aren't paying attention to the fact that a lot of people are running out of unemployment and can't get a job because they couldn't afford college. And what about the people who were laid off before they were at a job for 7 months. They wouldn't be elligible for unemployment and would therefore not be counted as unemployed. And the people who get laid off after they had their job for decades and figured they had some ammount of security?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:05 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Yes, but that number is small. |
The population of the United States is huge, though.
If even only 0.1% is that number, the actual number of people is 296,600. That's more people than live in my city. Even if it is only 0.01%, that's still 29,660, which is large.
Statistics are bunk. You can use statistics to prove anything. Given the exact same set of statistics, the Left will prove that their politics are leading to a better economy, and the Right will prove that their politics are leading to a better economy. There are people trained to take statistics and interpret them in a way that makes their employers look good.
The world of Dilbert is not fiction, it is fact under a microscope. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | It's logical that most people would not be unemployed for a significantly large amount of time. I figure that most people wouldn't not want to work, and that a significantly small portion of the population cares not for being employed. It's called logic.
And if you stop looking for employment, you shouldn't be counted. |
Okay, lets start with your arrogance. How do you know that they've stopped looking for work? Haven't you figured that some people were born into poverty and couldn't afford college. And FYI most jobs require a college degree in something. Now onto your Ignorance. You aren't paying attention to the fact that a lot of people are running out of unemployment and can't get a job because they couldn't afford college. And what about the people who were laid off before they were at a job for 7 months. They wouldn't be elligible for unemployment and would therefore not be counted as unemployed. And the people who get laid off after they had their job for decades and figured they had some ammount of security? |
McDonalds, Burger King, Janitorial jobs, Subway...the list goes on and on for jobs that you don't need a college education for. I was going across the country--from Colorado to NY--and saw tons of people ages 16 to 50 working at these places. People can get jobs, even without college educations. They may not be the best, but they're jobs, nonetheless. That's ignorant for you to shut that out of your logic. But I do see your point in how many do find it hard to get a job--but I'm sure NOT as hard as you would think.
But at any rate, are you sure that it takes 7 months to be considered employed? That seems silly to me.
And your right, Tach. I meant small in a proportional way.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | McDonalds, Burger King, Janitorial jobs, Subway...the list goes on and on for jobs that you don't need a college education for. I was going across the country--from Colorado to NY--and saw tons of people ages 16 to 50 working at these places. People can get jobs, even without college educations. They may not be the best, but they're jobs, nonetheless. That's ignorant for you to shut that out of your logic. But I do see your point in how many do find it hard to get a job--but I'm sure NOT as hard as you would think.
But at any rate, are you sure that it takes 7 months to be considered employed? That seems silly to me.
And your right, Tach. I meant small in a proportional way. |
Did you ever stop to think that the staff at McDonalds, Burger King, Janitorial jobs, and subway are already taken because of the people with no education. Especially the poor Mexicans? Did you know that for two years now my dad has been trying to get a job anywhere he could? Did you know that for two years my dad has been unemployed? But he doesn't count in your little 5% unemployment statistic, he's just been out of a job for too long. He must not be trying. I'm sure thats it .  and it takes 26 weeks for your unemployment to run out. I know from experience, and you must be employed for 7 months to QUALIFY for unemployment. The last time my mom was laid off she was only in her position for 6 months, she didn't get unemployment then, she didn't fall under your little 5% statistic.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
Illinois has to be the most backward state from the things you say, Kitey.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:08 pm |
|
Its not just Illinois, unemployment is standard, except for your salary.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:13 pm |
|
Then you don't know what you are talking about. Was giving you an out, you chose not to take it. A former co-worker is collecting unemployment from a job she was only at for 2 months, 
You can also collect unemployment at any such time as your hours become so few that you cannot afford gas to and from work. There are many different situations, it's not a line decision.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:16 pm |
|
There are special needs cases where if someone has a family to provide for and no income, the government will provide two checks a month, medical care, and other services a family will need. However, if no such need is seen, the government is not your friend.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:18 pm |
|
"unemployment is standard"
You have changed your tune.
BTW,
| Quote: | How to Collect Unemployment
Although there are Federal guidelines, each state is allowed to set its own rules within the guidelines. So, benefits and eligibility requirements vary from state to state. Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are determined by state law too.
|
SOURCE
Last edited by Theresa on Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:21 pm |
|
Unemployment IS standard. But there are special cases in which people are deemed eligible.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Unemployment IS standard. But there are special cases in which people are deemed eligible. |
I edited my post, take a look.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:24 pm |
|
Well, whatever, fine you have a source I'll admit defeat. All I know is the guy at the credit union said that unemployment was the same from state to state.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | "unemployment is standard"
You have changed your tune.
BTW,
| Quote: | How to Collect Unemployment
Although there are Federal guidelines, each state is allowed to set its own rules within the guidelines. So, benefits and eligibility requirements vary from state to state. Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are determined by state law too.
|
SOURCE |
Well, thank you for clearing that up for us 
And as you said, Starbuck, special needs come for special people, and unemployment laws also differ from state to state. Therefore, I'd say that the 5% unemployment rate IS good and our economy IS becoming--and nearing--what it once was. No matter what the administration, the unemployment situation is always similar in the regard that some aren't included in the percentage. Hence, I'd say that we can all say that our economy is doing quite well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:36 pm |
|
I still wanna know how you figure that the statistic of people who ran out of unemployment and don't have a job is small.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
