A shadow fell across America’s economic recovery on Friday, as the Labor Department’s monthly report showed that private sector job growth was considerably weaker than expected.
The headline numbers suggested a reason to be optimistic ”” employers added 431,000 jobs and the jobless rate fell to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent in April. But the underlying numbers showed that almost all of the job growth came from the 411,000 workers hired by the federal government to help with the Census. Most of those jobs will disappear in a few months.
By contrast, the private sector created 41,000, far short of expectations of 150,000 to 180,000 jobs. And the number of long-term unemployed, those who out of work for 27 or more weeks, remained at its highest rate since the Labor Department began collecting such data in the 1940s.
“It’s a very, very grudging labor market,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief economists for MFR Inc. “A growing amount of evidence now points to this recovery taking a long time.”
I recommend this chart:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-just-got-even-scarier-2010-6
and follow the links to the source for more discussion.
How many of those jobs in May were government added jobs like Census workers?
I have read that 411,000 of the 431,000 were Census jobs.
“I have read that 431,000 of the 411,000 were Census jobs.”
– fixed it for you.
(Check my website: “Azusa Financial Services – Creative Solutions for Today” http://www.afs@ponzi.org)
Being part of the 9.7%, I can add my personal experience to the lack of jobs. Summertime hiring is slow in the best of circumstances; now it’s moribund. I’m hoping for improvement after Labor Day (ironic!). Worst case, I’m hoping to snag a temporary retail job around the Christmas season.
I hope by now, that everyone realizes that a goodly portion of the “Census Jobs”, were people who were “fired” on Friday, and “RE-HIRED as NEW (complete with “”training” on Monday of the next week. Apparently this was standard practice ( I know of this personally, a good friend works for the Census, and has been “newly hired” several times. This way, NO unemployment, and the ability to count as “Created” jobs.
So, none of it is much good news, except for the people to whom it is happening.. My friend got his pink slip Friday, he’s waiting to see if he’s “hired” next week.
Its all HOGWASH…..
Grandmother in SC
[Personal comment deleted by Elf]
As long as banks aren’t lending to businesses, they won’t hire. And given that counties and states are firing the middle class, spending will go down, further effecting the businesses around them, which means less tax revenue, and businesses firing more workers. Which means less tax revenue and more layoffs.
We need another stimulus, one that matches what we need to keep people spending and money moving around. Businesses don’t have the confidence, and they can’t get the loans to make plans for the future.
we need lower taxes and government spending John. Stimulus packages have been shown time and time again to have no lasting impact, check out cash for clunkers or the home purchase tax credit…
RE: “As long as banks aren’t lending to businesses, they won’t hire.”
The lack of bank lending, of course, has practically zilch to do with the refusal of businesses to hire. Hiring people is an [i]investment[/i] — and businesses recognize that the “investment dollars” they had in the budget need to be held in reserve in order to pay for cap and tax and the “health” [sic] “care” [sic] “reform” [sic] legislation that the Congress and Obama have given us.
And of course, the very last thing we need is the State to give away more of our money to more nice government hiring.
I wouldn’t say that the “cash for clunkers” or home purchase credits don’t have lasting impact, Chris. They don’t for the federal government but they do provide benefit to local municipalities. That house sold not only provides one-time local fees but it also generates property tax income that is vital for city services. And the car sold provides ongoing registration fees for the state.
Those fees and funded services, in turn, create jobs in both the public and private sector. Money from taxes and fees funds projects, puts contracts out to bid, and maintains services. In my state, there is a state sales tax plus a fraction of a point added that goes back to municipalities. The revenues from that have decreased quite a bit, which means potential lay-offs, projects on hold, a series of one-day furlows in the city to save money, and other cost-cutting measures.
11, sort of like a leech on a leg.
#9 Actually, Chris, I think you’re missing the point of government spending, which is to increase confidence where there is none. Some may be ideologically opposed to government spending, but I don’t know of many economists who don’t believe that the multiplier effect works in some fashion. It was deficit spending, especially during WWII, which created the first steps to building our incredibly wealthy society. Businesses need consumers, and government spending stimulates consumption because it IS consumption. Granted, I realize I may be entering the manichean worldview of libertarianism vs socialism, but us Red Tory/Keynsian types think the evidence shows governments can help businesses (yes, they can also harm them as well).
What would have been a good idea, however, is to have a one year reduction of payroll taxes. As well as eliminating all college debt. Both stimulative.
The GI bill, public universities, Roads, NASA, our legal system, and other government investments are important. Businesses, may cut corners for the purpose of profit, and when it impacts the public (see BP disaster), citizens have a right to ensure that businesses play by the rules and don’t damage the environment – or other businesses.