Employment Growth Surprisingly Weak

[adios]

To me this wasn't a big surprise and I know a lot of others it wasn't a surprise to either. FWIW the price of gasoline at the pump and what I consider impediments to businesses hiring are putting a damper on hiring in the U.S. The price of gasoline has a dampening effect on economic growth and the costs of taking on new employees in the U.S. are high. Kerry should be the favorite to win the election. Like it or not he's the defacto candidate of hope. I saw today that Kerry is going to unveil a $30 billion energy program with lot's of money directed at research and a $5000 tax break to consummers who buy fuel effecient autos such as hybrids. Very little of it has a chance to see the light of day if he gets elected however IMO.

Employment Growth Surprisingly Weak

Employment Growth Surprisingly Weak

1 hour, 14 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a paltry 32,000 workers to payrolls last month, the government said on Friday in a report that was far weaker than expected and unwelcome news for an election-bound President Bush (news - web sites).

The Labor Department (news - web sites) also cut its tally of job growth in May and June by a combined 61,000, adding to the report's weak tenor.


Bond markets surged and the dollar tumbled as the data raised questions about how successfully the economy shook off June weakness and led financial market participants to expect a slower pace of interest-rate rises from the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) than had been expected.


In one bright spot, the unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month from 5.6 percent in June as a separate Labor Department survey of households showed robust employment growth. The department cautioned, however, that the household survey was a less reliable barometer of month-to-month changes in employment than its larger survey of businesses.


Wall Street economists polled last week had looked for a payroll gain of 228,000, although a weak employment reading from a service sector survey on Wednesday had some bracing for a weaker number. Still, they were stunned by July's lackluster figure.


"It's a huge disappointment, a big surprise," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Fla. "It implies a very sharp revision to the overall outlook for the economy."


The Bush administration was likely to look on the positive side as the report showed 1.5 million jobs have been created in 11 straight months of hiring gains.


However, Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) could accurately argue that the economy is still down 1.1 million jobs since Bush took office, despite the recent gains.


Fed officials gather next Tuesday to plot interest rate strategy and had widely been expected to add to a quarter-point interest-rate increase made in June.


Some economists said the Fed would still raise rates next week but may have second thoughts at its next meeting in September, unless it was clear by then that the economy had regained momentum.


"We still think that the Fed will raise rates next week, but the case for moving slowly and deliberately is strengthened by this report," said Patrick Fearon, an economist at A.G. Edwards and Sons in St. Louis.


The government said last week the economy advanced at just a 3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, a sharp slowdown from its heady 4.5 percent first-quarter pace, but fresher data had led many to think the pace of growth quickened last month.


Manufacturers added a meager 10,000 workers in July, after cutting a revised 1,000 from their payrolls in June. The department noted a loss of 21,000 jobs in the transport industry, which it pinned on larger-than-usual retooling shutdowns at auto plants.


Construction firms added just 4,000 new workers.


The service side of the economy showed weakness as well, creating only 14,000 new jobs. Employment at financial firms plummeted, with big losses at mortgage brokers that some economists said could be tied to rising interest rates.

[cardcounter0]

Every move downward has been good for Bush. Next week, there will be a slight recovery, or bounce, from this downward move. Then Bush and Co. will come on full steam pointing at the slight improvement, trumpeting the 'recovery' from every hillside. The week after, when the downward trend continues, complete silence. Then the week after that when their is a slight up-tick, more hoopla.

Bush has been bragging about his 'recovery' for about 2 years.

[Utah]

read the article. Bush's record is pretty good given the situation he inhereted (and Clintons legacy looks worse).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/op...0and%20Op%2dEd

[cardcounter0]

Despite pumping $2 a gallon gas into my car, the REAL cost of the Bush legacy has not even started.

How do you want to measure performance?
Employment numbers?
Deficet?
Stock Market?
Intrest Rates/Inflation?
CPI/GDP/LBI?

Give me a paramater(s) to measure by and we will compare 1991 pre-Clinton with 2000 (8 years of Clinton) and 2004 (4 years of Bush).

Then get back to me in about 5 years, when the TRUE COST of Bush bungling starts kicking in.

[MMMMMM]

"How do you want to measure performance?
Employment numbers?
Deficet?
Stock Market?
Intrest Rates/Inflation?
CPI/GDP/LBI?

Give me a paramater(s) to measure by and we will compare 1991 pre-Clinton with 2000 (8 years of Clinton) and 2004 (4 years of Bush)."



Don't forget to somehow try to adjust the results by the costs of 9/11, though.

[cardcounter0]

I don't think an adjustment is needed. I doubt a DEM would have put us into the Iraq budget busting black hole.

Clinton had the Somilia mess from Sr. Bush to clean up, and sucessfully solved the problems in Bosnia without breaking the bank.

9/11 should have been a 1 to 2 year blip as most economists predicted at the time.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Then get back to me in about 5 years, when the TRUE COST of Bush bungling starts kicking in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't we do the same for Clinton? Clinton left office in early 2001, why shouldn't we check back on his record in 2006 to find out the TRUE COST of his administration? According to your logic the TRUE COST of the senior BUSH should be viewed in 1997.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then get back to me in about 5 years, when the TRUE COST of Bush bungling starts kicking in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't we do the same for Clinton? Clinton left office in early 2001, why shouldn't we check back on his record in 2006 to find out the TRUE COST of his administration? According to your logic the TRUE COST of the senior BUSH should be viewed in 1997.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO NO NO! ONLY TEH GOOD FOR TEH DEMS AND BAD FOR BU$H!

[adios]

The buzz in the markets today is that the employment numbers don't jibe with other economic indicators look manufacturing output etc. The the separate "household survey" of employment showed a 629,000 gain in employment and 577,000 new entrants to the labor force, reducing the unemployment rate to 5.5%, more consistent with recent consumer confidence readings. Total hours worked recovered modestly, up 0.3%, and average hourly earnings rose 0.3%. Also I believe that the jobs number is + or - 290,000 with a confidence interval of either 90 or 95 percent. Back to the conundrum of what the conflict between the "non farm" payroll number and "household survey" numbers" and what they truly mean. Bond market rally has eased off a little due to the "household survey."

[MMMMMM]

There have been conflicting numbers for various economic data for a couple of weeks, ever since Greenspan spoke.