Economy added 169k jobs in August as the recovery grinds along

U.S. employers have yet to start hiring aggressively — a trend the Federal Reserve will weigh in deciding this month whether to slow its bond buying and, if so, by how much.

Employers added 169,000 jobs in August but many fewer in June and July than previously thought, the Labor Department said Friday. Combined, June, July and August amounted to the weakest three-month stretch of job growth in a year.

The unemployment rate dropped to 7.3 percent, the lowest in nearly five years. But it fell because more Americans stopped looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed. The proportion of Americans working or looking for work reached its lowest point in 35 years.

All told, the report adds up to a mixed picture of the U.S. job market: Hiring is steady but subpar. Much of the hiring is in lower-paying occupations. And many people are giving up on the job market in frustration.

The jobs picture is sure to weigh heavily when the Fed meets Sept. 17-18 to discuss whether to scale back its $85 billion a month in Treasury and mortgage bond purchases. Those purchases have helped keep home-loan and other borrowing rates ultra-low to try to encourage consumers and businesses to borrow and spend more.

David Jones, chief economist at DMJ Advisors, said he still thinks the Fed will begin slowing its bond buying later this month. But he suspects the August data and the reduced job totals for June and July will lead the Fed to trim more gradually than it would have otherwise: The Fed could start reducing its monthly purchases by $10 billion rather than $20 billion.

Jones said he expects periodic reductions of $10 billion between now and mid-2014. At that point, Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed expects the bond buying could likely end.

The revised job growth for June and July shrank the previously estimated gain for those months by 74,000. July's gain is now estimated at 104,000 — the fewest in more than a year and down from a previous estimate of 162,000. June's was revised to 172,000 from 188,000.

In the past three months, employers have added an average of just 148,000 jobs. The average monthly gain for 2013 so far is 180,000, slightly below the 183,000 average for 2012.

Stock prices rose in afternoon trading as investors weighed the job report's impact on the Fed and tensions over the prospect of U.S. military action against Syria. The Dow Jones industrial average was up about 62 points.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.91 percent, from 2.95 percent before the jobs report was released at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time. Investors may think the report makes it less likely the Fed will significantly slow its bond purchases.

One possible concern for the Fed is that most of the hiring in August was in lower-paying industries such as retail, restaurants and bars. This continues a trend that emerged earlier this year.

Retailers added 44,000 jobs in August. Hotels, restaurants and bars added 27,000. Temp hiring rose by 13,000.

In higher-paying fields, the report was mixed.

Manufacturers added 14,000 in August, the first gain after five months of declines. Government, which has been a drag on job growth since the recession ended more than four years ago, gained 17,000. It was the biggest such increase in nearly a year. The increase was all in local education departments. Federal employment was unchanged, and state government lost 3,000 jobs.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/brighter-us-economy-makes-fed-tapering-20170135

this is like a Rorschadt test -there is enough optimism/pessimism in here for either point of view
 
For this op, the jobs numbers; but real estate is also picking up even in my area, which is a good sign (I just hope it doesn't overheat again)

another stupid response by a stupid twat.

interest rates are going up. shhhh don't tell anyone. that will cure the real estate market.
 
Nobody is saying hiring is at a pace sufficient to pressure wages way up.
200,000 jobs a month are fine for investors.
Many CFO's say obamacare is slowing hiring, so is the regulation push.
 
Not following. Like I said I am open to being shown that I am wrong But please show me where all these writers are wrong on the calculation of the unemployment rate and the other set of numbers showed less number of new people are finding work than six or 12 months ago. I'm not sure what you are debating about them.


So is your point that there are fewer people who found a job last month than who did 6 months ago?

Because I hate to say it, but as long as people are indeed returning to work and the unemployment number is coming down, I don't have a major problem with the fact that not quite as many people found a job this past month compared with the number 6 months ago.

Did more people find employment and return to work during both months?

That sounds like a big win-win to me.
 
Last edited:
Spoken like a tried and true Democrat.....thanks for the honesty....I'd prefer to leave food stamps for the truly needy and pay my own way....

I'd like to do both those things myself, but when the American Worker can't count on the Captains of Business and Industry to live up to the promises they made the rank and file employee, then I got no problem gaming the system for my own personal gain just like they do.
 
Oh fun with semantics

I just want to have an honest discussion and if I'm not clear on your meaning that can't happen.

You spoke imprecisely.

SOME of the reduction of the unemployment number can indeed be credited to people returning to work.
 
The jobless rate is coming down and the number of newly hired continues to rise.

So we can be on the same page maybe I should have asked this question first. What numbers are you referring to when you said the number of newly hired continues to rise?
 
So we can be on the same page maybe I should have asked this question first. What numbers are you referring to when you said the number of newly hired continues to rise?

The report says we added 169,000 jobs last month.

That's 169,000 people who didn't have jobs 30 days ago.

Hence, the number of newly hired rose by 169,000 last month.
 
The jobless rate came down because of the number of people who left the workforce. That's not a good thing.

'The nation has averaged 148,000 new jobs a month for the last three months. The number was 160,000 for the last six months, and 184,000 a month over the last year.'

That is not a number that is rising.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-headline-this-was-a-very-bad-jobs-report/

I also believe my first sentence here is pretty clear. It's saying the same thing as the second paragraph of the OP and other articles I post
 
Nobody is saying hiring is at a pace sufficient to pressure wages way up.
200,000 jobs a month are fine for investors.
Many CFO's say obamacare is slowing hiring, so is the regulation push.


Would I like to see the number go even higher?

You bet.

Am I happy we put 169,000 people back to work last month?

HELLZ YEAH!
 
The report says we added 169,000 jobs last month.

That's 169,000 people who didn't have jobs 30 days ago.

Hence, the number of newly hired rose by 169,000 last month.

Just to understand here if one hundred new jobs are created in January, 80 new jobs are created in February and 6o new jobs are created in March is job growth still rising to you?
 
The unemployment rate fell in August but for the worst of reasons: Many Americans stopped looking for work so they weren’t counted among the unemployed. What’s harder to tell is why they stopped looking. The political right chalks it up to laziness and government coddling, while the political left says people are giving up looking because a dysfunctional economy isn’t producing enough jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the August unemployment rate was 7.3 percent, down a tick from 7.4 percent in July.

The worrisome part is why the rate fell. The size of the workforce declined by about 300,000 and the participation rate fell to 63.2 percent from 63.4 percent—the lowest since August 1978.

The participation rate is the number of people either working or actively searching for work as a share of the working-age population. It rose steadily over the years as more women entered the workforce before falling sharply in the 2007-09 recession, and it hasn’t recovered since.


Not Looking for Work: Labor-Force Participation Hits 35-Year Low
http://www.businessweek.com/article...rk-labor-force-participation-hits-35-year-low

If this is just the boomers "retiring" ( leaving the labor force ) -shouldn't new workers be replacing them?? (asking?)
 
Demographics 101
The baby boom generation has millions more retiring than teens entering the work force!
Only plenty of immigration can offset.
 
Demographics 101
The baby boom generation has millions more retiring than teens entering the work force!
Only plenty of immigration can offset.
OK. good to know, not all that up in economics - since you seem to get it..

isn't there pent up workers though - not just new entrys to fill positions/jobs? ( (pent up = past due needing work, non-teen)
 
OK. good to know, not all that up in economics - since you seem to get it..

isn't there pent up workers though - not just new entrys to fill positions/jobs? ( (pent up = past due needing work, non-teen)
Baby boomers are 1 reason or headwind, by no means is it the main or lone reason.
Professional job growth is getting much better.
For wage/salary earners the numbers need to be 300,000 monthly to create inflation.
 
Last edited:
Yes...by 240 jobs for that quarter.

Fwiw Zap and TK (since she thanked it), If you ever said that in a real meeting discussing a deal with real money on the line you would lose credibility In an instant. If I was trying to get someone to invest in San Francisco and said we have rising job growth and showed a chart with new jobs declining each month they would look at me like WTF? Why are lying to me?
 
Fwiw Zap and TK (since she thanked it), If you ever said that in a real meeting discussing a deal with real money on the line you would lose credibility In an instant. If I was trying to get someone to invest in San Francisco and said we have rising job growth and showed a chart with new jobs declining each month they would look at me like WTF? Why are lying to me?

There are more jobs each month.

That people are dropping out of the market is a different discussion.

But if your party wasn't so obstructive, we'd have a lot more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, etc employed right now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No one is saying this is "good enough" ...but it's better than where we were.
 
Fwiw Zap and TK (since she thanked it), If you ever said that in a real meeting discussing a deal with real money on the line you would lose credibility In an instant. If I was trying to get someone to invest in San Francisco and said we have rising job growth and showed a chart with new jobs declining each month they would look at me like WTF? Why are lying to me?

Was I lying?
 
Back
Top