The Bureau of Labor Statistics revised down its total created in March by 818,000 as part of its preliminary annual benchmark review of payroll data.
It marks the largest downward revision since 2009, and suggests the labor market began losing steam earlier than initially thought.
The U.S. added 818,000 fewer jobs than previously estimated from March 2023 to March 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which released the data about 30 minutes after the scheduled 10 a.m. EDT release.
That brings the total employment growth (not including farm jobs) for the 12-month period from 2.9 million to about 2.1 million, knocking average monthly growth during that period from about 242,000 to about 174,000.
Factoring 1/3 of the jobs are government jobs, many are part-time jobs.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics revised down its total created in March by 818,000 as part of its preliminary annual benchmark review of payroll data.
It marks the largest downward revision since 2009, and suggests the labor market began losing steam earlier than initially thought.
The U.S. added 818,000 fewer jobs than previously estimated from March 2023 to March 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which released the data about 30 minutes after the scheduled 10 a.m. EDT release.
That brings the total employment growth (not including farm jobs) for the 12-month period from 2.9 million to about 2.1 million, knocking average monthly growth during that period from about 242,000 to about 174,000.
Factoring 1/3 of the jobs are government jobs, many are part-time jobs.
@BigGame90 pointed this out in his thread. We knew it was coming and some of us had been expecting it to really be closer to 1M jobs. But I say this over there:
Yes sir. It is even worse than folks think. They have been doing a very deceptive job with the employment numbers for a while.
When a quarter of your 'created' jobs are government jobs and when foreign-born new hires are out-numbering American-born new hires by over 3 to 1, then you have some additional problems baked in as well. Not even considering the issue with multiple part-time jobs needed in the mix.
It will also be somewhat interesting what Powell has to say at Jackson Hole and what the anticipation of rate cuts, and how much and how often, will do.
They are doing what they can to keep saying we are not in a recession and still saying a 'soft landing' is more likely.
They have done an excellent job on spinning the inflation numbers as well.
It is looking like they will be able to maintain this through the election, which is a very key part of the plan.
0
@cdog8043
@BigGame90 pointed this out in his thread. We knew it was coming and some of us had been expecting it to really be closer to 1M jobs. But I say this over there:
Yes sir. It is even worse than folks think. They have been doing a very deceptive job with the employment numbers for a while.
When a quarter of your 'created' jobs are government jobs and when foreign-born new hires are out-numbering American-born new hires by over 3 to 1, then you have some additional problems baked in as well. Not even considering the issue with multiple part-time jobs needed in the mix.
It will also be somewhat interesting what Powell has to say at Jackson Hole and what the anticipation of rate cuts, and how much and how often, will do.
They are doing what they can to keep saying we are not in a recession and still saying a 'soft landing' is more likely.
They have done an excellent job on spinning the inflation numbers as well.
It is looking like they will be able to maintain this through the election, which is a very key part of the plan.
Why I get the inclination that if Trump were to step into the White House tomorrow, I think you’d see an instantaneous (almost) about-face by many GOP voters on that national economic question. There would be some of that on the Democratic side, but to a much small % movement than the Pub voters. I guess that’s how you guys and Fox News roll!
1
Why I get the inclination that if Trump were to step into the White House tomorrow, I think you’d see an instantaneous (almost) about-face by many GOP voters on that national economic question. There would be some of that on the Democratic side, but to a much small % movement than the Pub voters. I guess that’s how you guys and Fox News roll!
Why I get the inclination that if Trump were to step into the White House tomorrow, I think you’d see an instantaneous (almost) about-face by many GOP voters on that national economic question. There would be some of that on the Democratic side, but to a much small % movement than the Pub voters. I guess that’s how you guys and Fox News roll!
On what question?
0
@joe pockets
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
Why I get the inclination that if Trump were to step into the White House tomorrow, I think you’d see an instantaneous (almost) about-face by many GOP voters on that national economic question. There would be some of that on the Democratic side, but to a much small % movement than the Pub voters. I guess that’s how you guys and Fox News roll!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
