I've blocked off 2007 and added a darker line to the 100,000 level for job creation. Notice the following.
-- There were only 5 times in 2007 that monthly payroll growth exceeded 100,000.
-- One of those times was a "just barely" number
-- Four of those times occurred in the first half of the year.
-- For five months, job growth came in at 50,000 - 100,000.
-- Two times after a big number, the following month's number was really low (as in barely positive). Two other times, the number came in between 50,000 - 100,000.
In short, the last year's employment numbers have been terrible.
3 comments:
Why 150,000 is Important
Background note: There is a common metric among economists following employment that the replenishment rate -- the number of jobs necessary to accommodate new job seekers and workers re-entering the job market -- is around 150,000 jobs a month. If fewer jobs are created, the economy is at risk of contraction.
Great to have you back Bonddad!
What are your thoughts on the accuracy of the birth/death adjustment? How does that effect the already poor job creation?
Grandma Jo
PS, jobs might be a good topic for you to cover at NN in July.
If these job growth figures had been amassed under a Democratic two-term President, the FoxNews folks would have been hysterically demanding impeachment for the last two months. Since it's Bush in the Oval Office, everything's fine, and any talk of recession is the media's fault.
Post a Comment