U.S. Payrolls Gained 288,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 6.3%

[Skjellyfetti]

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 288,000, and the unemployment rate
fell by 0.4 percentage point to 6.3 percent in April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment gains were widespread, led by job growth
in professional and business services, retail trade, food services and drinking
places, and construction.

And, to preempt Conk spin.

The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and has changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

"...The civilian labor force fell by 806,000 after March's increase of 503,000. The labor force participation rate dropped by 0.4 percent to 62.8 percent...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101636985?__sour ... =yahoonews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labor force participation rate at 36 yr low:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/workforce ... sATy2ZmolQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A record whopping 92+ million adults of working age now out of labor force (and yet only about 10% of those are counted as unemployed).
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/ ... bor-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CitadelGrad]

More than 75% of the jobs created are part-time or temporary. Also, thanks in large part to Obamacare, many jobs that were full-time and permanent are now part-time. When the delayed employer mandate kicks in, it will be much worse.

[Baldy]

"...The civilian labor force fell by 806,000 after March's increase of 503,000. The labor force participation rate dropped by 0.4 percent to 62.8 percent...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101636985?__sour ... =yahoonews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labor force participation rate at 36 yr low:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/workforce ... sATy2ZmolQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A record whopping 92+ million adults of working age now out of labor force (and yet only about 10% of those are counted as unemployed).
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/ ... bor-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conk spin.

It doesn't matter that almost all of those so-called 288,000 jobs created were low wage jobs, and that the economy grew at a robust 0.1%.

[89Hen]

The number is extremely volatile and the BLS says there is no trend... and not to draw anything from the number...

...but, people on the left grasping for straws will anyway.

[houndawg]

You conk fvcks will be eating crow by the end of Hillary's second term.

[AZGrizFan]

You conk fvcks will be eating crow by the end of Hillary's second term.

Americans will be lucky to be eating at all if the Hidabeast gets elected.

[BlueHen86]

You conk fvcks will be eating crow by the end of Hillary's second term.

Americans will be lucky to be eating at all if the Hidabeast gets elected.

[Skjellyfetti]

The number is extremely volatile and the BLS says there is no trend... and not to draw anything from the number...

...but, people on the left grasping for straws will anyway.

The participation rate.

Haven't noticed anyone on the left drawing conclusions on the participation rate.

[CitadelGrad]

The number is extremely volatile and the BLS says there is no trend... and not to draw anything from the number...

...but, people on the left grasping for straws will anyway.

The participation rate.

Haven't noticed anyone on the left drawing conclusions on the participation rate.

That's because they don't want to draw attention to it.

[kalm]

The participation rate.

Haven't noticed anyone on the left drawing conclusions on the participation rate.

That's because they don't want to draw attention to it.

Except Skelly tipped his cap to it in the opening post…

I agree with you regarding the affects Obamacare will have.

We are still in a giant re-set and companies are learning how to permanently do more with less employees - whether it's through automation and computerization, or cutting back on services. It's looking more like a long term jobless recovery.

We've pumped trillions into the financial sector, making large banks and Wall Street whole and done very little to stimulate job growth. It's been a taxpayer funded redistribution of wealth.

[OL FU]

Yep most were low wages jobs. yep work force participation is awful. But it was a good number. I hope we get more like it.

[CitadelGrad]

Yep most were low wages jobs. yep work force participation is awful. But it was a good number. I hope we get more like it.

In context it's a horrible number.

Have you ever noticed how the "good" numbers are almost always very quietly revised downward after a few weeks?

[CitadelGrad]

That's because they don't want to draw attention to it.

Except Skelly tipped his cap to it in the opening post…

That's because he's too stupid to understand the implication of doing so.

[kalm]

Except Skelly tipped his cap to it in the opening post…

That's because he's too stupid to understand the implication of doing so.

Yes, how dare he provide some objectivity. Objectivity is for pussies!

[OL FU]

Yep most were low wages jobs. yep work force participation is awful. But it was a good number. I hope we get more like it.

In context it's a horrible number.

Have you ever noticed how the "good" numbers are almost always very quietly revised downward after a few weeks?

and if that happens, it isn't a good number. and yes in context it may not be a good number. Probably no reason to discuss if it is revised downward, but, if not, I will take 300,000 not so wonderful jobs over the average for the past 5 years.

[CitadelGrad]

In context it's a horrible number.

Have you ever noticed how the "good" numbers are almost always very quietly revised downward after a few weeks?

and if that happens, it isn't a good number. and yes in context it may not be a good number. Probably no reason to discuss if it is revised downward, but, if not, I will take 300,000 not so wonderful jobs over the average for the past 5 years.

You do know that a lot of those jobs that are being created, are formerly one full-time job that has been divided into two or three part-time jobs in anticipation of the employer mandate delay ending?

[CitadelGrad]

That's because he's too stupid to understand the implication of doing so.

Yes, how dare he provide some objectivity. Objectivity is for pussies!

Um, quoting a government agency is hardly providing objectivity, especially since the BLS has been show to pull some shenanigans in the not too distant past.

[OL FU]

and if that happens, it isn't a good number. and yes in context it may not be a good number. Probably no reason to discuss if it is revised downward, but, if not, I will take 300,000 not so wonderful jobs over the average for the past 5 years.

You do know that a lot of those jobs that are being created, are formerly one full-time job that has been divided into two or three part-time jobs in anticipation of the employer mandate delay ending?

I do.

OK, so I will pay attention and I ask to make sure I understand. The job creation number is a net of jobs lost and jobs gained, correct? It isn't a number that represents new jobs alone without regard for job losses. Just to make sure I have it.

What percentage is estimated to be what you describe above?

[CitadelGrad]

You do know that a lot of those jobs that are being created, are formerly one full-time job that has been divided into two or three part-time jobs in anticipation of the employer mandate delay ending?

I do.

OK, so I will pay attention and I ask to make sure I understand. The job creation number is a net of jobs lost and jobs gained, correct? It isn't a number that represents new jobs alone without regard for job losses. Just to make sure I have it.

What percentage is estimated to be what you describe above?

I have no idea and I'm not sure the government does either. I don't even know which survey they used this month. Maybe the numbers, as I suspect, are from the Census Bureau household survey or the DoL business survey. They tend to publish the results that put the best face on the employment situation. They do, however, have a hard time covering up the declining size of the labor force.

[houndawg]

I do.

OK, so I will pay attention and I ask to make sure I understand. The job creation number is a net of jobs lost and jobs gained, correct? It isn't a number that represents new jobs alone without regard for job losses. Just to make sure I have it.

What percentage is estimated to be what you describe above?

I have no idea and I'm not sure the government does either. I don't even know which survey they used this month. Maybe the numbers, as I suspect, are from the Census Bureau household survey or the DoL business survey. They tend to publish the results that put the best face on the employment situation. They do, however, have a hard time covering up the declining size of the labor force.

Whats this talk about cover up?

Of course the labor force is declining, there aren't as many jobs. That's what the industrial revolution was about.

[OL FU]

I do.

OK, so I will pay attention and I ask to make sure I understand. The job creation number is a net of jobs lost and jobs gained, correct? It isn't a number that represents new jobs alone without regard for job losses. Just to make sure I have it.

What percentage is estimated to be what you describe above?

I have no idea and I'm not sure the government does either. I don't even know which survey they used this month. Maybe the numbers, as I suspect, are from the Census Bureau household survey or the DoL business survey. They tend to publish the results that put the best face on the employment situation. They do, however, have a hard time covering up the declining size of the labor force.

And I agree on the declining labor force. Not good. But here was the point I was trying to make and I will admit that there are caveats which might distort the news. Simply that if the job creation number is a net, then it is better news than we have been hearing. Now, if we lost 280,000 full time jobs simply to create 560,000 part time jobs then we are basically at zero. I doubt that is the case. So while I realize that the type of job might not be what we want and some may be offset by the destruction of full time jobs due to ACA, it is still a much better number than we have seen in the past. Downard revisions might temper that. But at the present, I will take what I can get as far as good news (other than the stock market went up more because the fed keeps the pump primed and there is still few other options for investors to put their money).

[Skjellyfetti]

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 7.5 million in April.
These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back
or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

[BDKJMU]

That's because they don't want to draw attention to it.

Except Skelly tipped his cap to it in the opening post…

I agree with you regarding the affects Obamacare will have.

We are still in a giant re-set and companies are learning how to permanently do more with less employees - whether it's through automation and computerization, or cutting back on services. It's looking more like a long term jobless recovery.

We've pumped trillions into the financial sector, making large banks and Wall Street whole and done very little to stimulate job growth. It's been a taxpayer funded redistribution of wealth.

Wrong. $$ vis a vis the financial institutions overall has been paid back in full. The taxpayers actually made a profit on the financial company bailouts.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The taxpayer funded redistribution of wealth has been to the auto unions.

[CitadelGrad]

Except Skelly tipped his cap to it in the opening post…

I agree with you regarding the affects Obamacare will have.

We are still in a giant re-set and companies are learning how to permanently do more with less employees - whether it's through automation and computerization, or cutting back on services. It's looking more like a long term jobless recovery.

We've pumped trillions into the financial sector, making large banks and Wall Street whole and done very little to stimulate job growth. It's been a taxpayer funded redistribution of wealth.

Wrong. $$ vis a vis the financial institutions overall has been paid back in full. The taxpayers actually made a profit on the financial company bailouts.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The taxpayer funded redistribution of wealth has been to the auto unions.

QE is wealth redistribution from the taxpayer to foreign and domestic banks -- mostly foreign.