October jobs report: Hiring increases, unemployment up
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney November 2, 2012: 12:23 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hiring was surprisingly strong in October, while the unemployment rate ticked higher, according to a report released just four days before the presidential election.
The economy added 171,000 jobs in October, and unemployment inched up to 7.9%, from 7.8% in September, the Labor Department said Friday.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected employers to add 125,000 positions, so the boost in hiring was mostly seen as a positive surprise.
Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the northeastern part of the U.S. this week, had no impact on the report since the survey was taken earlier in the month, the Labor Department said.
Another good sign was that job growth in recent months was even stronger than originally reported. The number of positions added in August and September were revised sharply higher, adding a combined 84,000 more jobs than first thought.
"We are again seeing a quickening in the rate of hiring," said Heather Boushey, senior economist at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "It's moving in the right direction."
However, the pace of hiring has not regained the force it had in January and February, when more than 250,000 jobs were added each month.
The rise in unemployment was expected by economists, and was mainly because more people joined the labor force. Some economists believe that September's drop in unemployment encouraged those out of work to reenter the labor force.
The job gains were spread across varying industries, with the entire private sector adding 184,000 people to the payroll. Professional and business services added 51,000 positions, while health care employment rose by 31,000. The construction sector continued to bring on employees, adding 17,000 jobs last month. Retail and leisure and hospitality also boosted payrolls.
But government employers took a step back, shedding 13,000 jobs after several strong months of gains. Manufacturing was little changed and mining lost 9,000 jobs.
Oldtimer said:October jobs report: Hiring increases, unemployment up
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney November 2, 2012: 12:23 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hiring was surprisingly strong in October, while the unemployment rate ticked higher, according to a report released just four days before the presidential election.
The economy added 171,000 jobs in October, and unemployment inched up to 7.9%, from 7.8% in September, the Labor Department said Friday.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected employers to add 125,000 positions, so the boost in hiring was mostly seen as a positive surprise.
Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the northeastern part of the U.S. this week, had no impact on the report since the survey was taken earlier in the month, the Labor Department said.
Another good sign was that job growth in recent months was even stronger than originally reported. The number of positions added in August and September were revised sharply higher, adding a combined 84,000 more jobs than first thought.
"We are again seeing a quickening in the rate of hiring," said Heather Boushey, senior economist at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "It's moving in the right direction."
However, the pace of hiring has not regained the force it had in January and February, when more than 250,000 jobs were added each month.
The rise in unemployment was expected by economists, and was mainly because more people joined the labor force. Some economists believe that September's drop in unemployment encouraged those out of work to reenter the labor force.
The job gains were spread across varying industries, with the entire private sector adding 184,000 people to the payroll. Professional and business services added 51,000 positions, while health care employment rose by 31,000. The construction sector continued to bring on employees, adding 17,000 jobs last month. Retail and leisure and hospitality also boosted payrolls.
But government employers took a step back, shedding 13,000 jobs after several strong months of gains. Manufacturing was little changed and mining lost 9,000 jobs.
The Rest of the Story..... :wink:
gmacbeef said:Oldtimer said:October jobs report: Hiring increases, unemployment up
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney November 2, 2012: 12:23 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hiring was surprisingly strong in October, while the unemployment rate ticked higher, according to a report released just four days before the presidential election.
The economy added 171,000 jobs in October, and unemployment inched up to 7.9%, from 7.8% in September, the Labor Department said Friday.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected employers to add 125,000 positions, so the boost in hiring was mostly seen as a positive surprise.
Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the northeastern part of the U.S. this week, had no impact on the report since the survey was taken earlier in the month, the Labor Department said.
Another good sign was that job growth in recent months was even stronger than originally reported. The number of positions added in August and September were revised sharply higher, adding a combined 84,000 more jobs than first thought.
"We are again seeing a quickening in the rate of hiring," said Heather Boushey, senior economist at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "It's moving in the right direction."
However, the pace of hiring has not regained the force it had in January and February, when more than 250,000 jobs were added each month.
The rise in unemployment was expected by economists, and was mainly because more people joined the labor force. Some economists believe that September's drop in unemployment encouraged those out of work to reenter the labor force.
The job gains were spread across varying industries, with the entire private sector adding 184,000 people to the payroll. Professional and business services added 51,000 positions, while health care employment rose by 31,000. The construction sector continued to bring on employees, adding 17,000 jobs last month. Retail and leisure and hospitality also boosted payrolls.
But government employers took a step back, shedding 13,000 jobs after several strong months of gains. Manufacturing was little changed and mining lost 9,000 jobs.
The Rest of the Story..... :wink:
Why would MINING have lost 9,000 jobs oldtimer ? Obama told us he was pro-coal & had America mining more coal than EVER in the debate ???
Cheap natural gas hurting coal market
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 19, 2012
Every lost job is a tragedy. And so there is pain in each of the 1,200 jobs being cut by Alpha Natural Resources, the company that bought the beleaguered Massey Energy.
The jobs aren't disappearing because of Massey's myriad of safety shortcomings or its labor strife. Alpha Natural Resources will close eight Appalachian mines immediately because coal is increasingly uncompetitive in a power generation world that is turning to cleaner, cheaper natural gas.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/cheap-natural-gas-hurting-coal-market
TexasBred said:Unemployment number HAD to go up because it was low last month to give Buckwheat a boost. Amazing so many were added in September yet noone can find them on the end of quarter reports. What else is new.
In the final days before the election, we need to frame the energy debate in its appropriate context. The real issue isn’t how many pipelines have been built in the past four years or how much drilling has been done on federal lands, both of which got a fair amount of airtime during the second presidential debate. No, the issue is jobs, state economies and small business – and how the Obama administration is waging war on all three.
To begin with, despite President Obama’s rhetoric about an “all of the above” energy plan, his Environmental Protection Agency has been systematically trying to undercut the development of unconventional energy – notably natural gas from shale. In what critics have rightfully assailed as a “shoot first, get the facts later” approach, the agency has worked to appease its environmentalist allies (and would-be contributors to the Obama campaign) by plotting to derail hydraulic fracturing, the process by which gas is extracted from rock formations deep in the Earth.
For example, pushed by charges from national anti-drilling activists that fracturing was contaminating drinking water in Dimock, Pa., the EPA charged to the rescue – only to discover that no rescue was necessary. In July, the agency concluded the town’s drinking water was safe. In Parker County, Texas, EPA said that Range Resources’ natural gas operations – which included fracking – were responsible for contaminating local water supplies and ordered the company to fix its wells. In March, it was forced to withdraw the order after being unable to prove that Range was responsible for the presence of methane in water.
And now, after running roughshod over state regulators in both cases and losing, the agency is undertaking a national study on fracking. Given EPA’s attitude toward drillers – one former regional administrator said the agency’s general philosophy was to “crucify” oil and gas companies – it doesn’t take a soothsayer to see where this path is likely to lead.
To cripple fracturing is to kill jobs. Consider Ohio, for example, a vital swing state for Mr. Romney. A 2011 study concluded that activity in the Utica Shale could create 204,500 jobs by 2015, and increase annual salaries and income by $12 billion. Job growth in the Buckeye State is among the fastest in the country. The unemployment rate is below the national average.
It’s not just Ohio, either. In Pennsylvania, total employment related to drilling in the Marcellus Shale has soared by 238,000 jobs since 2008. And a just-released IHS Global Insight report says a surge in unconventional oil and gas extraction will support more than 3.5 million jobs nationally by 2035 – and fracking will support about 1.7 million of them.
In a slow economic recovery in which unemployment remains stubbornly high, it simply makes no sense to extinguish the country’s brightest job creation light. Yet with its assault on fracking, that’s exactly what the Obama EPA is attempting to do. Mr. Romney should be pushing that point, especially in swing states like Ohio, in the final days remaining to campaign.
Then there’s the matter of local economies. It’s no secret that the recession has left states and communities cash-strapped. It’s also no secret that shale gas is helping to ease the burden:
In mid-October, Pennsylvania announced that almost 1,500 towns and every county government would share $204 million in impact fees from the Marcellus Shale.
Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reported that total collections for the state’s 2012 budget year were $3.7 billion higher than expected, with production in the Eagle Ford Shale being a key driver behind the increased collections.
It is estimated that drilling in the Utica Shale will generate $433.5 million in state and local taxes by 2014.
The candidates can talk all they want about tax cuts. But derailing shale gas development is going to put a heavy burden on state governments and local municipalities, conceivably leading to higher taxes or reductions in vital services.
Finally, the president speaks glowingly of his record on small business. But when he says he wants to end $4 billion in “corporate welfare” for oil and gas companies, he’s really arguing against his own point.
Sure, it’s good politics and better rhetoric to go after Big Oil. However, Mr. Obama does not mention that the companies benefiting most from industry-specific tax breaks aren’t the majors – they’re small, independent producers. The president is advocating a policy that would effectively shut them down.
There are a lot of other benefits to shale gas development: It burns more cleanly than coal; it helps generate low-cost power that saves families money and keeps manufacturing costs down; and it reduces the so-called “petro-power” of Russia, Iran and Venezuela. But at the end of the day, its most important immediate benefits are jobs, taxes and small business growth. As the campaign races to a close, the Romney campaign would be well served to remember that, when it comes to energy policy, it’s “still the economy, stupid.”
Read more: MULLIKIN: Obama EPA set to derail fracking, kill 1.7 million jobs - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/2/mullikin-obama-epa-set-derail-fracking-kill-17-mil/#ixzz2B7THvDJO
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
hypocritexposer said:So OT, how many jobs were created in the Natural Gas market and how many were lost in the coal market?
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:So OT, how many jobs were created in the Natural Gas market and how many were lost in the coal market?
Up here where the natural gas industry is booming as the jobs are created and jobs galore crying for takers- the unemployment rate is running in the 2-4% range....
I can't help it if you live in a part of Canada or others in the States live in parts where folks grow up lazy and worthless....In our area- one of the big gas producing areas- folks are working- and working for good wages.....
The only thing that could make it better would be if the disfunctional Congress could pass a longterm energy bill so the corporate entities and financial investors could/would have a direction to go for the next 25-50-75 years...
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:So OT, how many jobs were created in the Natural Gas market and how many were lost in the coal market?
Up here where the natural gas industry is booming as the jobs are created and jobs galore crying for takers- the unemployment rate is running in the 2-4% range....
I can't help it if you live in a part of Canada or others in the States live in parts where folks grow up lazy and worthless....In our area- one of the big gas producing areas- folks are working- and working for good wages.....
The only thing that could make it better would be if the disfunctional Congress could pass a longterm energy bill so the corporate entities and financial investors could/would have a direction to go for the next 25-50-75 years...
We produce more gas and oil, here in Alberta than you ddo in Montana. Does that make you lazy and worthless, compared to us?
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:Up here where the natural gas industry is booming as the jobs are created and jobs galore crying for takers- the unemployment rate is running in the 2-4% range....
I can't help it if you live in a part of Canada or others in the States live in parts where folks grow up lazy and worthless....In our area- one of the big gas producing areas- folks are working- and working for good wages.....
The only thing that could make it better would be if the disfunctional Congress could pass a longterm energy bill so the corporate entities and financial investors could/would have a direction to go for the next 25-50-75 years...
We produce more gas and oil, here in Alberta than you ddo in Montana. Does that make you lazy and worthless, compared to us?
You're the one whining and beetching & bellyaching like an old woman-- not me....
We got lots of jobs- Son just sold calves for record prices- same with grain crop...Bull crop looks better than ever with folks calling right and left interested (wish I would have kept more)....Gasoline prices at the pump dropping every day- life is good...![]()
But you keep on with your whining about how bad it is in Canada or wherever in your anonymity you "claim" to live... :roll:
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:Up here where the natural gas industry is booming as the jobs are created and jobs galore crying for takers- the unemployment rate is running in the 2-4% range....
I can't help it if you live in a part of Canada or others in the States live in parts where folks grow up lazy and worthless....In our area- one of the big gas producing areas- folks are working- and working for good wages.....
The only thing that could make it better would be if the disfunctional Congress could pass a longterm energy bill so the corporate entities and financial investors could/would have a direction to go for the next 25-50-75 years...
We produce more gas and oil, here in Alberta than you ddo in Montana. Does that make you lazy and worthless, compared to us?
You're the one whining and beetching & bellyaching like an old woman-- not me....
We got lots of jobs- Son just sold calves for record prices- same with grain crop...Bull crop looks better than ever with folks calling right and left interested (wish I would have kept more)....Gasoline prices at the pump dropping every day- life is good...![]()
But you keep on with your whining about how bad it is in Canada or wherever in your anonymity you "claim" to live... :roll:
MANY MONTANA FAMILIES ARE WORKING POOR
MISSOULA –
In Montana 34 percent of working families are low-income or have household incomes
below the federal poverty threshold of $18,530 for a three-person household, according to the
latest issue of the Montana Business Quarterly.
Jobs such as security guards, nurses’ aides, home health care aides, child care workers,
educational assistants, ambulance drivers, bank tellers and pharmacy assistants are considered
low-wage, low-reward positions, according to the infographic titled “The Working Poor,” which
was compiled by Thale Dillon, director of Montana KIDS COUNT at The University of
Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
“The typical working poor person is a white female with a high school diploma and with
family responsibilities,” Dillon said.
The likelihood of being working poor is the highest in two decades, Dillon said. In 2010,
there were 10.5 million individuals in the U.S. classified as working poor with incomes below
the poverty level.
Other articles in the summer issue of the Montana Business Quarterly include:
“Entrepreneurship Meets Innovation: UM Partnership Helps Inventions Become Viable
Business Enterprises;”
“Transportation Systems Key to Montana’s Future;” and
“Manufacturing Outlook: Modest Improvement and Employment Growth in Some
Sectors.”
The Montana Business Quarterly is published by UM’s Bureau of Business and
Economic Research and is partially supported by the Missoula Federal Credit Union.
hopalong said:Are you saying oldtimer is lying again about how prosporus Mt is doing with unemployment and low gas prices. great cow prices low feed costs????
Just a few hrs ago gas was $3.51 in Boseman one of the highest rates in the state ...state average $3.58 national average $3.49
He does not realize in this day and times his wilda$$ claims can be disputed in a heart beat :roll:
[/quote]Mike said:MANY MONTANA FAMILIES ARE WORKING POOR
MISSOULA –
In Montana 34 percent of working families are low-income or have household incomes
below the federal poverty threshold of $18,530 for a three-person household, according to the
latest issue of the Montana Business Quarterly.
Jobs such as security guards, nurses’ aides, home health care aides, child care workers,
educational assistants, ambulance drivers, bank tellers and pharmacy assistants are considered
low-wage, low-reward positions, according to the infographic titled “The Working Poor,” which
was compiled by Thale Dillon, director of Montana KIDS COUNT at The University of
Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
“The typical working poor person is a white female with a high school diploma and with
family responsibilities,” Dillon said.
The likelihood of being working poor is the highest in two decades, Dillon said. In 2010,
there were 10.5 million individuals in the U.S. classified as working poor with incomes below
the poverty level.
Other articles in the summer issue of the Montana Business Quarterly include:
“Entrepreneurship Meets Innovation: UM Partnership Helps Inventions Become Viable
Business Enterprises;”
“Transportation Systems Key to Montana’s Future;” and
“Manufacturing Outlook: Modest Improvement and Employment Growth in Some
Sectors.”
The Montana Business Quarterly is published by UM’s Bureau of Business and
Economic Research and is partially supported by the Missoula Federal Credit Union.
The economy added 171,000 jobs in October,
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/how-many-jobs-are-needed-keep-population-growthThe civilian noninstitutional population grows every month and for 2011, the average was 0.059% per month. For the last 12 months, the average was 0.128% per month, so the population growth varies, but there is a huge problem. The woe is the Census puts their annual benchmark adjustments in the month of January only. The benchmark adjustments are not annually smoothed or averaged in on a month to month basis. This makes the monthly population percentage growth more difficult to estimate,
f we take the labor participation rate at the start of the great recession, 66%, we get a whole other number of jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. If we keep the same rate of unemployment, 8.1%, we would need 545,551 jobs per month and it would take an entire year to get to the same August rate of unemployment, 8.1%.
Population growth added 6,089,150 people not counted and added to the labor force statistics and of course, they would enter in as unemployed.