I’ve been predicting a spring hiring resurgence for some time, so the March figure of 162,000 new jobs isn’t a surprise. However, amidst all the hoopla I feel it is incumbent to point out that you need about 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth.
This isn’t a good job’s report. It’s just not a lousy one. It’s only slightly better than even. We need to see regular months over 400,000 before this economy will be good.
In the last recovery, the majority of gains went to corporate profits rather than wages. This will be even more true this time around.
As recoveries go this one is going to feel like landing in a pool of Dettol after skidding down a sandpaper slide.
Cujo359
Some of that hiring is for the census, too, which is only short-term. Take that out, and I don’t even think we’re breaking even.
Ian Welsh
You’re not, minus the census #’s.
anonymous
I doubted your prediction and Calculated Risk’s prediction of job growth this spring. But, OK, if this is what you meant by growth, you guys were right. Me, I’m just waiting for the bottom to fall out. Apparently that takes a lot longer than I thought.
But could you clarify what is the second chance Obama will have? Was that HRC?
Ian Welsh
That article was written a while ago. Every president gets a wakeup call. Obama’s was losing Kennedy’s seat. His response was to double down on a bad HCR bill. I don’t think he made the right choice.
For CR and I to be right, we’ll need better numbers than that over a few months, it’s merely indicative, and not that strongly indicative. But we’ve still got April, May, June.
Disenfranchised
Can we trust the numbers they give us? Is there a way to verify them?
rumor
If you’re concerned about trusting the BLS numbers, there’s a breakdown of the components: http://www.gainspainscapital.com/
Spoiler alert: no, you can’t trust the numbers. The gains in this report are attributable to hand-waving (which is what Cujo and Ian alluded to above).
jo6pac
Yes the real number is given out in the middle of the night when no one is looking. This is just a bump in the road to the beginning of the next race down hill in late May or June.
Ian Welsh
Shadow stats does a pretty good job on more accurate numbers.
http://www.shadowstats.com/
A lot of the worst stuff is done at the very micro-end, embedded assumptions, which are virtually all just slightly ticked to the positive rather than negative side. I don’t believe shadow stats digs down that deep, though I could be wrong.
Always assume the “real” numbers would be worse than what you’re hearing.
I started reading up on economics in the early 90’s recession, when my personal observations and experience showed a far worse economy than the stats told me we had.
Disenfranchised
Thanks, Ian. The website you provided is a good one.
Disenfranchised
Thanks, too, rumor, for the info you provided. Both sites are valuable.