April jobs growth weaker than forecast(nonFarm payrolls added 138,000 jobs

[papau]

April jobs growth weaker than forecast

All Reuters NewsWASHINGTON (Reuters) - <snip>Wall Street analysts had expected 200,000 new jobs would be created last month. Not only was the actual figure below forecast but the government also revised down March job growth to 200,000 instead of 211,000 that it originally estimated and February to 200,000 instead of 225,000 new jobs.<snip>

That (average hourly earnings rising 3.8 % in the 12 months through April), together with the fact that hourly earnings in the month climbed 0.5 percent to $16.61, is likely to fan concerns about risks of wage-induced inflation. The Federal Reserve's policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee meets on May 10 and is expected to nudge interest rates up another quarter percentage point after its deliberations that will include a discussion of wage and price rises.<snip>

The length of the average work week increased to 33.9 hours in April after holding at 33.8 hours for the seven prior months. The department said April's work week was the longest since September 2002. A lengthening work week can signal that companies are having difficulty finding the workers that they need and that they are requiring staff to work longer and at potentially higher pay levels.

Manufacturing employment increased by 19,000 in April - the strongest for any month since May 2004 when 23,000 were hired - after growing by a slim 1,000 in March. But the number of jobs at retailers contracted by 36,100 after growing in March by 23,300.

Copyright 2006 Reuters

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=OBR&Date=20060505&ID=5698362

[bluerum]

1. Seasonal!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. John Snow is on today's "Ask The White House"...

...can't wait to hear how he spins this.

Friday's guest at 4:00 pm (ET)
John Snow
Secretary of the Treasury

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/question2.html

John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, will discuss the strong U.S. economy and newest jobs numbers Friday at 4 pm (ET). Submit a question.

[still_one]

3. Wall street is telling how great that number is

and how they won't increase interest rates now

It is such a con job

The numbers are not accurate, it is worse

[Robbien]

4. Not only that, previous months numbers were revised downward

Payroll growth in February and March was revised down by a total of 36,000 to 200,000 new jobs in each month.

Of course the unemployment rate hasn't been changed. Funny.

[HughBeaumont]

5. Doesn't even cover birth/death.

Love how the B(L)S tries the "Oh, but, but, but, THIS area was strong, and so was THIS area . .. pay no attention to the bad middle class luck over there, sing it with us . .. Happy Days are Here Again, The Skies .. . SING IT YOU MOTHERS!!! Above are clear again . . ."

[papau]

6. True - 271000 added in for "birth/death" - only 138000 "new jobs"

I love the concept that if 271000 jobs are newly lost, we must assume there are 271000 new jobs created to replace those jobs - birth/death - and the number is cumulative and never revised for a benchmark of who is really in a new job that just has not hit the payroll tax system yet.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

2006 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total
-193 116 135 271

[Up2Late]

12. Funny how they didn't really talk about the 315,000 newly unemployed.

They just sort of forgot about this number from last week:

<http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8H8BMHO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db>

Jobless claims rise by most in 6 weeks

APR. 27 8:37 A.M. ET The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose to the highest level since early March, the government reported Thursday.

The Labor Department said that 315,000 newly laid off workers applied for jobless benefits last week, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week. The claims total was the highest since 319,000 laid off workers applied for benefits the week ending March 11.

Private economists had been forecasting a much smaller rise of around 2,000 applications last week. Even with the bigger increase, claims remained at a level indicating a relatively strong labor market.

(more at link)

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2596896>

[brentspeak]

7. Again, the only accurate way to report the nation's employment figures

would be to report only the permanent, full time positions that are filled.

Weekend landscaping, Wal-Mart-greeting, and hamburger-flipping positions are not "jobs" that should be listed in these reports; they're only included to paint a rosier picture of the actual reality.

[HughBeaumont]

9. Precisely.

Add "liveable wage" in that qualification too. A job isn't a job isn't a job if you aren't successfully being fed, clothed or sheltered by it.

Of course, one would have to factor in cost of living as well.

[AX10]

8. How many jobs were lost.

The retail sector obviously had a loss in the number jobs.

[barb162]

10. Ever since that idiot announced he'd create 320,000 jobs/ mpnth

with his tax cuts I don't think we have ever had that many in one month.

[jayfish]

11. What A Load!

Hourly earning raised %.5? OMG say it ain't so! I especially like this part.

"The length of the average work week increased to 33.9 hours in April after holding at 33.8 hours for the seven prior months. The department said April's work week was the longest since September 2002. A lengthening work week can signal that companies are having difficulty finding the workers that they need and that they are requiring staff to work longer and at potentially higher pay levels."

Riiiight, it could also signal that employers don't feel like hiring people, so they advertise for jobs at substandard wages and when no one applies for them they throw up their hands and say "well we can't find anyone so your gonna have to work longer Joe. See ya on Sunday"

Jay