Seeking Alpha

Blowout jobs number

  • April Nonfarm Payrolls: +288K vs. consensus +210K, +203K previous (revised from 192K).
  • Unemployment rate: 6.3% vs. 6.6% consensus, 6.7% previous.
Comments (50)
  • SivBum
    , contributor
    Comments (2025) | Send Message
     
    Winter vortex gone. Better days for the working stiffs.
    2 May 2014, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • CarefulStudy
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Wow, much larger number than I guessed ...
    2 May 2014, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • AZ Desert Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (255) | Send Message
     
    You won't see this number on Faux Noise Network today.
    2 May 2014, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • greenspan76
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    Really? That's your reaction to UE rate dropping 0.4% on +288k?
    2 May 2014, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Grant Dossetto
    , contributor
    Comments (199) | Send Message
     
    Obnoxious.
    2 May 2014, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • ericmcarter
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
     
    Maybe we should look at the near 850k people who left the workforce?
    2 May 2014, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1219) | Send Message
     
    You won't see that on MSNBC (labour force participation).
    2 May 2014, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • SivBum
    , contributor
    Comments (2025) | Send Message
     
    plus 36K up revisions for prior two months:

     

    The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised from
    +197,000 to +222,000, and the change for March was revised from +192,000 to
    +203,000. With these revisions, employment gains in February and March were
    36,000 higher than previously reported.
    2 May 2014, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • SivBum
    , contributor
    Comments (2025) | Send Message
     
    eric, People should look at both, the complete data set. But why dismiss the new job creation numbers alone?
    2 May 2014, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Fox news reported it as it released. U12 number, the one the fed uses is 12.3%
    2 May 2014, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    McDonald's is on a tear!
    2 May 2014, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • sabresfan21
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    Remeber the following:

     

    Positive jobs report = massive reporting fraud from Obama
    Negative jobs report = I told you so...(as in I told you that we will never have an economic recovery with Obama in the White House).
    2 May 2014, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    Remember the following? Julius Buckman.

     

    There are far too many lies (many blatant) emerging from this administration that they alone are responsible for their lack of credibility. Credibility and respect need to be earned, not granted.
    2 May 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2678) | Send Message
     
    Labor participation rate.......
    2 May 2014, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Its all good. If stocks go down, I buy more. If stocks go up, I make more money. Same as it ever was.
    2 May 2014, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • d.chavo
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Guarantee this will be revised to around 240K next month. Also, the UE is only down because of the ending to the long term unemployment. The economy barely grew in Q1 so this means nothing. Bet those new employed at Five Guys Burgers, 7-11, Starbucks , and other low paying service jobs that are popping up everywhere aren't buying houses or out splurging. :D
    2 May 2014, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10397) | Send Message
     
    Excellent number
    2 May 2014, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • llkeith
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    bbro, I was just looking at how the BLS uses the birth/death ratio when calculating its jobs report. This can lead to some inaccurate reporting to say the least.

     

    Why is the BLS's report so much different than the results of the household survey? I believe the household survey actually showed a loss of 73k jobs.

     

    We have a glowing jobs report that conflicts with the household survey. This is against the backdrop of a declining labor force participation rate. Something just isn't adding up here.
    2 May 2014, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • llkeith
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    bbro, the birth/death model used by the BLS has proven during economic slowdowns to overestimate the number of jobs. Consider that in 2008, the BLS was initially underestimating the number of jobs lost per month by nearly 100,000. The BLS acknowledged this later on when revising their estimates. This goes to show that the birth/death assumption built into the BLS model can lead to problems once that assumption no longer holds true.

     

    http://bit.ly/1iL8PTX
    2 May 2014, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10397) | Send Message
     
    Methinks you are already made your mind up long before the number came out...good luck...
    2 May 2014, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • llkeith
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    bbro, the reason I'm bringing up the birth/death assumption is because GDP growth for Q1 was revised to nearly zero. If the economy is starting to slow (as the GDP number might indicate), the job numbers reported by the BLS might turn out to be inflated.

     

    I suppose time will tell, right? I would actually prefer to end up being wrong on this one. Good luck to you as well.
    2 May 2014, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • mrdirt
    , contributor
    Comments (634) | Send Message
     
    One Million People Dropped Out Of Labor Force In April: Participation Rate Plummets To Lowest Since 1978.
    And so the BLS is back to its old data fudging, because while the Establishment Survey job number was a whopper, and the biggest monthly addition since January 2012, the Household Survey showed an actual decline of 73K jobs. What is much worse, is that the reason the unemployment rate tumbled is well-known: it was entirely due to the number of Americans dropping out of the labor force. To wit, the labor force participation rate crashed from 63.2% to 62.8%, trying for lowest since January 1978! And why did it crash so much - because the number of people not in the labor force soared to 92 million, the second highest monthly increase ever, or 988K, only 'better' than January 2012 which curiously was the one month when the establishment survey reported a 360K "increase" in jobs.
    End result: the number out of the labor force is now an all time high 92 million, and the labor force tumbled by 800K to 155.4 million from 156.2 million as the delayed effect of the extended jobless benefits ending finally hits. http://bit.ly/1lGZ8eL
    2 May 2014, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (860) | Send Message
     
    Is it possible that most of that 800k were not looking for jobs anyway but just ended up running out of unemployment benefits and so are no longer included in the "work force"? Does anyone know how BLS classifies someone in that situation?
    2 May 2014, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    A bit of trivia to add to Mr.D's comment about the lowest LFPR since 1978; The POTUS then was Jimmy Carter.
    2 May 2014, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Janet Yelled said in her first press conference that she uses the U12 employment number. Why does the media keep pushing this BS unemployment number?

     

    Real unemployment is 12.3%
    2 May 2014, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • mjc99
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    As reported by Seeking Alpha today:

     

    "The broader U-6 unemployment rate falls to 12.3% from 12.7%. One year ago, it was 13.9%."

     

    Decreased from 12.7% to 12.3%. Certainly seems to be heading in the right direction!
    2 May 2014, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Excuse me U6, sorry.
    2 May 2014, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    The fed is running out of unemployment rate to justify there not tightening much more and much quicker. Until they pull the added stimulus and start sucking back the liquidity this is all just smoke and mirrors. That is why everything seems to respond the opposite that it should when news comes out.

     

    I can't even imagine how long it would take for them to get us back to normal operation of the markets (Almost all asset classes ! also, markets do not adjust in gradual orderly fashions, just the way they have gone up, they will go down twice that velocity as market players discern the trends and jump out ahead of them ....
    2 May 2014, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3391) | Send Message
     
    Very good numbers. One caveat, many have dropped out of the workforce. Wannabee retirees who's portfolios have revived and have affordable (or, at least, any) healthcare coverage in hand. Just positive thoughts.
    2 May 2014, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    7million poor and sick people, that's it, that's all they have. They predicted 30 million.
    2 May 2014, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    People throw that "30 million" number up all the time, completely out of context, and state it as though it was supposed to happen overnight. The 30 million number is a CBO estimate and they predicted that it would be acheived by 2022. How about using a little context next time rather than mispresenting data?

     

    Source:
    http://wapo.st/1iLgAJI
    2 May 2014, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    My hope is that those numbers hit 0 in 2015. This thing needs to be repealed before it crashes our economy.
    2 May 2014, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Rope: That's a completely illogical and irrational statement.
    2 May 2014, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Here is a little context, they predicted everyone would be scrambling to sigh up. Not true at all, they extended the deadline 3 times and barely made their minimum projections just to stay solvent. Now they won't tell us who signed up, or if they have even paid.

     

    All lies.
    2 May 2014, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Minuetmen,

     

    How is that illogical?

     

    How is this for your logic:

     

    Depend on 18-35 year olds to sign up to pay for all the old, sick and poor that will sign up. However if you live with your mommy and daddy until age 26 you can be covered by them instead. So you almost eliminated half of your targeted pool of income. Really, they are depending on 27-45 year olds to foot the bill. So far, it doesn't seem like any of them are opting for Obamacare because they have plans through their companies.

     

    This will implode on itself just give it another year.
    2 May 2014, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Matt: It is illogical because it is a premise that is not based on any facts.

     

    Your thesis above is short sighted and based on fear mongering tactics rather than actual facts. Now of course the sickest are going to be the first to sign up for health insurance. Wouldn't you if you had an illness and previously couldn't get insurance due to a pre-exisitng condition? What's wrong with 18-26 year olds, who can't yet afford to support themselves because they are busy obtaining skills, being supported on their parent's health plans? As Obamacare becomes more established, many companies will move plans to the exchanges which will result in larger and larger nunbers of younger people signing up.

     

    Talk to you in a year.
    2 May 2014, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Minutemen

     

    "18-26 year olds, who can't yet afford to support themselves because they are busy obtaining skills, being supported on their parent's health plans?"

     

    Let me ask you this. At what age did you move out of your parents house? Did you attend school out of state? When did you land your first real job?

     

    It seems as if this government, country, society has allowed our children to grow up very slowly. 21 year olds act like 15 year olds, when they should be getting started in their careers but instead are vacationing to foreign countries and smoking pot in Denver on their parents dimes.
    2 May 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Matt: I would fit your categor of "growing up very slowly."

     

    First, I grew up in a lower-income working class neighborhood. I did not start college until 4 years after high school (worked a lot of manual labor jobs instead). When I did, I went to a community college for the first 2 years, and then transferred to an in state, mediocre state college. I did not move out of my parents house until I was 24.

     

    As for my first real job, that was quite delayed as well. After college I went to graduate school for 4 years and got a PhD. Then I did 3 years of low paying postdoctoral work (typical for PhDs in the biological sciences). I did not land my first true faculty position until 1999 at the age of 34 (that is what I would call my first real job). Now that I am 48, my wife and I (who came from a similar background and educational experience) each have very comfortable 6 figure salaries. Our total adjusted gross income does not quite put us in the top 1%, but we're getting close.

     

    Our U.S. society due to its increasingly technical and knowledge-driven workforce, demands a more prolonged period of education. Unless you want a low-paying service job, one really needs to get a college degree (and an advanced degree is strongly encouraged) to do well. Thus your slight on growing up slowly is misplaced, as that is what is actually required to be successful to today's career market.
    2 May 2014, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    I am along the same lines, but I always had a job and I always made due on my own. I didn't have health coverage until late 20's.

     

    If one is fortunate to have those circumstances they are privileged. You seem to be coming at this from a purely philosophical point of view, from your educator background, which screams liberal all the way. Cheerleading democrat policies indoctrinating your students along the way.

     

    Now, thanks to your colleagues, our younger generations think that their student debt should be bought and paid for by the government, as well as healthcare, abortions and cell phones. Thanks a lot.

     

    2 May 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (860) | Send Message
     
    "Our U.S. society due to its increasingly technical and knowledge-driven workforce, demands a more prolonged period of education. Unless you want a low-paying service job, one really needs to get a college degree (and an advanced degree is strongly encouraged) to do well. Thus your slight on growing up slowly is misplaced, as that is what is actually required to be successful to today's career market."

     

    Totally untrue, you can come to Texas right now and take a CC welding class and have a $50k plus job in no time. once you become an experienced welder you can make 6 figures easy. Hell, I know guys in the oilfield who never graduated high school and make $200k.
    2 May 2014, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Bigben: It's not totally untrue. It is in fact very true. Sure, there will always be jobs like you describe, but those types of jobs pale in numbers compared to thouse requiring an education. One can always find examples to go against the norm, but that doesn't make nullify the fact that educational obtainment is a near certainity for today's career workforce. And $50K a year is roughly $24 dollars an hour (based on a 40-hour work week), which is only roughly 2.5 times the proposed $10.10 minimum wage. $15/hour is the number most have described as a "liveable wage," so your $24/hour a job is above livealbe, but certainly not in any substantial way. Also, the welder-type jobs tend to flaten out quickly in salary increases, whereas an a professional degree offers a much higher ceiling for pay.
    2 May 2014, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    It appears I disagree with Mm on everything but this. Studies have shown that a college education adds an average of $1 million to lifetime earnings. That is ‘an average’ though and you can find examples on both sides where it goes against the grain.

     

    I met a guy a long time ago who was a multi-millionaire. He had his own business (welding coincidentally) and we would occasionally work on the same projects. I knew him for about 3 years before I discovered the man could not read or write. Blew me away! I also know college grads who are intellectually brilliant, but their 'get up and go' ……… got up and went.
    2 May 2014, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (860) | Send Message
     
    It is not a niche market, welders and other skilled trades are needed in huge numbers, especially in the growing areas of the country. $50k is really a low end number, and the sky is the limit if you start your own business. If anything white collar jobs are seeing wages more stagnant. I have a degree in Mech. Engineering but I chose to work in the field instead of a desk job. I now make double or triple what I would have made staying in the office, although arguably at times the work has been harder. I have friends with masters degrees who don't even come close to what a guy in the oilfield can make, and the jobs are quite plentiful (depending on oil prices). Of course, it takes a certain kind of skill to use your brain and hands and have good quick decision making skills, so it is not for everyone.
    2 May 2014, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3391) | Send Message
     
    They predicted 6 million. 30% are young and healthy - not enough IMHO.
    2 May 2014, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    Mm, our economy is going to crash because of Obamacare. 70% of our economy comes from consumer spending. You cannot raise insurance rates by 40% (or more) on such a huge portion of our population and expect our economy to survive. Discretionary spending for many Americans will drop to 0 and once the death spiral begins you may not be able to stop it even if you wanted to.
    2 May 2014, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    Rope: Have you looked at your health insurance rates over the past dozen years or so? I have. Mine of inreased every single year, and in some years in double digits. Health care rates have and will continue to rise with or without Obamacare. To try and blame rising interest rates soley on Obamacare is irrational at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
    2 May 2014, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Mine did too, and still are at the same rate as before. What has Obamacare done for me? Nothing.
    2 May 2014, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    Sure, I've seen rate increases but never anything remotely close to 40%. Now apply that 40% hammer to the discretionary spending of more than 100 million Americans and tell me what you expect to happen? Once the employer mandate kicks in, it's game over for our economy which is precisely why it was delayed until after the mid-terms.

     

    I'd love to see this NOT happen but I can draw no other conclusion as to what can happen when you hit discretionary spending that hard.
    2 May 2014, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (1572) | Send Message
     
    And by the way, my health insurance premiums were reduced by $2,000 in 2014. How? By simply changing my carrier. My previous carrier was raising my rates by $1,000. I found another plan with better coverage that cost $1,000 less than my 2013 rates. Thus I am saving $2,000 in 2014, which leads to more money in pocket for "consumer spending." Or more likely to buy more stocks and increase my wealth even more, or as they say, healthy, wealthy and wise.
    2 May 2014, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (643) | Send Message
     
    Good for you if you manage to get your rates down. The big question is what will happen to the majority of Americans and so far, it is not looking good. Had all (or most) Americans seen the $2,500 savings Obama promised, I would expect that to fuel our economy as nothing else has before. But if the opposite happens, which it appears to be, I can only expect it to suck the life out of our economy.
    2 May 2014, 12:04 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs