Layoffs Reach 11-Month High, But They're Not The Major Worry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/layoffs-reach-11-month-hi_n_830189.html

I wonder why ADP and BLS are coming up with such different numbers.

"In January, ADP reported an increase of 187,000 private sector jobs. The BLS reported only 36,000 new positions, public and private sector. (On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the government's official unemployment report for February.)"

"The issue is, at least up to this point, many businesses have not started to hire folks." DUH.....

"At the very least, rising energy costs could force employers to
postpone hiring plans. At worse, increased costs could kill the fragile
recovery and spur another round of layoffs."

And this will be the fault of the unemployed yet again.... We get blamed for everything.

Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

mrgolf wrote:Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

It takes 125,000 to break even with population growth

And then you have Bernanke saying that the rise in oil prices will not affect the US economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/bernanke-rising-oil-price_n_830011.html

What a crock of Sh*t.....

Quiethawk wrote:

mrgolf wrote:Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

It takes 125,000 to break even with population growth

Thanks. Do you happen to have a link?

Quiethawk wrote:And then you have Bernanke saying that the rise in oil prices will not affect the US economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/bernanke-rising-oil-price_n_830011.html

What a crock of Sh*t.....

if we can't buy gas to go on interviews if we're lucky enough to get one, what do we do? if we find a job but it will cost too much for gas to get there what do we do? I don't go anywhere much now but the price of gas will break me if I find a job that is not nearby.

mrgolf wrote:Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

This is a good question and I've been researching it. I have a feeling there are going to be a few different numbers. The following is from September 3,2010.

The United States needs to “create” a minimum of 150,000 new jobs, “actual jobs” as opposed to imaginary or “virtual” jobs, each and every month, to maintain an “employment equilibrium” – to have the economy keep pace with new workers entering the workforce – to have “zero change” in the unemployment rate – no increase – no decrease.

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/august-2010-economic-numbers-associated-press-spins-the-numbers-again-unemployment-returns-to-9-6/

A more recent number:

Employers must create about 100,000 to 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the number of new people entering the workforce.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/report-290379-jobs-adp.html

And yet another number:

This data is telling us that employment is below the levels needed to absorb the young entering the workforce (which needs to exceed 150,000 per month).

http://econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=5611

mrgolf wrote:

Quiethawk wrote:

mrgolf wrote:Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

It takes 125,000 to break even with population growth

Thanks. Do you happen to have a link?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-thornton/a-top-10-real-unemploymen_b_803970.html

I trust that he has done the research into the numbers.

Quiethawk wrote:

mrgolf wrote:

Quiethawk wrote:

mrgolf wrote:Does anyone have the number of jobs that must be created each month just to break even?

It takes 125,000 to break even with population growth

Thanks. Do you happen to have a link?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-thornton/a-top-10-real-unemploymen_b_803970.html

I trust that he has done the research into the numbers.

I get curious on things and like to research them, but today is not a good day for me to be looking at BLS numbers.

JaneWI wrote:I wonder why ADP and BLS are coming up with such different numbers.

"In January, ADP reported an increase of 187,000 private sector jobs. The BLS reported only 36,000 new positions, public and private sector. (On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the government's official unemployment report for February.)"

Because the ADP corporation is run by corrupt amoral lying monsters.

Phillymg wrote:
Because the ADP corporation is run by corrupt amoral lying monsters.

Don't hold back. How do you really feel about ADP?

Phillymg wrote:

JaneWI wrote:I wonder why ADP and BLS are coming up with such different numbers.

"In January, ADP reported an increase of 187,000 private sector jobs. The BLS reported only 36,000 new positions, public and private sector. (On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the government's official unemployment report for February.)"

Because the ADP corporation is run by corrupt amoral lying monsters.

I would really like to know who is behind this group. Curiosity and all that.

mrgolf wrote:

Phillymg wrote:
Because the ADP corporation is run by corrupt amoral lying monsters.

Don't hold back. How do you really feel about ADP?

Every time I read about "number of private sector jobs created" I wonder just how many of them are full time, permanent jobs with benefits that pay a middle- class wage (min. $20.00/hour)...my guess, too few.
Do they count EVERY low-wage, temp./contract/ part-time job - no matter if it's just a day labor position, or short-term contract job?

Kat--the answer to your question is yes.

Another reality check!!