U.S. Adds 113,000 Jobs, in Latest Worrying Sign on Growth

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 7, 2014 | Eric Morath And Josh Mitchell

[John W]

WASHINGTON—The labor market in January registered weak gains for the second straight month, a slowdown that could heighten fears about the economic recovery and may lead some to call on the Federal Reserve to reconsider its easy-money strategy.

U.S. payrolls increased by a seasonally adjusted 113,000 in January, the Labor Department said Friday. Job growth improved compared with December's gain, which was revised up by just 1,000 to 75,000, but was well below last year's average pace. The November increase was recast up by 33,000 to 274,000.

The unemployment rate, obtained through a separate survey, fell to 6.6% last month from 6.7% in December, the Labor Department said.

[OldArmy52]

Doubters of our Obama and ObamaCare, hang you heads in shame for not believing our Ministry of Truth b.s.

The ecomomy is great!
Employment and income increasing by leaps and bounds!

(in other news, a relative just got work hours cut 50 percent...because business is so good)

Great koolaid!
More?

[tomkat]

This might cheer you up for a couple minutes:

1,000 High School Students Sing US National Anthem

Doogle posted it this morning .. now well over 540K views .. goosebumps guaranteed !

The comments are encouraging as well, given the ~25/1 ratio of patriot praise vs seditious filth.

   

[RoosterRedux]

Obamacare and the minimum wage laws are going to create a trend away from employment and toward independent contract work.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Ummmm this data has been released for decades so unless you call every administration liars including Reagan I and Bush then your point is invalid. Thanks for your expert insight though. Very helpful............

[Shady]

Check the WARN notices for Gnu Yak and California...that really tells the story, folks...future job losses are staggering, trust me..

[1010RD]

Define a household. If you think about it that’s a terrible standard to use to formulate policy.

[1010RD]

Have you read Wanniski’s The Way the World Works?

[SkyPilot]

Interesting charts - am I reading this correctly that under the Obama administration, public sector job creation has suffered more than private sector job creation?

[Wyatt's Torch]

I have but it’s been a while. I subscribed to Wanniski’s “Polyconomics” back in the late 90’s early 2000’s. I ended the subscription when he got all political about Iraq but I think he was a great supply-side economist.

[Wyatt's Torch]

That’s exactly what it says. If you look at the details of the labor report the headline number is total non-farm payrolls. Then the private payrolls will be higher.

[Gamecock]

Raise the minimum wage. It is our only hope. </sarc>

[max americana]

That ain’t a dumb question. It’s relevant and yeah, I want to know if they are FT or PT jobs.

[NonValueAdded]

These are numbers for the MONTH??????

[John W]

Yes.

[paristexas]

I think by cutting back on long term unemployment benefits, Republicans are going to force many of those on the dole to go back to work and start earning a living. This is going to create a sizable increase in the workforce in the next 6 months. I’m just afraid the MSM will give Obama the credit.

[Paul R.]

The economic stats are reflective of what is going on in there market. Using them to make investments and make money is the epitome of capitalism. Not to mention if you just bury your head in the sand and scream “LIES” in the face of mountains of data you would have missed out on massive returns. That’s just foolish.

You make persuasive arguments, and they probably work for some people who are relatively well off. (More on that in a moment.)

However... I would posit that Reagan and his administration were for the most part reasonably honest and competent people. Obama and his administration are clearly not honest or competent (outside of political competence that I will concede!) Do you dispute this? Do you dispute that most gov't employees have a strong bias (at the least) in favor of the present Administration and its policies?

My above observation does not "prove" that the numbers you post are dishonest, but then how do you propose to "prove" that they are honest? It seems to me that if the Administration are known liars on many subjects, the burden of proof is on them at all times.

Furthermore, any average person knows from their own experience that, at least for middle income people, the CPI, which at one time seemed to at least be "in the ballpark" when it came to reflecting typical family expenses, is now either faulty or dishonest. I track both my family and business expenses carefully, and have been doing so for almost 4 decades. When it it comes to actual "cost-of-living", what's going on, and the modern CPI are two different things. Business expenses are worse, not even counting various insurances, taxes, and what not. Again, I am talking "mid-to-low-end" here: Maybe things are different for those with incomes over, oh, I don't know - maybe >$100k / year?

There's even an additional factor: The quality of most consumer items, possibly excluding vehicles, has taken a big hit over the years. Average price items just don't hold up the way they once did. This can be a considerable drain on a budget. Having to buy "widget w" 3 times as often, or buy a "high end version", may look like positive economic activity, but it is NOT a positive to me.

Now, "the market" and many business & investment decisions do follow the published stats. The king may have no clothes, but one is likely financially better off at least in the short run by acting on and perhaps within the king's reality. (This reminds me of the many countries described in the CIA factbook as having economies distorted and weak due to excessive gov't interference and incompetence: There are still SOME people in those countries well able to take advantage of that environment.)

Essentially, the wealthy can work within almost any system that does not directly and heavily attack them, and benefit from it. Established wealthy probably benefit MORE from a corrupt system than an honest system, as they can most effectively play the system, and at the same time competition from below is reduced. They need not even be corrupt themselves, though it usually helps. Whether or not said system benefits the average person in an optimal manner, or whether it is long-term stable, is a completely different matter.

In my own case, there might be a conflict in my own mind, between how I could get in on those "massive returns", and what I believe is best for the country in the long run. However, that has become irrelevant. Expanding socialism (or worse) has effectively eaten up any "extra" I might have left to invest. I suspect a great many people are in my shoes. (In my case, my old IRA still rolls along, but I cannot afford to contribute further to it: Barring some major change, I will work until I am dead, if I expect to stay afloat without becoming a suckling piglet at the gov't teat.)

Please note that none of the above is intended as an attack on wealth or established wealth. I'd just like to see a more honest system with less gov't gooing it up.

[Paul R.]

Ummmm this data has been released for decades so unless you call every administration liars including Reagan and Bush then your point is invalid.

The Reagan & Bush 1 people are still responsible for the published data in 2014? Wow!

[Paul R.]

Edit: "most current gov't employees"

[Wyatt's Torch]

Most government employees at census and BLS are careers not political appointments.

I’m done arguing the red herring argument of if the data is manipulated/lied by administrations. People that believe that don’t want to believe anything else. When asked for proof that the data is wrong they discuss other political lies that are completely irrelevant to that of economic data.