US employers added 108,000 jobs in Dec; jobless rate dips to 4.9%

Singapore Times ^ | 1/6/2006 | AP

[Smogger]

WASHINGTON - Job growth slowed in December - following a big hiring spurt in November - with US employers expanding payrolls by just 108,000, underscoring the sometimes choppy path travelled by job seekers.

The Labour Department's fresh snapshot of the nation's jobs climate, released on Friday, also showed that the unemployment rate dipped from 5 per cent in November to 4.9 per cent in December, as some people left the labour market for any number of reasons.

The 108,000 gain in payrolls registered in December followed a big pickup of 305,000 jobs added in November, according to revised figures released on Friday. That was the most since April 2004 and was even stronger than the 215,000 job gains first estimated for November a month ago.

But October's payrolls turned out to be a bit weaker - showing an increase of 25,000, versus 44,000 previously reported. Still, given that was a month where the lingering effects of the devastating Gulf Coast hurricanes were still being felt, the lacklustre performance could be explained.

December's gain of 108,000 jobs was about half of what economists were expecting. Before the release of the report, they were forecasting employers to add around 200,000 positions during the month. -- AP

[Smogger]

Had to go all the way to Asia to find a headline that mentioned the jobless rate dropped to a 5 year low of 4.9. AP and Reuters spinning wildly.

[FormerACLUmember]

The democrat party (including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN...) is deeply saddened.

[Mr. K]

Democraps are leaping for joy at this great news about the economy!!

oh wait... that would be only if there was a democrap president

[EQAndyBuzz]

Bush's fault.

[Mike Darancette]

It was like a MSM dirge on the MSM this morning - Results were worse than expected.

[metmom]

I noticed that, too. I guess they just can't bring themselves to say "Bush's Fault" when it's good news.

[soccer_maniac]

Well, it would take 150,000 new jobs/month to keep up with population growth - so in economic terms, this number is not all that good.

[OldFriend]

FNC reporting the jobs created but closing with remarks from Schumer about how awful things are because of energy costs, health care costs, and college costs.

[smonk]

December's gain of 108,000 jobs was about half of what economists were expecting.

all we will hear about.

[ClearCase_guy]

December's gain of 108,000 jobs was about half of what economists were expecting. Before the release of the report, they were forecasting employers to add around 200,000 positions during the month. -- AP

Such bad news. We're doomed.

[metmom]

So what criteria do they use to determine "unemployment"?
I haven't worked in years. Am I considered on the unemployment lists? Do they presume that everybody over the age of 18 is employable and they're using that as a basis? If that's the case, I'd say 4.9% is a pretty good number.

[newzjunkey]

That and how blacks were still at least 10% unemployment.

[Steven W.]

since last month's figures were > 300K and this month's were > 100K that maintains an average over the past 2 years of > 200K which is well beyond even the most pessimistic expectations and certainly ahead of your absurd projections based on only one side of the equation.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I wonder what kind of jobs and at what pay? If the ratio of low paying to high paying jobs has increased then it is no real improvement I'd say.

[newzjunkey]

You're not unemployed because you're not and haven't been actively seeking employment nor registered for unemployment compensation.

For these stats, you don't exist.

[jveritas]

Well if you average November and December job growth it will be over 200,000 new jobs per month. Some people like to look at the glass one quarter empty.

[Choose Ye This Day]

John Kerry is deeply troubled.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, it would take 150,000 new jobs/month to keep up with population growth - so in economic terms, this number is not all that good.

LOL! Maybe you missed this: jobless rate dips to 4.9%

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what criteria do they use to determine "unemployment"?

Are you part of the workforce? If you're under 16, no. If you're retired, no. If you're not looking for a job, no.

Skip Navigation Links		Latest Numbers
	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov		Search | A-Z Index
BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: January 6, 2006 (11:55:23 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS12000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status:  Employed Type of data:        Number in thousands Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1995	124663	124928	124955	124945	124421	124522	124816	124852	125133	125388	125188	125088
1996	125125	125639	125862	125994	126244	126602	126947	127172	127536	127890	127771	127860
1997	128298	128298	128891	129143	129464	129412	129822	130010	130019	130179	130653	130679
1998	130726	130807	130814	131209	131325	131244	131329	131390	131986	131999	132280	132602
1999	133027	132856	132947	132955	133311	133378	133414	133591	133707	133993	134309	134523
2000	136559(1)	136598	136701	137270	136630	136940	136531	136662	136893	137088	137322	137614
2001	137778(1)	137612	137783	137299	137092	136873	137071	136241	136846	136392	136238	136047
2002	135698(1)	136442	136195	136136	136546	136415	136410	136695	137305	137001	136517	136400
2003	137424(1)	137472	137461	137637	137547	137784	137478	137525	137601	137986	138453	138400
2004	138472(1)	138495	138452	138659	138843	139181	139591	139558	139495	139768	140276	140133
2005	140234(1)	140285	140601	141196	141571	141750	142111	142425	142435	142625	142611	142779
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003, January 2004, and January 2005.

---

Series Id:           LNS11000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status:  Civilian labor force Type of data:        Number in thousands Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1995	132038	132115	132108	132590	131851	131949	132343	132336	132611	132716	132614	132511
1996	132616	132952	133180	133409	133667	133697	134284	134054	134515	134921	135007	135113
1997	135456	135400	135891	136016	136119	136211	136477	136618	136675	136633	136961	137155
1998	137095	137112	137236	137150	137372	137455	137588	137570	138286	138279	138381	138634
1999	139003	138967	138730	138959	139107	139329	139439	139430	139622	139771	140025	140177
2000	142267(1)	142456	142434	142751	142388	142591	142278	142514	142518	142622	142962	143248
2001	143800(1)	143701	143924	143569	143318	143357	143654	143284	143989	144086	144240	144305
2002	143883(1)	144663	144485	144718	144933	144803	144803	145007	145562	145313	145050	145065
2003	145937(1)	146104	146004	146452	146480	147031	146505	146427	146546	146716	147063	146773
2004	146817(1)	146681	146849	146800	147021	147427	147773	147558	147476	147808	148250	148173
2005	147956(1)	148271	148217	148839	149201	149243	149605	149792	150083	150043	150183	150153
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003, January 2004, and January 2005.

 

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200 Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325 Data questions: blsdata_staff@bls.gov Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov Other comments: feedback@bls.gov

As you see, of 295 million or so Americans, only 150.1 million are considered to be in the work force, 142.8 million are employed.