| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Private sector adds 368,000 jobs in June |
| 2006-07-06 |
| U.S. private sector employers created an estimated 368,000 jobs in June, compared with 122,000 jobs in the previous month, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday. The monthly ADP National Employment Report is based on payroll data and measures the change in total private sector nonfarm employment each month. The report is released each month, two days before the government's own job survey of a net gain in nonfarm jobs in the U.S. private and public sectors. "These findings indicate a strong acceleration of employment in June," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, said in a statement. Macroeconomic Advisers developed the ADP report together with ADP Employer Services. He separately told Reuters that private sector jobs growth in June was "broad-based," averaging around 218,000 over the last six months. "I'm pretty confident that jobs growth on Friday would be healthy and I wouldn't be surprised if it shows an acceleration." Prakken, however said the U.S. economy's current jobs growth is not sustainable and, if it persisted, could increase inflationary pressures. He also estimated that the average public sector monthly jobs growth was 12,000 over the past 12 months. According to the latest Reuters poll of economists, the U.S. Labor Department on Friday is expected to show that 155,000 nonfarm jobs were created last month, up from 75,000 in May. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #17 Good point, OP. Anyways, to sum it up, this is not doom and gloom at all. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 23:10 |
| #16 Lots of things not considered here. We're going to be in a constantly increasing technical enviroment where in the near future one worker can produce more than three, five, or even 20 did last year. That's going to eliminate a lot of lower-skilled employment. We're going to continue to develop technically skilled requirements. We're going to need a greater number of highly-educated people. It takes time to bring the average person up to that level of competence. We're actually going to see a levelling off of "new" jobs, in terms of numbers employed, but see a constantly changing employment environment where even sales clerks have to have at least a minimum of skills far higher than those needed today. BTW, the US military has already been through this process, and will continue to be a pioneer in this area. Today's soldier is heads and shoulders above the officers of World War II in education, training, and competence. Finally, skewing the entire 'government statistics' environment is the number of people learning they can make a halfway decent living without having to work for ANYBODY. Computers have set millions free to work from home as independent contractors, skilled professionals, and general office types without being "employed". The government hasn't learned how to count such people yet, and won't for another decade, at least. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-07-06 22:12 |
| #15 lotp - our military produces security. That has great worth. The Departments of Education or Health & Human Services, on the other hand.... (And there's NOTHING in the Constitution that authorizes them, to boot.) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-07-06 22:02 |
| #14 lotp, they're necessary to preserve the country, but do you really mean to say the military produces wealth or contributes to the economy? It's apples and oranges. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 21:58 |
| #13 Tell that to all the soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians who work for DOD, Barbara. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-07-06 21:04 |
| #12 Don't forget that private sector jobs are actual jobs, producing worth and contributing to the economy. Public sector (gummint) jobs are a drain on the same economy, as they produce nothing. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-07-06 20:40 |
| #11 It's the economy stupid... b!ch! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-07-06 19:00 |
| #10 Worst since Hoover |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-06 18:48 |
| #9 Nimble: That is an explanation that makes good sense! Gets rid of all the little stuff and makes you look at the core reason. The little stuff will sort itself out. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-07-06 16:38 |
| #8 If we have inflation, it will because the Fed (Greenspan) expanded the money supply to much in the past. The current tightening should be sufficient to reign things in without crashing the economy. But Friedman demonstrated long ago that inflation is a result of excessive expansion of the money supply, not cost pressure. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 13:40 |
| #7 Population growth at 1% is roughly 3 million/year. Add in illegal immigration (rough estimates of 500,000 - 1 million/year) and even then, you're just breaking even w/ new/created jobs. No one to "backfill" all the boomer retirees, eh? Guess that's another reason to outsource, as much as I don't like it. Not too familiar w/ China, but I've already heard about the male/female ratios being skewed by their 1 child policy (mostly males, as females are aborted). Could lead to future social issues, as there won't be enough womenfolk to match up with all the boys. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 13:37 |
| #6 Population growth is less than 1%, so we won't be able to keep up with that kind of demand. Seems inflationary to me. Any ideas how that vacuum in the work force will affect production and the economy when combined with the inflationary pressures? What about China in a few years with their one kid per couple policy? |
| Posted by: grb 2006-07-06 13:18 |
| #5 Whoops, that's "4 MILLION new jobs per year..." |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 08:55 |
| #4 Oh, and BTW, I read an article a few months ago, how this won't be nearly as important in the coming 5-10 years, as the baby boomers retire. The Federal Gov't ALONE has something like 50% of its work-force eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. That's a LOT of existing jobs that'll ALSO open up for new employees, as well as these other jobs being created. If you project out just "created" jobs, that is roughly 4 MILLION new jobs (assuming it continues at the 368,000/month rate), not to mention the "additional" jobs that will be just backfilling baby boomer positions, as they retire. Anyone know how many kids graduate from High School & College combined per year? If so, it'd be easy to compare the two numbers to see if the unemployment rate SHOULD continue to decrease. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 08:54 |
| #3 Me neither, grb. And when they do "tell the story," it's often in the negative light of "Well, we did create 368,000 new jobs, but that fell short of the predicted 400,000 new job target/or they are only in the low-paying service industry type positions, blah, blah, blah." |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 08:49 |
| #2 Funny, I didn't hear this trumpeted in the MSM. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-07-06 02:56 |
| #1 Yea but (choose one): 1. This doesn't help the baby ducks 2. The whinos in SanFran will still run short of Ripple 3. The sky is still falling |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-06 00:56 |