UPDATE: U.S. added 196,000 jobs in March as economy shows signs of spring bounce
Source: Washington Post
The U.S. economy added 196,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported Friday, in line with expectations and a strong rebound from the anemic 33,000 jobs added in February. Experts see little sign of an imminent recession as hiring remains robust and the unemployment rate stayed at 3.8 percent.
The low level of hiring in February now seems like an anomaly, possibly been caused by employers’ hesitation to bring on new employees in the deep of winter and an economic hangover from the lengthy government shutdown. “The labor market remains healthy, and last month is just an outlier,” said Brad McMillian, chief investment officer at Commonwealth Financial Network.
The United States has had more job openings than unemployed workers since last summer, spurring companies to raise wages and offer signing bonuses and more training programs in an effort to recruit and train employees. Wages grew 3.2 percent in the past year, the Labor Department said, slightly below the February rate, which was the best in a decade and well above the 1.5 percent rate of inflation.
Lower income workers have seen the biggest pay hikes in recent months as employers report they are struggling to find enough people to fill roles and many states have enacted minimum wage increases.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-added-196000-jobs-in-march-as-economy-shows-signs-of-spring-bounce/2019/04/05/0b01c324-5751-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html
Original article -
April 5 at 8:31 AM
The U.S. economy added 196,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported Friday, a strong rebound from anemic job growth in February. The unemployment rate stayed at 3.8 percent.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2019/04/05/u-s-added-196000-jobs-in-march-as-economy-shows-signs-of-spring-bounce/?utm_term=.b1ea0af7327c
Am hoping they revise that "breaking headline" because for GOPers had this happened under a Democrat, that would not be considered a "bounce". It would be labeled "weak".
Anyway - mahatmakanejeeves and crew should be along soon to provide more details!
ETA - Will also need to see if there were any revisions to last month's numbers as they usually will revise previous data.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because no one wants to address the underlying problems that go beyond sloganeering.
But what you now have happening is the gentrification of the "inner city" and that is adding even more pressure on the original residents in terms of home valuations and tax structures. On one hand, it helps to finally bring some positive changes to those neighborhoods by finally addressing blight and whatnot. But it also means little incentive to build AFFORDABLE housing for lower income long-term residents because all the gentrifiers want to do is come in, gut existing stock, and then try to sell it for $500,000 or more - way out of range of the average current resident... Or the gentrifiers encourage the gut and churn "flippers" where no one EVER ends up actually living in a home in these neighborhoods because the flippers keep selling it to other flippers, with all of them expecting some kind of "profit" by doing this. 
Where you may see any signs of discord and recession is in the older suburbs where the drug problem is starting to rear its ugly head and the strip malls have been shutting down due to online shopping.
and have been in the area a few times. Am not sure if this is the case there, but here in Philly, the property taxes have a primary chunk that is used for funding the schools - and it is pretty egregious here being in a state that refuses to offer a dedicated funding source for the public schools, where the current funding structure is horrible with the funding gaps between urban and suburban.
The weeks (and months) seem to be flying. 
last month (or 197,000 jobs last quarter). But the mainstream corporate media NEVER reports on the REAL employment numbers blah blah blah. 
ON EDIT - some people seem to be taking this 100% seriously, that I'm really declaring that the U.S. lost 201,000 jobs in March and that (in another post in this thread about the Labor Force) that 224,000 dropped out "because there were no jobs to be found".
No no no. Both numbers come from the Household Survey which has a much smaller sample size and a much larger sampling error than the Establishment Survey that produces the headline nonfarm payroll jobs number. The Household Survey numbers are wildly wildly wildly volatile from month to month -- most of that zigging and zagging is statistical noise.
Please see https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2298789 in this thread or go straight to https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141934356#post21 for more on this
Monthly change from January 2018 thru March 2019 in Labor Force, Thousands
2018: 487 777 -254 -95 116 462 80 -407 253 639 127 419
2019 -11 -45 -224
January and February data of each year are affected by changes in population controls.
But this statistic wildly bounces up and down too from month to month
Anyway, you can tell your RW coworkers about the REAL employment numbers, the Employed (Household Survey) dropped by 201,000 last month (see post 11 ) and how 224,000 people dropped out of the labor market because there are no jobs to be found ... only jobs to be lost and none to be gained ...
Or the Employed (Household Survey) dropped by 197,000 last quarter and how 280,000 people dropped out of the labor market because there are no jobs to be found... only jobs to be lost and none to be gained ...
(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue.)
Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.2% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican -- that is, until Obama, who inherited an economy that was losing several hundred thousand jobs a month And actually, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.
Post-WWII Presidents ranked by Average Annual Percentage Increase In Jobs (the last column):
. . (updated 2/2/19 after new jobs report released - it has revisions going back decades.)
Update: through March 2019, the numbers for Trump are: 196,962, 145.7, 1.62%
(average number of jobs created per month, Jobs at start of term, million, average annual percentage increase in jobs)
Trump beats 4 or the 6 previous post-WWII RepubliCON presidents in average annual percentage increase in jobs (he falls between Ford and Reagan). But he beats only one Democratic president: Obama.
Remember, Obama inherited the deepest recession since World War II, which lost 4.2 million jobs in the last 10 months of his predecessor, and in the last 3 months of his predecessor was losing 753,000 jobs a month. With that momentum, job losses continued for the first 13 months of the Obama presidency -- through February 2010 -- totalling 4.3 million jobs lost during those 13 months.
Anyway, despite the 4.3 million jobs lost in his first 13 months because of the Bush crash, Obama still beats 3 of the last 7 post-WWII Republican presidents (the count of 7 post-WWII Republican presidents includes Trump).
In the above table, the average annual % increase in jobs (the last column) is a much fairer way to compare presidents than just the raw job creation figures in thousands because the latter is unfair to the earlier presidents who were working with much smaller labor forces to begin with. For example the number of job holders at the beginning of Truman's administration was only 38% as many as at the beginning of Clinton's administration, and 31% as many as at the beginning of G.W. Bush's administration. So Truman's pathetic-looking 93,570 jobs/month creation record turns out to be even better than Clinton's 238,521 jobs/month record when adjusted for the size of the labor force at the beginning of their terms.
In raw thousands of jobs created per year, both Reagan and Nixon beat Truman. But when adjusted for the size of the labor force -- again, by looking at average annual percentage increases in jobs -- Truman beats them both.
Official sources of information for the above:
# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
The United States Unemployment Rate. Every Time The Democrats Fix It, The Republicans F*CK It Up (1960-2016)
"Idiot". 
I couldn't even come up with a name that is worse for the purposes of this chart for the current years but I'm sure there are plenty of candidates that could be used!
among many choice others, came from the Brits when he visited there during the election.
I remember seeing articles posted with some hilarious ones that only a Brit could concoct! 
Here a link to some of the original ones I remember seeing - https://qz.com/716915/donald-trumps-visit-to-scotland-inspired-some-very-creative-british-profanity/
And some more: https://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/custard-flavoured-jobby
Hopefully Cold War Spook can get to where he needs to go!
