What's with the jobs growth?

They haven't been able to get anything going before now, so what made this month special? I'm confused...

:eyes:

Actually, the Presidencies power and control over the economy is vastly overrated.

Together, imho, they are the most important factors in the economy. And both are being run by the Republican Party.

Condisleeza is the joke of the town...

A couple reasons given were that supermarket workers ended their strikes (accounting for about 50K); the weather's nicer so construction jobs increased. :crazy:

How many americans who would rather be working are not working.
Don't you wonder what that number is.. (not the narrowly defined
unemployment) but the real deal.

...there will be a blurb revising these figures downward. Make the splash now, revise to the truth later.

Grocery workers returned to work, about 300,000 of them!!!

More sleight of hand!!!

Give it a week or two and - presto-chango - they'll have to revise the numbers. Downward.

Or, is it better they suffer so Bush will look bad? Hmmmm? Double-edged sword, isn't it? I'd rather people go back to work and we focus on what Bush truly had control over - his lies and his war.

their job figures have been lies (like everything else) that we have the right to doubt.
With Bush* EVERYTHING is a trick and a lie.

People finding jobs is a good thing, but shouldn't we have a higher standard.

At least 50,000 of those jobs were the grocery workers who were on strike in California.

Questions that have not been answered are:

Where did these jobs come from?

Did people who had good paying jobs, return to the same sector,
or did they get hired at Wal-Mart/McDonald's type jobs?

How many workers were hired by the construction industry?

And why did the unemployment rate go up?

On the face of it, the numbers are great, but just like a book with
a good cover, you don't know the whole story until you read it.

I wonder myself how we can gain jobs and have the un-employment rate go up at the same time.

I just hate it when the other side starts yelling, "Oh they don't WANT people to get back to work! They just want to make Bush look bad." On the face of it, they look right. Especially, if we start bitching about the job market improving. Like I said before. Double-edged sword.

how long will it go on? One month does not a jobs recovery make. And as another poster mentioned, these numbers may well be revised downward.

makes me wonder what they are basing this on . . . or is this another example of "if i say the same lie long enough, it will be truth."

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

it is highly possible that the hiring has occurred in the agricultural sector.

It's spring, time for planting.

the words "non-farm payrolls". Are you serious? They added the farm workers to this? I think that's fishy, unless they had included them before... I really don't know what to think about this. I also doubt that they will revise them downward later on because they have revised past months upward. I'm confused...

in construction and construction related jobs. ya can't build houses in the NE in winter so a LOT of workers get laid off who make windows, doors, cabinetry, etc. they are always going back to work this time of year.

Although some of the hiring may revolve around an increase in agricultural activity.

:7

Plus the chimpy administration has to create about 9 million jobs in 9 months to avoid being the first president since Hoover to have a net loss in jobs during his administration

are going up all over the place, so sure lots of folks are just giddy about their new slave-wage jobs.

This administration's economy finally hit bottom. Bush has taken a copy out of the Reagan playbook. Tax cuts at the beginning of an administration encourage investors to cash out their investments while they can pay lower taxes. After a couple years they jump back into the game just in time for the next election.

Result: recession at the beginning; recovery at the end. Politically, you hope the recovery occurs soon enough and big enough to wipe the recession out of the public's mind. Every Republican administration since World War II has had its boom ... and its bust. While every Democratic administration, including Carter's, has been one of constant boom.

So, yes, as bad of a steward of the American economy as Bush is, even under him the economy will inevitably recover. But the recession should have never been so bad (and don't give me that 9-11 excuse; the economy was in free-fall before 9-11). History tells us it would not have been under a Democrat. And history tells us we'll have another recession should Bush be reelected as there has been an economic recession during every Republican term since WW-II.

go figure. I heard on the radio that an economist was encouraged that manufacturing showed no growth or growth loss. In this emerging economy nothing doing is good news.