Job losses slow in May, but unemployment hits 9.4 percent
Filed under: Economy
More progress in the long journey back to economic health. The U.S. economy lost 'only' 345,000 jobs in May, the U.S. Labor Department announced Friday, with the nation's unemployment rate rising to 9.4 percent, the highest rate since 1982. But the job loss total was considerably less than expected for the second straight month, providing more evidence that layoffs may have peaked in the world's largest economy.
It was the lowest monthly job loss total in eight months. A Bloomberg News economists survey had forecast the economy to shed 530,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.2 percent. The economy lost 539,000 jobs in April and 699,000 jobs in March.
Every major sector except health care and government experienced a loss of jobs. Goods-producing industries lost 225,000 jobs, manufacturing lost 156,000, construction saw 59,000 jobs pared, and retail lost 17,500 jobs. Two bright spots, as has been the case for several months: health care, which added 36,000 jobs, and government, which tacked on 22,000.
What's more, the nation's economy has now shed roughly 6.0 million jobs since the recession started in December 2007, and 4.6 million jobs in the last seven months.
Further, a separate unemployment gauge, which includes workers who can find only part-time work and discouraged workers, rose to a record in 16.4 percent in May from 15.8 percent in April. That index was at 15.6 percent in March. What's more, the number of workers forced to work part-time because they can not secure full-time work increased 164,000 in May to 9.1 million.
Have job losses peaked?
Is the worst of the recession, from a job-loss standpoint, finally behind the nation? The May data is encouraging, but many economists say several more months of steadily-lower monthly job losses will be needed to confirm the trend. A double-dip recession -- where job losses fall, only to rise again -- has occurred in selected economic downturns in the modern era.
Then there is the "L-shaped" recovery, or not much of a recovery at all -- where job losses subside, but substantial job gains do not occur. The later is almost as bad as a recession: the U.S. economy has to create about 200,000 jobs per month -- a roughly net 100,000 job gain over the monthly gain needed to keep unemployment from rising -- for the next 5 years, just to replace the roughly 6.0 million jobs lost during the recession.
Economists say fewer lay-offs mean that consumer spending declines will likely abate -- provided Americans resume a normal consumption pattern. Right now, the "frugal consumer" dominates: the U.S. savings rate is at a 14-year high of 5.7 percent.
Think tanks divided on job creators
And, as most investors might sense, economic think tanks vary on what's needed to enable the U.S. economy to create jobs.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that the larger role the U.S. government is playing in the economy as a result of measures to stem the financial crisis and to increase spending on infrastructure will lower job growth by reducing the diversification of investment, dis-empowering individuals, and diminishing entrepreneurial capital.
Conversely, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a primarily-liberal think tank, argues that fiscal stimulus spending is working as intended. In addition to creating jobs via needed infrastructure projects, federal grants to towns and counties are saving jobs by preventing cuts in essential public services (police, fire fighter, and teacher jobs), thus maintaining some demand in the weak U.S. economy.
Wachovia Chief Economist John Silva calculates that the worst of the nation's job losses are over, but cautions investors not to conflate that with an immediate return to impressive growth. "The worst is over for the job market and for the economy" Silva told Bloomberg News Friday. "It'll still be a tough environment. Firms are going to be cutting through the end of 2009, and it'll take time for all those jobs to come back."
Indeed, investors should not expect a quick reduction in the unemployment rate, even if above-trend, or strong, U.S. economic growth resumes. That's because unemployment is a lag indicator: it will likely continue to rise for a half-year -- perhaps as long as 12 months -- even after the U.S. economy starts to recover, as companies first use existing capacity to ramp-up production, then later add employees as demand strengthens.
Also in May, average hourly earnings rose by 2 cents to $18.54. In addition, the number of people who've been out of work longer than six months increased 268,000 to 3.9 million -- or to 2.5 percent of the workforce, the highest percentage for that stat since 1983.
Economic Analysis: It appears the economy is heading in the correct direction, from a job loss standpoint, with the emphasis on "appears." A "knock on wood" is added because more than one downcycle has bottomed, recovered slightly, only to see lay-offs rise again. What's clear is that the U.S. economy is undergoing a major restructuring, losing real estate, manufacturing, retail, and financial services jobs, while adding new jobs in the health care services, information technology, infrastructure, education, renewable energy, and biotech sectors.
Historically, the U.S.'s economic system has proven to be remarkably flexible and resilient -- able to withstand losses of whole sectors and, via ingenuity and new technologies, create new engines of both GDP growth and job growth. Still, economists caution that no two recovery cycles are identical and this cycle -- the globalization era with its lower cost structure -- will present the toughest hurdles for the nation's job creation machine since the demobilization at the end of World War II.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 10)
6-05-2009 @ 10:40AM
nkotsonis said...
Interesting that there were over 80 comments about this article less than a half hour ago.
All critizing the administration.
Where are they?
Reply
6-05-2009 @ 5:37PM
Eric said...
Interesting how they say that the number of jobs lost were less than expected, "More progress on the road to recovery". Yet the expected unemployment rate was 9.2%. Today's numbers show it at 9.4%. Progress? Better than expected? This is like when Obama swore to the American people that without the stimulus bill, we would be looking at 8.5% unemployment, and that with the stimulus bill, the worst case scenario would be 7.8% or less. Now we sit at 9.4% (with his stimulus bill in place) and we wait and see if any of our media people have the balls to tell the king he's not wearing any clothes. Ridiculous. Nothing but positive spins for this president from our worthless media.
6-05-2009 @ 8:44PM
joanne38 said...
Right here!
6-06-2009 @ 5:33AM
danzillo4 said...
The fastest job gain is for pals of obamma, these new czar posts and the thousands of state dept jobs..(they need more help)? The czar people answer to only the so called president, as congreses has NO SAY...sounds exactly like the old soviet union to me...
6-06-2009 @ 11:13AM
kay said...
aol monitors to protect Obama. Haven't you noticed their 'journalism' articles do the same? It's blatant and completely manipulated.
6-06-2009 @ 6:13PM
gunwriter said...
Here's one: The recession started as soon as the Democrat Congress took power and continues to get worse daily under the Obama administration. Obama uses it as a tool to install more and more CZARS that answer only to him and consolidate power in his hands.
6-07-2009 @ 2:05PM
Loyd said...
They are probably at church praying that obama's policies will not affect their jobs.
6-05-2009 @ 10:57AM
Rick said...
Unemployment is up to 9.4% and when the liberal press reports it, does not put the word Obama in the article at all. When it hit 6% they had the word Bush and recession in every line. We need a free and unbiased press and media in this country.
Reply
6-05-2009 @ 1:51PM
The c2u said...
You forgot that Obama inherit this mess from Bush when the economy had just begun the early stages of collapse. Obama saved it from that and made sure that it won't go from a recession to a depression. Give credit where credit is due. Neocons just don't get it.
6-05-2009 @ 4:06PM
Bob said...
Gee Rick, let me guess.....loyal republican, right?........
6-05-2009 @ 5:43PM
Eric said...
Yes Obama inherited this mess (much of which is directly related to the housing mess that our Congress - not President - allowed to happen), but do you also give Obama credit for the fact that he told the American people that without this trillion+ dollar stimulus bill we could be looking at over 8% unemployment, but if we encourage our congress to pass his stimulus, unemployment won't even touch 8%? Or do you just give him another pass on that one? He has his stimulus and it's now worse than he threatened it would be WITHOUT it. Money well spent???
6-06-2009 @ 6:19PM
gunwriter said...
WRONG. Obama did not inherit this from Bush, he inherited it from the Democrat Congree, of which he was a part. Interstingly, I read lots of people say they voted for Obama but would not do so again; but have never heard anyone say they did not vote for him in 2008, but would do so in the future...Hhmmm...
6-05-2009 @ 10:56AM
skids said...
disent shouldn`t be confined to one administration, corperatism has engulfed our government, goldman sachs runs the treasury and fed, and this did not happen overnight. the plan of the neocon greed machine, which started in the reagan administration, was to bankrupt the country for the benifit of the top 1% whose money they entrust to "shadow banks" and hedge funds. ignoring the damage done by the corperatists is our fatal mistake. this country no longer is a viable democracy, but a republic run by corperate interests for the benifit of the rich.
Reply
6-06-2009 @ 8:52AM
tom Williams said...
For years the federal government had regulated lending standards to prevent inflation of asset prices
But starting with the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, and continuing under Clinton, such regulations were mostly repealed. Known as
"selective credit controls," these policy instruments took a "command and control" approach to regulation. It was an approach that reduced systematic risk by discouraging the development of a subprime mortgage market for borrowers with bad credit. Without such controls, lenders started making a flood of loans without minimum down-payment requirements, and eventually without even requiring documentation of income on many loans. Adjustable interest rates and hidden balloon payments made these loans inherently more risky.
Predatory lending was not an invention of the Bush administration. High-interest payday loans and subprime mortgages took off under Clinton. The morals of the marketplace were once again,
"Buyer beware." Many loans, tellingly referred to as “teaser loans," were structured so that the monthly mortgage payments would start off low and rise significantly in the future, even while the overall loan amount—the outstanding principal—would also rise. The borrower would end up worse off several years into the mortgage than when the loan began.
6-06-2009 @ 9:38AM
Dave said...
This country has always been a republic. Our nation's founders never intended it to be a democracy. They (rightly so, it seems) thought that the majority of the people were too ignorant to directly participate in governing.
6-06-2009 @ 11:34AM
ckoeho said...
Funny isn't it we didn't go bankrupt till the libs took over congress over two years ago. About a dozen of your dem leaders aught to be investigated and jailed. Of course you don't know anything about that do you.
6-06-2009 @ 7:09PM
richard clark said...
the big mistake is when barney frank and chris dodd introduced a bill to provide affordable housing for all. and coerced the banks and mortgage companies to lower the qualifications for credit. people who could not afford the payments were being approved for mortgage payments they could not meet. prime interest, and adjustable interest rates ruined many a person.
6-05-2009 @ 11:18AM
07 Shelby said...
Is it me or what planet are these "experts" on. Since when 9.4 million people out of work and another 9.1 million cut from full time employment to part time is a positive thing? If there is a dip in people seekeing unemployment benefits, it is there is no one left to lay off at many corporations. Also I think it is arrogant for these experts to think we are just going to start spending money again based on what they telling us. People will start spending again when their jobs are secure and their homes are safe from forclosure. I for one am not buying their BS claims. I'll keep paying off my bills at a faster pace than normal until there is nothing left to pay. As far as buying large ticket items, if I can't pay in cash, I didn't need it that bad anyway. With gas prices rising, stand by for the next way of layoffs because people will have even less money to spend.
Reply
6-05-2009 @ 11:27AM
CAVUTO said...
one stock to stay away from is GE......commercial property is foreclosing at a record pace...GE Capital is heavily into commercial property...Immelt is trying to raise capital by cutting employee wages..He always looks to the easy way to raise capital...unti he can make money the old fashioned way by selling products and not stealing from shareholders and the employees i say stay away from GE
Reply
6-05-2009 @ 11:44AM
Dan said...
The market is acting like it shouldn't for one reason - stupid money. The big boys buy long & short and make money if the market is moving up or down. They consider inexperienced investors or so called professional investors who just go along with the flow as investing "stupid money" that will eventually flow to the big boys. Right now the "stupid money" is flowing in afraid of missing the big opportunity. When the big boys feel they have pushed it as far as possible, they'll start shorting and rack in all the "stupid money" from the losers. Look at a long term S&P chart. Happens all the time.
Reply