[lbo-talk] strong jobs report

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Fri Apr 2 07:51:11 PST 2004


John Lacny wrote:


>The report says that the gains were mostly in construction, retail
>trade, and healthcare and social services, though manufacturing
>employment was flat. Does construction usually lead a broader growth
>in employment? I know very little about this.

Gains were very broad. Manufacturing's 0 was the first non-negative number in 43 months. Construction was probably a rebound from Feb's nasty weather.


>Also, the report says that the 308,000 jobs were created, but that
>the unemployment (5.7%) and labor force participation rates remained
>the same. Can someone explain to me how this happens statistically?
>What variable am I missing? Is it something obvious? I don't quite
>get it and could use a bit of a primer.

There are two surveys, one of employers and one of households. The 308,000 number comes from the employer (establishment) survey, and the unemployment rate from the household. Reversing recent trends, the household survey was considerably weaker than the establishment survey. So I'd say that reading the two together, it'd be premature to get too excited about the likelihood of a serious acceleration in employment just yet. Still, there's no denying the strength in the establishment survey (though wages and hours were weak).

Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list