CNN - May jobs report: Hiring slows, unemployment rises

[Buford]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news....htm?hpt=hp_t1



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Businesses hired far fewer workers than expected in May, throwing into doubt the strength of the economic recovery.
Only 69,000 jobs were added in May. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2%, as people rejoined the labor force.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected to see employers add 150,000 jobs and the unemployment rate to remain at 8.1%.

More from link.

[MattFancy]

Maybe I'm looking at all of this the wrong way, but aren't there only so many jobs that can be created? I mean if companies are making good money with what they have, are they really going to spend more money to hire new people?

[Kilmer17]

That's the unspoken fear from the recession. Companies have learned how to operate and prosper with less employees.

There are lots of jobs that just wont be coming back.

[zoony]

The remaining gains that need to be made are in housing.

[MattFancy]

The remaining gains that need to be made are in housing.

In regards to prices?

[Duckus]

Dow down 200 points in futures.

Going to be an ugly day.

[Larry]

Maybe I'm looking at all of this the wrong way, but aren't there only so many jobs that can be created? I mean if companies are making good money with what they have, are they really going to spend more money to hire new people?

Kilmer's got a good point. (That companies have learned how to get by with less.)

This also goes to the debate about "who creates jobs?" Some people will argue (I think, with at least some validity) that employers don't hire based on how much money they have. (If you give more money to employers, all you have is richer employers.) They hire based on "what's the smallest number of employees I can hire, and still meet demand?"

The claim is that you don't create jobs by creating wealthy employers, you create jobs by creating customers.

[MattFancy]

That's the unspoken fear from the recession. Companies have learned how to operate and prosper with less employees.

There are lots of jobs that just wont be coming back.

I mean the gov't I guess can create some jobs, but again, that costs money. I doubt our local Wal-Marts are going to rush out and start hiring people. It sucks, but its the truth.

[Larry]

The remaining gains that need to be made are in housing.

There's been some good news on that front, lately.

[zoony]

There's been some good news on that front, lately.

It's still dead though. Until housing starts come back I expect unemployment will remain in the 7.5+ range

[MattFancy]

Kilmer's got a good point. (That companies have learned how to get by with less.)

This also goes to the debate about "who creates jobs?" Some people will argue (I think, with at least some validity) that employers don't hire based on how much money they have. (If you give more money to employers, all you have is richer employers.) They hire based on "what's the smallest number of employees I can hire, and still meet demand?"

The claim is that you don't create jobs by creating wealthy employers, you create jobs by creating customers.

Very true. If companies are rolling in cash but not struggling to provide for their customers, why would they hire more people? That would mean less profits.

But like you said, if more customers means its harder for those companies to provide their services, then the company will have to hire more people to meet demands.

So instead of creating more jobs, people just need to go spend more money.

[Hersh]

It's to bad leaders will put politics ahead of any rational discussion on what they could do to help move this country forward. I've been in favor of a massive infrastructure plan for a dozen years but there isn't a chance of that happening.

[Larry]

So instead of creating more jobs, people just need to go spend more money.

I think I read the claim (in the thread about China's economy, and they may be creating the World's Largest Bubble?) that 2/3 of US GDP is consumer spending.

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 09:44 AM ----------

It's to bad leaders will put politics ahead of any rational discussion on what they could do to help move this country forward. I've been in favor of a massive infrastructure plan for a dozen years but there isn't a chance of that happening.

I've liked the idea of jobs programs and infrastructure for decades.

A big part of my reasoning is that, if you spend money paying unemployment benefits, then a year from now, what you have is somebody who wants more benefits. Whereas, if you spend the money building a road, then after the money's spent, you have a) a road, and b) a guy who knows how to build roads.

After you spend the money, the money's not gone.

----------

It also fits in to Larry's idea of "creating an environment that's good for business".

[MattFancy]

I think I read the claim (in the thread about China's economy, and they may be creating the World's Largest Bubble?) that 2/3 of US GDP is consumer spending.

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 09:44 AM ----------



I've liked the idea of jobs programs and infrastructure for decades.

A big part of my reasoning is that, if you spend money paying unemployment benefits, then a year from now, what you have is somebody who wants more benefits. Whereas, if you spend the money building a road, then after the money's spent, you have a) a road, and b) a guy who knows how to build roads.

After you spend the money, the money's not gone.

----------

It also fits in to Larry's idea of "creating an environment that's good for business".

Well what about the high-speed rail system? That would improve infrastructure and give tons of jobs.

[Hersh]

Well what about the high-speed rail system? That would improve infrastructure and give tons of jobs.

I would love that cause American steel could be used and everything could be made here in America but it's a pipe dream. Republicans hate the idea of high speed rail cause it would require a massive public investment.