U.S. job growth soars!

Gain of 308,000 jobs far better than Wall Street's forecasts; unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew at the fastest pace in nearly four years in March, the government said Friday, in a report that soared past Wall Street forecasts and could play a pivotal role in Fed policy and the presidential election.

Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 308,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department said, compared with a revised gain of 46,000 in February. The unemployment rate, which is generated by a separate survey, rose to 5.7 from 5.6 percent.

Economists, on average, had expected 123,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

It was the strongest gain in payrolls since a matching gain of 308,000 in April 2000.

Payrolls grew an average 171,000 jobs a month in the first quarter, helped by upward revisions to January and February, versus average gains of 60,000 a month in last year's fourth quarter.





On Wall Street, stocks rallied as investors bet the pickup in the job market would help economic growth, and thus corporate earnings, justifying higher stock prices -- though that could change if traders start worrying more about rising interest rates.

Though employment often lags behind the rest of the economy, it has been slower than usual to recover from the 2001 recession, despite several quarters of economic growth, as firms have focused on cost-cutting, using technology to replace workers and sending some jobs overseas. That seemed to change in March, as 61 percent of all firms added jobs, the highest level since July 2000.

In its report, the department said service industries such as education and health care added 230,000 jobs in March. Goods-producing industries added 78,000 jobs, including 71,000 new construction jobs, helped by dry and mild weather across much of the country.

"Everything is falling into place, with the way our cyclical indicators are behaving," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI), a research firm that generates leading indicators of inflation and economic growth. "We should see the direction of job growth continue to improve."

Plunk, I like you more when you are making cogent and persuasive arguements on fishing topics rather than being a shill for GW Bush. But, since you chose to do this, let's look at two additional facts:

70,000 of the 308,000 was the Grocery workers in Sourthern California going back to work. Hardly new positions created.

GW has only about 3 million to go to erase the job losses during his Administration. I'm reading an interesting book right now that I commend to all that support GW. It's called The Price of Loyalty and it is about Paul O'Neill, GW's Treasury Secretary. This book provides insight into decision making processes in this Administration and details how they tend to make decisions based on ideology rather than facts and honest debate. This is not by a "Bush Hater" but by an insider from the Cabinet level. I recommend it to everyone.

What is most interesting to me is that I know intellegent people (Plunk, Grandpa) who know to their very core that I am wrong when I say that this President is an absolute disaster. Yet, I can not believe that an intellegent person can see it any other way. I guess that's politics for you. :rolleyes:

An equally, if not more accurate, headline might be."Bush Adminsitration, presided over biggest job loss since Hoover - Unemployment up!"

If we should give Bush credit for a minor upswing in low paying jobs, shouldn't he get full credit for all the jobs lost under his leadership? Let me guess, all the lost jobs were Clinton's fault, the tiny blip on the overall job loss picture was Bush's doings.

I guess all those wealthy foks who got the big tax cuts started buying more Big Macs, thus creating a rush to hire more employees at McDonalds.

"I can not believe that an intellegent person can see it any other way. ..."

Now Eddie....I know you are an intelligent person but how can you say that those who think you are consistently mistaken are not intelligent?....I think the answer is that you choose to see the world the way you see it and those who disagree with your assessments see it a different way. Pretty simple...You choose the "documentation" or propaganda that looks like it supports your view of the world and those who disagree with your positions choose to use "documentation" that appears to prove you wrong. This divergence of views is not an intelligence test but simply a dialogue of opposing views.

In your quest to prove the president wrong you can take virtually every issue and slant it to your view of the world. Unfortunately you take even the slightest positive and turn it negative. Liberal thinking tends to slant towards "the sky is falling" mantra almost on an ad nauseum basis to try to show that things are so bad under a republican administration that we should all dispair and give up.

If prosperity is a reasonable goal then things look better to me. If rising employment after 9/11, historically low interest rates, historically high home ownership,booming business climates , lower tax rates and bolstered consumer confidence are signs that this admionistration is as dismal a failure as you seem to think then I guess you must advocate the opposite conditions....higher taxes, stifled business activity, higher interest rates, no confidence and dispair....If the goal is to pit the "rich" against the "poor" I guess you should keep swinging away with doom and gloom. I, for one , feel pretty optomistic with the way things are going. Sorry you don't.

Oh and by the way...By my own barometer which is my own business things are so much better in 2004 over 2002 and 2003 that I am very encouraged by whatever is causing the upswing. I make no apologies for wanting to prosper. Several people depend on me and I am thankful that things out in the business world are looking up. I don't give the credit to the president nor do I blame the loss of jobs on him either. Employment is just the latest road kill for the buzzards to feed on.

You are a wise man. While I often disagree with you I appreciate your intelligence and hope you would agree that both those who love Bush and those who hate him have some very intelligent folks in their camps. I do appreciate you refraining from the name-calling and insults that are the hallmark of those who cant seem to make a point without them.

Anyone who knows anything about capitalism knows that we have always had cycles of boom followed by downturns. Seldom are these much affected by the president. But it's a rare president who doesn't claim credit for the upturns. I do not blame Bush for this. Any other president would have done the same. But, I can’t see this modest up tick as his doing. As for low interest rates, that's a bit like the tail wagging the dog. We have low interest rates because the economy is doing poorly. They are NOT the result of a sound economy.

Grandpa, I agree with you. Intellegent people do disagree when it comes to politics. It always blows me away when folks think that people who disagree with them are stupid. You are right, it all comes down to what you believe and what filters you use when viewing the documentation.

Since I believe strongly in not re-electing GW, I am probably going to not accent the positive things he and his administration have done. Believe it or not, there are a few. Hell, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

I would also agree with you that things are getting better in the economy. And, I feel that I am learning more about how I can make this economy work for me. (See closing line in 2nd paragraph).

I'm positive about a number of things and one that is clear - Whoever is elected President in November - life will go on. For the sake of me and my kids, I will pray that it is not GW.

Plunker, are you looking for a political appointment from the bush administration with all of these posts that you are doing for him? It sure looks like that is what you are doing, or do you already have one?

It seems pretty obvious that Presidents and their policies can have only minor effects in controlling "major economic swings" but economic policies and interest rates can have an effect towards pushing things in the right direction.

In that respect it also should seem obvious that lower interest rates set by the "Fed" and President Bush's policies on taxation have indeed served to both boost the economy and create jobs.

What is surprising is that John Kerry might have enough sense to agree.

--- --- ---

From the Wall Street Journal

John Kerry, Supply-Sider?

He admits corporate taxes are too high, but his plan would make things worse.

Now that he's escaped the fever swamps of the Democratic primaries, John Kerry seems to be taking economics more seriously. His new plan at least admits that U.S. corporate taxation is a problem, even if in the end he'd make things worse.

The most pleasant surprise--even shock--is that Mr. Kerry is endorsing the idea that cutting tax rates can increase incentives to create jobs. Supply-siders have been saying this for years, much to the derision of most Democrats. (We accept their apology.) On the other hand, Mr. Kerry would cancel out most of this benefit with his increase in tax rates on individuals and dividends, not to mention with the fine print of his corporate tax reshuffle.

The central problem here is that in recent decades most countries have been reducing corporate taxation, leaving U.S. rates among the highest in the world. The U.S. is also one of the few countries to tax companies on profits made overseas. The stopgap U.S. response has been a system of tax deferrals allowing companies to avoid paying tax on their foreign income until they repatriate it. Not surprisingly, this has locked up a pool of as much as $639 billion in capital overseas. It has also opened companies to the accusation that "Benedict Arnold CEOs," in Senator Kerry's gracious phrase, are moving jobs overseas merely to enjoy tax breaks.

The best remedy would be to bring U.S. corporate taxes closer to global norms and restrict the scope of taxation to profits earned within U.S. borders. Decisions to move jobs abroad would then be made on the business merits, rather than on tax incentives.

Click here for more...

This has been around for a month or so, but surprisingly I haven't heard all that much about it.

Get on Google, type in "manufacturing jobs hamburger Bush", and read some of the several thousand hits.

You will discover the master plan for creating 2.6M jobs by the end of this year.

Anyone think that there is a credibility issue with this administration, jobs, and economic growth for anyone other than gigantic corporations and campaign donors?

Vote on...

Todd