US gains 157K jobs; jobless rate rises to 7.9%
Photo
In this Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013 photo, job seekers fill a room at the job fair in Sunrise, Fla. U.S. employers added 157,000 jobs in January, and hiring was much stronger at the end of 2012 than previously thought, providing reassurance that the job market held steady even as economic growth stalled, according to Labor Department reports, Friday, Feb. 1, 2013.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. job market is proving sturdier than expected at a time when the economy is under pressure from Washington gridlock and the threat of government spending cuts.
Employers added 157,000 jobs in January, and hiring was much stronger at the end of last year than the government had previously estimated.
The Labor Department's estimated job gains for the final two months of 2012 — a period when the economy was being threatened by the fiscal cliff — rose from 161,000 to 247,000 for November and from 155,000 to 196,000 for December.
The mostly encouraging jobs report Friday included one negative sign: The unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent in December. The rate is calculated from a survey of households, and more people in that survey said they were unemployed.
The monthly job gains are derived from a separate survey of employers.
The hiring picture over the past two years also looked stronger after the department's annual revisions. The revisions showed that employers added an average of roughly 180,000 jobs a month in 2012 and 2011. That was up from previous estimates of about 150,000.
"The significantly stronger payroll gains tell us the economy has a lot more momentum than what we had thought," Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, said in a research note.
Stocks surged immediately after trading began at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, an hour after the jobs report was released. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 130 points and briefly touched 14,000 for the first time in more than five years, before falling back.
Other economic news Friday contributed to the stock rally. Manufacturing expanded at a much faster pace in January compared with December, a private survey found. Ford, Chrysler and General Motors all reported double-digit sales gains for January. And construction spending rose in December at a healthy pace.
The employment report revealed a notable shift in the job market: More hiring by construction companies. They added 28,000 jobs in January and nearly 100,000 over the past four months. Those job gains are consistent with a rebound in home construction and a broader recovery in housing.
Retailers added 33,000 positions. Health care gained 23,000 jobs. Manufacturers reported a small increase of 4,000. Restaurants and hotels added 17,000.
The solid hiring in retail, construction, restaurants and hotels suggested that such companies expect consumer spending to hold up in coming months.
"The strong and steady job gains from retail trade and construction look a lot more like a normal economic expansion," said Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West. "This is a sign that consumer spending is playing a far more important role in this expansion than it has so far."
The job market has remained steady despite pressure on the economy from the rift between President Barack Obama and Republicans over taxes and spending. Across-the-board spending cuts are set to kick in March 1. Financing to run the government will expire by March 27, raising the threat of a government shutdown. And the federal borrowing cap must be raised by May 18 or the government could default on its debt.
Friday's jobs report showed that average hourly wages rose 4 cents to $23.78 and have risen an encouraging 2.1 percent in the past 12 months. That's slightly above the inflation rate, which was 1.7 percent.
Last month's hiring should cushion the impact of the higher Social Security taxes that most consumers are paying this year. And it would help the economy resume growing after it shrank at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the October-December quarter.
Higher Social Security taxes are reducing take-home pay for most Americans. A person earning $50,000 a year will have about $1,000 less to spend in 2013. A household with two high-paid workers will have up to $4,500 less. Taxes rose after a 2 percent cut, in place for two years, expired Jan. 1.
Analysts expect the Social Security tax increase to shave about a half-point off economic growth in 2013, since consumers drive about 70 percent of economic activity.
The hit to consumers is coming at a precarious moment for the economy. It contracted in the fourth quarter for the first time in 3½ years. The decline was driven largely by a steep cut in defense spending and a drop in exports. Analysts generally think those factors will prove temporary and that the economy will resume growing.
Still, the contraction last quarter points to what are likely to be key challenges for the economy this year: the prospect of sharp government spending cuts and uncertainty over whether Congress will agree to raise the federal borrowing cap.
Most analysts predict that the economy will grow again in the January-March quarter, though likely at a lackluster annual rate of around 1 percent. They expect the economy to expand about 2 percent for the full year.
Two key drivers of growth improved last quarter: Consumer spending increased at a faster pace. And businesses invested more in equipment and software.
In addition, homebuilders are stepping up construction to meet rising demand. That could generate even more construction jobs.
And home prices are rising steadily. That tends to make Americans feel wealthier and more likely to spend. Housing could add as much as 1 percentage point to economic growth this year, some economists estimate.
Auto sales reached their highest level in five years in 2012 and are expected to keep growing this year. That's boosting production and hiring at U.S. automakers and their suppliers.
Feb 5, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
As in the childhood fable, if the show fits Cinderella...
Feb 4, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, I'm pleased to see that you didn't refer to me as a woman. That's progress!
Feb 4, 2013 at 3:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lol, typical poo, when confronted with your own hypocrisy you twist and spin (deflect) in any attempt to get past the subject you raised.
Feb 4, 2013 at 3:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Perhaps the tears of hilarity obscured your vision. Nothing regarding the content of my message or that using your own measurement, Obama has the best record by far over Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II when you do not ignore all data in the table you cited.
Feb 3, 2013 at 11:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hilarious! The socialist left fringe stated "Instead of the name calling..."
When she has also stated the following;
-angry people
-truthers
-The persons I saw falling flat on their faces, mouths agape, were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on election night, due, in large part, to their incompetence.
Just more of the same from the party of do as I say not as I do.
Feb 3, 2013 at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let us see how conservatives react to this statement. We should get rid of Medicare Advantage to cut spending because it costs 14-17 percent more than regular Medicare.
They excoriate Obama for not cutting entitlements, yet run ads blasting him for supposed Medicare cuts. They fight defense cuts and say they cost jobs, then argue government spending doesn`t create jobs. They don`t come forward with specific cuts for spending because they know what they want to cut will not be popular. They support farm subsidies because those states vote republican.
(Thanks to Michael Grunwald, Time Magazine, for the talking points) The Med Advantage question is all mine.
Feb 3, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
pharm and RetiredAirForce, has it occurred to both of you that both sets of numbers you are using are correct and they represent different reporting criteria? If you have ever actually read through a voluminous MTS from the Treasury you would know they include dozens and dozens of various tables that could be used as a basis of an article.
The articles cited by pharm do not specifically mention the table by the authors of the article. I have not examined it closely but, as an example, they could have excluded off-budget revenues and outlays.
Instead of the name calling, RetiredAirForce, I'd think you would be more interested in getting to the bottom of the differences in the numbers you cited and the numbers cited by the articles (independent) that pharm cited.
As for my analysis of MTS data, I used the specific table that RetiredAirForce had cited as to prevent his usual responses that you're now seeing, pharm.
Feb 3, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Government spending slumped 6.6% after a 3.9% rise in the third quarter, mainly because of a 22.2% decline in volatile defense outlays. Defense spending had surged 12.9% in the prior quarter"
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-01-......
Welcome to the "left fringe" Wall Street Journal!
Spending fell over a $103 billion in 2012, now show me a country where austerity is working.
Feb 3, 2013 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/overview.ht...
Overview: Summarizes the financial activities of the federal government and off-budget federal entities in accordance with the Budget of the U.S. Government.
Presents a summary of: Receipts and outlays
Surplus or deficit Means of financing on a modified cash basis Data provided by federal entities, disbursing officers, and Federal Reserve Banks.
Feb 3, 2013 at 7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Try not to let the facts get in the way of your perceived reality.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf
Federal outlays by quarter:
1st: 966,188
2nd: 884,957
3rd: 809,969
4th: 907,912
Feb 3, 2013 at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pharm it is clear defense spending dropped, that should make all the lefties happy. The fact remains 4th qtr federal govt spending increased over the last last qtr. The excuse made by the left fringe, reduced spending (lie), is the reason for for the GDP reduction is just another attempt to cover the current failed economic policies by this admin.
Feb 3, 2013 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
FALLS CHURCH, Va. – " Shares of General Dynamics fell more than 4 percent in morning trading after the company reported a huge fourth-quarter loss due to charges related to slowing defense spending."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/23/gen...
Baaa!
Feb 3, 2013 at 2:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
pharm you make a good sheep.
Feb 2, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
"In the Pentagon, you have to use it or lose it by the end of the fiscal year in September,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense now at the Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. “You see this a lot. ‘We’ve got to fly a lot this month for training, otherwise Congress will take back the money they gave us.’”
Yet the ups and downs were especially sharp in 2012 — soaring 13 percent in the third quarter and dropping 22.2 percent in the fourth quarter. Part of that is due to the fact that defense spending is shrinking overall, thanks to budget pressures and the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another possibility, as Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings told me, is that the Pentagon has been preparing for the sequester budget cuts that had originally been scheduled for January. (They’ve since been pushed back until March.) The Defense Department was facing the prospect of losing money that had already been budgeted over multiple years but hadn’t been spent. That led to a big spending spree in the third quarter, which was followed, inevitably, by a drought in outlays in the October through December."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
Feb 2, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Government spending slumped 6.6% after a 3.9% rise in the third quarter, mainly because of a 22.2% decline in volatile defense outlays. Defense spending had surged 12.9% in the prior quarter"
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-01-...
Feb 2, 2013 at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce said, "The leftest fringe claim 4th qtr federal govt spending went down when the treasury department clearly shows it indeed increased."
Calm down, this leftist didn't say, "4th qtr federal govt spending went down when the treasury department clearly shows it indeed increased." My data clearly showed that 2012 Q4 spending was HIGHER than the previous two quarters:
"2009, LOWER
2010, LOWER
2011, LOWER
2012, HIGHER"
See where it says "2012, HIGHER?" Using your measure of 4th quarter spending exceeding the two previous quarters, that means that the 4th quarter spending in 2012 was HIGHER than the previous two quarters.
I hope you appreciate that Obama has the best record using your own measurement, with 3 of 4 years having a LOWER 4th quarter spending than the previous two quarters (2009, 2010 and 2011). Reagan had 8 of 8 HIGHER years for instance. Bush I had 3 of 4 HIGHER, Clinton had 7 of 8 HIGHER and Bush II had 7 of 8 HIGHER. Under President Obama only 1 of his 4 years has seen higher 4th quarter spending than in the previous 2 quarters of that year (2012). Just 1 in 4.
Thank you for providing us with the new RetiredAirForce Spending Metric. I like it!
Feb 2, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Yeah take away people's jobs, make them poor and boast about how great the economy is."
Yep, keep drinking the koolaid.
Feb 2, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
LMAO.."spinmisstress"...This coming from the "Spinmaster"
Feb 2, 2013 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
I see the local spinmisstress is out trying to deflect from the topic once AGAIN. The leftest fringe claim 4th qtr federal govt spending went down when the treasury department clearly shows it indeed increased. Since the sycophants cant stand looking at this admins record and seeing failure they will try anything, including lies, to blame the failed results on to something other than their "team".
Feb 2, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce said, "Interestingly how people ignore all federal govt spending when they "try" to justify their version of reality in explaining away data results they don't like."
Yes, isn't it! You ignored all previous years in the data table you cited choosing to use the ONE year of Obama's FOUR years in office where 4th quarter spending exceeded the previous two quarters. If you had taken your own admonishment to heart, and had not ignored the data you didn't like, you would have seen that 4th quarter spending was greater than the previous two quarters spending in the vast majority of years. Except for the Obama presidency. Yes that's right, RetiredAirForce. Using your measure of 4th quarter spending exceeding the previous two quarters, Obama has the best record by far of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama with just one of his four years being higher.
1981, HIGHER
1982, HIGHER
1983, HIGHER
1984, HIGHER
1985, HIGHER
1986, HIGHER
1987, HIGHER
1988, HIGHER
Reagan presidency: higher 8 of 8 years
1989, HIGHER
1990, HIGHER
1991, LOWER
1992, HIGHER
Bush I presidency: higher 3 of 4 years
1993, HIGHER
1994, HIGHER
1995, LOWER
1996, HIGHER
1997, HIGHER
1998, HIGHER
1999, HIGHER
2000, HIGHER
Clinton presidency: higher 7 of 8 years
2001, HIGHER
2002, HIGHER
2003, HIGHER
2004, HIGHER
2005, HIGHER
2006, LOWER
2007, HIGHER
2008, HIGHER
Bush II presidency: higher 7 of 8 years
2009, LOWER
2010, LOWER
2011, LOWER
2012, HIGHER
Obama presidency: higher 1 of 4 years
Feb 2, 2013 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Says the person that claimed spending went down...
Feb 2, 2013 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Humm so rightie tighties, how high do you think the unemployment rate would be if Romney would have won and cut cut cut more government jobs? Yeah take away people's jobs, make them poor and boast about how great the economy is. Again you people have no brains to figure out what recession is and how it snowballs. pure ignorance.
Feb 2, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you were to count everyone who was in the workforce in January 2009 to today, the real unemployment number is 22.5%
That does not count the number of people now underemployed.
Obama's liberal policies fail. They will continue to fail because "liberal media bias" does not hold his feet to any fires on behalf of the American people resulting in a low information re-elected Government.
Feb 2, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interestingly how people ignore all federal govt spending when they "try" to justify their version of reality in explaining away data results they don't like.
The US Treasury's latest culminating receipts/outlays report shows 4th quarter spending was HIGHER than the 2 previous quarters in 2012.
Try not to let the facts get in the way of your perceived reality.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf
Federal outlays by quarter:
1st: 966,188
2nd: 884,957
3rd: 809,969
4th: 907,912
Feb 2, 2013 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Because of legislated budget cuts enacted over the past two years, spending in a vital but poorly understood category of the federal budget is now on track to decline by the year 2017 to its lowest level on record. This category, known as “non-defense discretionary” spending, is home to an array of programs, benefits, investments, and public protections—the bulk of which enjoy enormous popular support and provide critical services to the nation.
What is in this category of spending with the inelegant and painfully nondescript title that is now projected to dwindle to unprecedented levels? It includes nearly all of the federal government’s investments in primary and secondary education, in transportation infrastructure, and in scientific, technological, and health care research and development. It also includes nearly all of the federal government’s law enforcement resources, as well as essentially all federal efforts to keep our air, water, food, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, workplaces, highways, airports, coasts, and borders safe. It includes veterans’ health care services and some nutritional, housing, and child care assistance to low-income families. It even includes the funding for such national treasures as the Smithsonian Institution, our national parks system, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA.
In the past 50 years, federal funding for this broad category of programs and services has never fallen below 3.2 percent of our nation’s gross domestic product—the broadest measure of economic activity. Now, however, because of the spending cuts that have been signed into law since the fall of 2010, within 10 years, nondefense discretionary funding will be about 14 percent lower than its lowest point in the past 50 years—even before taking into account the effects of the large automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin in March 2013.
Since the start of fiscal year 2010, the official Congressional Budget Office projection of nondefense discretionary spending has fallen by more than $730 billion, a cut of more than 10 percent. Those cuts are mainly the result of legislation passed in the intervening months that dramatically curtailed federal spending in this category. Furthermore, if the additional automatic cuts known as the “sequester” remain in place the overall reduction will swell to well over $1 trillion, a 15 percent cut in total"
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/b...
Feb 2, 2013 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
The jobs lost are Government jobs, so that is a decrease in spending due to no longer paying their wages. An insect with a brain the size of a pin could figure that out.
Feb 2, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
retail/restaurants reduce workers hours from 40 to 30 so not to pay health care or be fined, then hire more people to cover those hours yup, that creates job growth . . . .
Feb 2, 2013 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Federal government spending
Fourth-quarter federal government spending decreased at a 15.0 percent annual rate,
reflecting a large decrease in national defense spending. The decrease in national
defense spending is based on the Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) for October,
November, and December from the Department of the Treasury, which shows a large
decrease in fourth-quarter outlays for Department of Defense-military programs other
than for military personnel. (The MTS shows a fourth-quarter increase in outlays for
military personnel, but that increase reflects special factors such as once-a-year lump
sum payments that BEA distributes across the quarters of the year, and an extra pay
day that BEA adjusts for in preparing accrual-based estimates.)"
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national...
Feb 2, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
Feb 2, 2013 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
In the fourth quarter of 2012, Washington spent $908 billion, which was $30 billion more than it spent in the last quarter of 2011 and nearly $100 billion more than it spent in the third quarter of 2012. But why let facts get in the way?
Feb 2, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Guess the low taxes on the wealthy "job creators" are helping. NOT!
Feb 2, 2013 at 4:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why did the price of a gallon of gas go from 319 to 345 in less than a week.This is what hurts the working man even more than raising my taxes. Oh wait they were not a raise as some claim. That was only doing away with the temporary payment to SS. However that temporary still does not explain 200 less a paycheck. The temporary was 8 a paycheck where did the other 192 go or is going
Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The unemployment went up because the government is cutting spending"
Wow! You better get your information from another source if you think this "claim" is true.
Feb 1, 2013 at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
I reserve comment until we get the official Republican response from wislady or donnaw. They must be coming up with a doozy if it is taking them this long.
Feb 1, 2013 at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
But there are no holes in Scott Walkers "numbers" go back to the tribe, you people are hilariously predictable
Feb 1, 2013 at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
You righties got your undies twisted up so tight it's hilarious!
The unemployment went up because the government is cutting spending, IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT? Too much government spending, gotta cut spending, gotta live with in a budget, debt to high, blah blah blah. Well you got what you asked for. Government spending was cut, programs and jobs were lost.
The private sector GAINED jobs, government cut spending and you all go off. Wow never happy are you!
Feb 1, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
I thought that the T Birds didn't believe
in any of these statistics.
Feb 1, 2013 at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodsman: It is swiss cheese. got to expect some holes in it.
Feb 1, 2013 at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
We lost more than we gained - or didn't the AP bother to notice.
Feb 1, 2013 at 6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
157K new jobs,but i didn't see in here about losing over 160K jobs,that went on unemployment benefits!!
They only tell half the story to make the big cheese look good,but what else would we expect from his cronies..
Feb 1, 2013 at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Check ignition and may God's love be with you...
Feb 1, 2013 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Liberal media bias and why this is all hog wash in 3...2...1....
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.