February jobs report – 175,000 jobs added, 6.7% unemployment

posted at 9:21 am on March 7, 2014 by Steve Eggleston

The February jobs report was surprisingly strong, at least on the toplines, with 175,000 total jobs and 162,000 private-sector jobs added on a seasonally-adjusted basis, while unemployment ticked up by 0.1 percentage points to 6.7% as more people entered/re-entered the workforce than entered the larger civilian population. The revisions to the December and January jobs numbers were also positive, to the tune of a net 25,000 additional jobs added.

The workforce grew by 264,000 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, keeping the Labor Force Participation Rate at 63.0%, though a larger 63.0% than last month due to rounding. The number of employed grew by only 42,000, leaving the employment-population ratio at 58.8%, though a lower 58.8% than last month due to rounding.

Reuters couldn’t resist blaming the weather for a shrinkage of average hours worked to 33.3 hours for non-supervisory and production employees, and 34.2 hours for all employees:

U.S. job growth rose more than expected in February, which could ease fears of an abrupt slowdown in economic growth and keep the Federal Reserve on track in reducing its monetary stimulus.

Employers added 175,000 jobs to their payrolls last month after creating 129,000 new positions in December, the Labor Department said on Friday. The unemployment rate, however, rose to 6.7 percent from a five-year low of 6.6 percent.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to rise 149,000 and the unemployment rate to hold steady at 6.6 percent.

Unseasonably cold and snowy winter weather has disrupted economic activity. Snow and ice covered densely populated areas during the week employers were surveyed for February payrolls.

The length of the average work week in February fell to its lowest level since January 2011.

The household survey contradicts the establishment survey on the issue of part-timers. The number of part-time workers, those who work fewer than 35 hours per week, on a non-adjusted basis, dropped by 227,000 over the last year to 27,810,000, while the number of full-time workers increased by 2,132,000 over the last year to 116,323,000. Meanwhile, the number of multiple part-time job-holders decreased by 70,000 over the last year to 1,973,000.

Despite the better-than-expected topline numbers, it is not rosy compared to history. On a non-adjusted basis, the 753,000 total jobs and 300,000 private-sector jobs added are the weakest February performances since 2010, and is below the 2000-2013 average.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The problem is 175,000 is as good as it gets with this regime. We all know the drill. We’ll have 2 or 3 months with these kinds of numbers. The Democrat/media complex will claim the economy is on the rebound. Then the rug will be pulled out from under them when a sub-100k jobs report comes along and everyone will sit around acting surprised.

Doughboy on March 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I’m in an area of roughly 4% unemployment and yet last week we had people stopping in putting in apps like crazy. Not sure why, but it was abnormal.

Free Indeed on March 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Amazing how it drops by whole numbers when such small numbers of jobs appear.

6.7% my azz.

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Two things I missed, but Tom Blumer didn’t:

- The civilian labor force grew by 264,000, and is only 213,000 larger than it was a year ago.
- The temp agency job adds continue to be disportionate. The industry has added 228K seasonally adjusted jobs in the the past year (243K not seasonally adjusted). Despite the fact that it’s only about 2 percent of the total workforce, it continues to comprise about 10 percent of all job additions.

Strangely, the non-adjusted labor force add was 300,000. As Tom noted, the seasonal adjustments seem to be a bit “off”.

On an unseasoned basis, the labor-force participation rate is the worst February since 1978, and the employment-population ratio is, while better than the prior 4 Februarys, otherwise worse than every February since 1984.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Wow….so we are sinking slower now, right?

Oil Can on March 7, 2014 at 9:33 AM

‘Toons of the Day: The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Welcome back, Sophie. That’s definitely historically-apt.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Unemployment vs. Participation Rate

5 years of no growth.

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM

“Weather” is the new code word for ObamaCare. Check.

MTF on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Great compilation. You’ve been missed.

poli-nana on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM

What do you think this is, Zerohedge?

platypus on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Amazing how it drops by whole numbers when such small numbers of jobs appear.

6.7% my azz.

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

And listening to the FOX news snippet at the top of the hour, and the correspondent answering Dave Anthony is going on about 6.7% being good. Not one bit of incredulity from the FOX correspondent.

Lanceman on March 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Great report!!!.. – LSM

Oh the unemployment when down to 6.7% – LSM

Electrongod on March 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Thanks, Egg! It’s good to be back!

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Oh, goody. Now, we’re partyin’ like its 1978!

vnvet on March 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Amazing how it drops by whole numbers when such small numbers of jobs appear.

6.7% my azz.

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Thank the miracles of rounding. Taken out to the nearest hundredth of a percent, the U-3 went from 6.58% to 6.72%, the LFPR went up from 62.96% to 63.02%, and the employment-population ratio went from 58.82% to 58.79%.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

These numbers are not accurate until we get the revised lowering that will unexpectedly happen.

Conservative4Ever on March 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Wow….so we are sinking slower now, right?

Oil Can on March 7, 2014 at 9:33 AM

At best, we’re treading water. They can spin it as a good number since it was a short month and bitterly cold, but 175,000 is still not a great figure. If we had that every month, then maybe you argue the economy is growing slightly. But this kind of report seems to be as good as it gets under Obama.

Doughboy on March 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

RWM — welcome back — awesome site — that is all …

nchammer on March 7, 2014 at 9:40 AM

What do you think this is, Zerohedge?

platypus on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM

I’m not nearly that good. If I were, I would have predicted a large “beat” on the toplines for the benefit of the markets.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Thank the miracles of rounding. Taken out to the nearest hundredth of a percent, the U-3 went from 6.58% to 6.72%, the LFPR went up from 62.96% to 63.02%, and the employment-population ratio went from 58.82% to 58.79%.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Don’t get all mathy with me, sucka, I’m not good with numbers.

But as long as you’re here, what’s the number of people who aren’t even being counted any longer because the criteria of what’s considered “unemployed” has been tightened until it squeaks?

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

TYVVM, nchammer!

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM

…BULLSHIT!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM

But as long as you’re here, what’s the number of people who aren’t even being counted any longer because the criteria of what’s considered “unemployed” has been tightened until it squeaks?

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

0
doesn’t exist.

sincerely;
Dear Leader

dmacleo on March 7, 2014 at 9:45 AM

…BULLSHIT!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I take it this ain’t your first rodeo.

Lanceman on March 7, 2014 at 9:46 AM

I’m not going to comment on whether this is good or bad until I hear a SCOTUS ruling.

rogerb on March 7, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Pic of the Day: Socialist Venezuela, The Only Country Where Grocery Stores Don’t Even Have Creamed Eel

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Nor Corn Nog or wadded beef. Plenty of cathurricane chow, though.
Coming to an America near you.

Lanceman on March 7, 2014 at 9:50 AM

But as long as you’re here, what’s the number of people who aren’t even being counted any longer because the criteria of what’s considered “unemployed” has been tightened until it squeaks?

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

6,060,000 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, 6,091,000 on an unadjusted basis (including 3,788,000 who aren’t even counted as “marginally-attached” because they last looked for work prior to mid-February 2013).

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Too many numbers…

Let’s get some zing with the headline of the (yester)day:

Army sex assault prosecutor probed for sex abuse.

Ya can’t make this stuff up.

climbnjump on March 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM

‘Toons of the Day: The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

It’s great to have you back

gwelf on March 7, 2014 at 9:57 AM

The problem is 175,000 is as good as it gets with this regime. We all know the drill. We’ll have 2 or 3 months with these kinds of numbers. The Democrat/media complex will claim the economy is on the rebound. Then the rug will be pulled out from under them when a sub-100k jobs report comes along and everyone will sit around acting surprised.

Doughboy on March 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Ring-a-ding-ding! We are defining success downward.

I linked to Tom Blumer’s piece on the report earlier in the comments, but allow me to do so again for the graphic of monthly changes in jobs.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Do you know how many of these jobs are “bread-winner” positions as opposed to temp/part time gigs?

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 9:59 AM

‘Toons of the Day: The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Grrr stupid fingers. Welcome back RWM, I was wondering what happened to you.

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Doughboy on March 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Ring-a-ding-ding! We are defining success downward.

I linked to Tom Blumer’s piece on the report earlier in the comments, but allow me to do so again for the graphic of monthly changes in jobs.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:58 AM

I’m surprised there aren’t more trolls trying to do some eye thumbing here since it’s touted as good numbers, Steve. I think when informed Conservative analysts like you are commenting though, it scares them away.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Do you know how many of these jobs are “bread-winner” positions as opposed to temp/part time gigs?

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Temp/part time? Don’t we call those “job lock” positions these days?

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I was just being sarcastic. My comment didn’t deserve a serious response.

Thanks for your efforts at educating the rabble.

platypus on March 7, 2014 at 10:08 AM

6,060,000 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, 6,091,000 on an unadjusted basis (including 3,788,000 who aren’t even counted as “marginally-attached” because they last looked for work prior to mid-February 2013).

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM

So only six million, no wonder the homophobes around here are all bent out of shape, they think six million is a lot.

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Do you know how many of these jobs are “bread-winner” positions as opposed to temp/part time gigs?

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 9:59 AM

A whole lot. In fact, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, temporary jobs just set a record of being 2.42% of all private-sector jobs going back to 1990, breaking the previous record of 2.41% set in April 2000. In January 2009, temporary jobs made up 1.76% of all private-sector jobs.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM

I’m in an area of roughly 4% unemployment and yet last week we had people stopping in putting in apps like crazy. Not sure why, but it was abnormal.

Free Indeed on March 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Could the end of long-term unemployment benefits have anything to do with it?

monalisa on March 7, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Help me out here.

Not counted in U-3 (6,000,000 folks)

Total number need to be hired to reduce U-3 to 5% (4,000,000 folks)….I consider 5% to be full employment.

Number of new jobs needed monthly to keep up with newbies entering job market $150,000 monthly.

I am assuming 60 months go get us back to normal…starting April, 1 2014.

6,000,000/60= 100,000 monthly jobs.
4,000,000/60=67,000 monthly jobs
Stagnant growth=150,000 monthly jobs

100,000+67,000+150,000=317,000 per month for 60 months gets us back to even.

Am I in the ball-park? Because if we were to recover in 30 months (2 ½ years) the monthly number would double to 634,000!

Again school me as I want to talk about this on the same level and maybe my numbers are off a bit.

For the time being forget the past 5 years as that subject has been beat to death and I agree with you guys on a lot of the politics.

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Steve, when you say temporary jobs, do you mean seasonal or contract, or do they fall into the same category? So many jobs I see are being hired through contracting agencies like Manpower, and the like. It seems to be the new normal.

I worked contract jobs for 6 years, and it was horrible knowing that your employment ended every year. I was just lucky enough to stitch them together with no gaps.

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM

You guys are quick to discount any good news that comes out of this administration…and of course trumpet any bad news!

You do realize he is doing the best he can with what he has inherited? We are finally gaining some traction in this Bush economy and all you can do is complain

It’s almost as if you want Obama to fail

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Steve, when you say temporary jobs, do you mean seasonal or contract, or do they fall into the same category? So many jobs I see are being hired through contracting agencies like Manpower, and the like. It seems to be the new normal.

I worked contract jobs for 6 years, and it was horrible knowing that your employment ended every year. I was just lucky enough to stitch them together with no gaps.

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM

You’d have to ask the BLS what their definition of “temporary services” is. I think (but don’t quote me) Manpower falls into that category.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM

‘Toons of the Day: The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

Resist We Much on March 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

1) It is great to have you back!

2) That aggregation of political cartoons is awesome!

ITguy on March 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:17 AM

It’s a bit more complex than that (there’s participation rates to consider), but you’re in the ballpark.

Stick around and we’ll make a Classic out of you yet.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 10:34 AM

So only six million, no wonder the homophobes around here are all bent out of shape, they think six million is a lot.

Bishop on March 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Unless you’re Iosif Stalin, it is.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The only number that matters at all, is the one they’re NOT reporting. 92+Million people NOT working.

We all live in the stagnant malaise of Obamaville, exactly what America wanted. America gets what American voters deserve.

Meople on March 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM

… and last month’s number started close to this one, but was revised down 50k this week.

Anyone believe *this* number?

Midas on March 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Earnings growth is weak too.

Wigglesworth on March 7, 2014 at 10:38 AM

If we had the same 63.4% level of Employment that we had in December 2006 (when Republicans last controlled the House, Senate, & Presidency, and the last of 144 consecutive months of Republican majority control), then over 11.3 Million more people would be employed than are actually employed right now.

11.3 Million people.

ITguy on March 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Well, I am technically unemployed.

When Bush was President, I couldn’t walk down the street without someone trying to give me a job.

Lanceman on March 7, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Under President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress,
employment never went below 62.0%
and ended above average at 63.4%.

Then Pelosi, Reid, and then-Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. took majority control of the House and Senate on 1/3/2007, and they drove the economy into the ditch and left it sitting there.

Under Obama and Democrat majorities, we’ve now gone 4.5 years with employment below 59%.

ITguy on March 7, 2014 at 10:42 AM

You guys are quick to discount any good news that comes out of this administration…and of course trumpet any bad news!

You do realize he is doing the best he can with what he has inherited? We are finally gaining some traction in this Bush economy and all you can do is complain

It’s almost as if you want Obama to fail

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I get your frustration, but this is politics by the way. The sitting President gets the glory with things are good and the goat when things are bad. Just the way it is. No, I don’t think folks here want the economy to fail so they can blame President Obama. My take is that they blame President Obama for the less than stellar recovery since the Great Recession ended June 2009.

Now, if you can show me that the past recession ending in June 2009, which was both a demand side and a credit crisis at once……has changed how we measure recoveries I will listen. But from my understanding, President Obama’s recovery is lagging way behind all the other recoveries; except for the Great Depression. Not in the mood to talk about FDR’s affect on the recovery.

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Thanks for taking the time to point me in the right direction concerning participation rates. My feeble mind did not take that into account. The light blub is brighter because of your help and thanks.

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

One of the biggest lies of the MSM is:
Blaming 1 man in the minority, George W. Bush,
for what the Democrat majority (including then-Senator Obama) did to the economy from 1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009.

ITguy on March 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM

The State-Run media hasn’t ALLOWED Obama to be the goat for the craptastic ObamaEconomy. For 5 years now, they’ve blamed the stagnant economy on BUSH, and every other crazy factor they can dream up. ANYTHING BUT Obama.

So yes, with REAL Press, Obama would be getting the blame. With this, “thrill up the leg” fanboi “press” we have had since before he first started occupying the White House, not in the least.

The other fact is, we either didn’t REALLY have an end to the recession in ’09, or we’re IN a double dip recession now, OR my personal feeling is that the recession didn’t end in ’09 AND we are now in the ObamaDepression.

And if they were reporting unemployment the way they SHOULD be reporting it, the way they always HAVE reported it, where it contains both underemployed and the number that have dropped off the unemployment ranks, the State-Run media would have no choice but to report this as an actual depression.

Meople on March 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

funny how the D congress is never mentioned in these rants huh?
just…

plain….

funny…

dmacleo on March 7, 2014 at 11:04 AM

this is politics by the way. The sitting President gets the glory with things are good and the goat when things are bad. Just the way it is.

HonestLib on March 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM

I give the majority of the credit and/or blame to the party which held a majority (2+) of the three entities which have to work together to pass any bill (House, Senate, Presidency).

ANY bill which affects the economy (whether that bill is about tax rates, appropriations, minimum wage, Obamacare, etc.) has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President (unless a Presidential veto is overridden by 2/3 votes of both houses of Congress).

In the last 20 years, there have been only two shifts in the overall balance of power:

1/3/1995
1/3/2007

Give Republicans the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007.

And give Democrats the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/2007 – present.

There was no “Great Recession” when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats (including then-Senator Obama) on 1/3/2007.

Here is what Obama and his peers “inherited” on 1/3/2007:

1)

A FY 2007 deficit of less than $161 Billion, representing 1.2% of GDP (and significantly below the 1947-2007 average deficit of 1.6% of GDP)

2)

Total National Debt under $8.7 Trillion.
In 86 months of Democrat majorities, the National Debt has gone now up 101%… more than doubled!

3)

Unemployment 4.4%, with a Labor Force Participation Rate of 66.4%.

4)

“Discouraged Workers” (not counted in the unemployment number): 274,000. Now that number is 755,000.

5)

Employment-population ratio (% employment for civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and over): 63.4%. Now it’s been below 59% for 4.5 years!

ITguy on March 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM

You guys are quick to discount any good news that comes out of this administration…and of course trumpet any bad news!

You do realize he is doing the best he can with what he has inherited? We are finally gaining some traction in this Bush economy and all you can do is complain

It’s almost as if you want Obama to fail

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Rick Perry also inherited a Bush economy so there’s that.

monalisa on March 7, 2014 at 11:07 AM

We all know that the 175,000 number will be reduced drastically in the dead of night and the new figure will get no MSM coverage.

But look on the bright side //begin liberal spin// The uptick in unemployment is good news because it means that people who were previously discouraged are now back in the market looking for work. //end liberal spin//

Kritikal on March 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Despite the likely efforts to spin this jobs report as good news (coming in above the predictions), the underlying and raw data demonstrate once again that we are not changing our trajectory of being in the weakest recovery since the Second World War.

Furthermore, what growth we’ve seen since the recession officially ended in June 2009, is despite the efforts of the Obama Administration. Those efforts, based around the concepts of ‘social justice’, ensuring ‘fairness’, and attempting to centrally manage the economy (picking winners / losers based on political considerations), are dampening the economy’s natural efforts to right itself.

Let’s also not forget the effects of the multiple QE efforts by the Fed, which have inflated the balance sheet of the Fed by over $3T. One of the side effects of this is that this has buoyed stock prices – the increase of which helps mask just how stagnant this anemic recovery has been despite significantly higher government spending and QE.

Athos on March 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM

If you don’t take into account the 92 MILLION Americans not even in the labor force anymore and the details in the report filed last Friday then yeah 6.7% is great:

“The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977. The rate for African American men fell 0.7 percentage points to 65.6 percent, the lowest on record. The decline in labor force participation was associated with a drop in the overall African American unemployment rate of 0.5 percentage points to 11.9, and a drop of 0.6 percentage points to 11.6 percent for African American men.”

easyt65 on March 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Wow:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/03/February%20Jobs%20by%20Industry.jpg

On the plus side, many of the new jobs reported went to folks over 55.

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM

You guys are quick to discount any good news that comes out of this administration…and of course trumpet any bad news!

You do realize he is doing the best he can with what he has inherited? We are finally gaining some traction in this Bush economy and all you can do is complain

It’s almost as if you want Obama to fail

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

And your so quick to trumpet any scrap of news that can be spun into some kind of competency. You do realize he has been President for 5 years? You do realize that 95 million people have left the workforce? In the 5 years Obama has been President, more people have left the workforce and receiving some form of government handout than when Barry took office…..This is not a GWB economy! Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true. Your excuses for Barry would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

Indianatime on March 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Wow:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/03/February%20Jobs%20by%20Industry.jpg

On the plus side, many of the new jobs reported went to folks over 55.

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM

As has been the case since Obama took office. The database was down for updating when I was creating the post, but now that it’s back up, let’s take a quick look at the seasonally-adjusted employment-population ratio of the major age groups:

16-19 – 25.8%, down from 26.4% in January and, other than the period between June 2010 and August 2012 (with a couple of months earlier in 2012 higher), the lowest it has been since records began in 1948.

20-24 – 62.0%, down from 62.3% in January and, other than the period between August 2010 and August 2012, the lowest it has been since November 1965.

25-54 – 76.5%, unchanged from January and, other than the period between March 2009 and January 2014, the lowest it has been since January 1985.

55+ – 38.2%, up from 38.0% in January, a bit off the Obama-era high of 38.4% in August 2013, and higher than every month between April 1970 and October 2012.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Minor correction on the previous comment:

20-24 – 62.0%, down from 62.3% in January and, other than the period between August 2010 and August 2012 2013, the lowest it has been since November 1965.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

If you don’t take into account the 92 MILLION Americans not even in the labor force anymore and the details in the report filed last Friday then yeah 6.7% is great:

“The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977. The rate for African American men fell 0.7 percentage points to 65.6 percent, the lowest on record. The decline in labor force participation was associated with a drop in the overall African American unemployment rate of 0.5 percentage points to 11.9, and a drop of 0.6 percentage points to 11.6 percent for African American men.”

easyt65 on March 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Whoa, Nellie. For those of you who didn’t know, that does NOT include those in jail or prison.

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Steve Eggleston on March 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Far too many temp and “hospitality” jobs. Shame we can’t get the LSM to accurately report on this stuff. Or ZeroCare™

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 12:31 PM

It’s almost as if you want Obama to fail

Ditkaca on March 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Want him to fail? The man can’t even spell. Yeah, he’s brilliant all right.

I really don’t have much R-S-P-E-C-T for him.

climbnjump on March 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Unseasonably cold and snowy winter weather has disrupted economic activity. Snow and ice covered densely populated areas during the week employers were surveyed for February payrolls.

Bears repeating:

So is the weather racist for preventing people from working? Or hopeychange-awesome because it kept people out of “joblock?”

Effay5 on March 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Effay5 on March 7, 2014 at 1:25 PM

The economic numbers, in general, seem to be erratic. We had the downgrade in last quarter’s GDP. Now we have an other than awful jobs number. It’s hard to get much of a read on the economy, aside from saying that it appears to be continuing its long, but painfully slow growth. Growth in which far too few Americans are able to participate in.

MJBrutus on March 7, 2014 at 1:25 PM

MJBrutus on March 7, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Erratic? They are as real as CRU climate data. Which, as we all learned, are fake.

Consider the term “Political Statistics” within the context of the brazen fabrications of the Obama administration. Heck for a while we had an open communist in charge of the BLS.

Erratic?

Did I mention FAKE?

dogsoldier on March 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Labor department blamed the numbers on the weather.

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 6:01 PM

February jobs report – 175,000 jobs added, 6.7% unemployment

“Thank you, President Obama!”

Labor department blamed the numbers on the weather.

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 6:01 PM

In the Socialist State, the blame always lies elsewhere. Damn Goldstein subversives!

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 8, 2014 at 11:01 AM

The sign in the photo is quite misleading. I read it as a plea from the National Organization of Women (NOW) to hire more women. What – they discriminate against men from becoming members.

How liberal of them.

MSGTAS on March 8, 2014 at 11:57 AM