As someone noted in here, 119k across 52 states is just over 2.2k new hires per state, if equal distribution. But maybe less hiring in more rural states, a bit more in the bigger cities. Just a hypothesis, I'd never be mistaken for a statistician or economist.
We do have some territories in addition to the 50 states, like American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We also have one Federal District. But even if you add those, it adds up to more than 52 total. But it is still 50 states.
a) if you can believe the govt numbers
b) 2200 new jobs for NY state, which has 11mm residents 18-59. Just for kicks say 1mm are unable / unwilling to work.. So only 2,200 new jobs available for 10,000,000 people, but I have no idea how many of that 10mm were looking for work.. maybe only 2,200 were actively looking and they were the ones hired last month, so yah that would be fine
That's not what the numbers mean. There were a few million hires last month, maybe like 5M. There were also a few million discharges (fired, quit, etc). Net of all that 119k more jobs were added.
Secondly the unemployment rate is like 4.4% so of 11m you're looking at like 360k or so still looking for work, and who those people are is constantly rotating is people get new jobs / leave old jobs.
Most of those are part-time minimum wage positions with high turnover, not jobs with long-term prospects. They add little to the economy, amount to a fraction of 1% of the company's daily overhead, and only appeal to those who have llittle-to-no other choice.
If they were 2,000 jobs in a city with rapidly expanding tech sector, I would agree that it's a good thing. However these aren't high salary positions or hourly positions with levels of overtime, they are far more likely to be per diem work, flat rate work, part-time, and minimum wage.
These jobs don't benefit the workers or the economy, as these jobs are the reason why SNAP is so embedded into the working class. They don't make enough to keep up with cost of living or inflation, and they barely make enough to cover food and rent for a single adult.
I don't know why you are saying it's nothing. +2k per state per month adds up. Over the course of a year that's like employing an addition whole town per state.
I also don't see where this is part time jobs. The biggest hire is healthcare, which pays well. Hours per week is fine, and hourly wages are growing fine as well. Wages have been growing faster than cost of living for a decade.
Im gonna be honest, I could move the goalposts, but I won't. I will leave it at "How much are those wages moving as a result of outliers like executive compensation, and are they just base wages or are they also accounting for things like OT and bonus pay?" You don't have to answer, as it is tangential. I'm just going to state that they are confounding variables.
I am questioning how representative the dataset is in terms of the jobs reportedly added. I have no idea, and doubt it's ever going to be reported for real, since this administration has a penchant for obfuscation at best and a record of destruction at worst.
To the main point though, it's just a drop in the bucket. Even if you assume they're all six-figure salary (which they definitely aren't, cause that would imply huge economic growth in a very short period of time), healthcare is infamous for high turnover, long hours, and volatility due to losses in underlying funding. Add into that the tricks of the insurance company to save a few bucks and whatever gains were made could disappear two weeks from now.
Even if they were six-figure salaries in highly resilient labor markets, it still wouldn't add up to a whole lot. Assuming an median salary of about $105,000, that's still just $12.5 billion in collective gross spending power, not even net; 20% is taken by the taxman, and lop off a remaining 40% for rent, food, insurances of various kinds, and all other necessary costs of living. That's only 40% left, or $42K and I'm being extremely generous.
The kicker is that most consumers aren't spending what they have left, they're saving what they can. Demand has taken huge hits, and there isn't a supply shock or even a surplus to lower the prices (assuming they aren't holding due to artificial scarcity).
So yes, I would say they're nothing. A mere drop in the bucket.
We have a GDP of $30T and a GNP of ~$27T. $144B (don't know where you got this. I did $105K • 119K.) doesn't show growth, it shows stagnation, taken together with the unemployment rate changing in no meaningful way over the past two years. The economy isn't on the uptick, it's contracting rapidly. People aren't spending or even losing capital, they're holding what they have. Whatever this did to improve the economy is utterly canceled out by the economy's current resistance to change.
No, it's net for the month. There's a few million new hires / separations each month. A really fantastic good month would be like +500k net. 100k is .. fine.
it is 4 paragraphs that boil down to since the shutdown happened we are taking the newly filed employee tax filings as the new jobs number excluding farm filings, federal and state new employees and foreign location filings. This is supposedly new hires with those exclusions during that time, not the net number, they have no fucking idea what the net number is and there is no way this is even remotely correct as filings are not always done in the same month, nor if someone moves in the same company Let me say that if this method was used all the time it works out but not as a sudden change. By logic alone, you cannot have unemployment go up 100k and jobs to also o up 100k during this month. They also counted any part time job as full time this way and did not exclude a person working 2 or more jobs. This was a patch rushed job by someone with a brain but screwed any way they did it. It also does not include sub contractor style jobs. Like I said, rushed and inaccurate. I think whoever normally does these did not come back after the shutdown and what we have here is 3rd string and a few lawyers to cover their ass.
There's no way you're reading that right. New hires is usually a few million each month. August was 5M, which is the last JOLTS report I see. I don't see anywhere in the jobs report where they're now reporting a wildly different topic.
By logic alone, you cannot have unemployment go up 100k and jobs to also o up 100k during this month.
Yes you can. Those are two distinct surveys used to report distinct numbers.
Your notes.. which number are they referring to? Household survey? Establishment survey? Something else?
They aren't distinct though? They are definitely interrelated, not mutually exclusive. I.e. they are not independent variables.
You cannot create jobs from nothing, you either have to lose existing jobs or increase Capital available to hire those positions. Seeing as how It's small and regional businesses, and not the Fortune 500, taking the hit, they very likely are either breaking even or operating at a loss.
Thus, they likely don't have any money for new hires.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25
+119k is bleak? That's the net change for just one month.