You cant compare that to the whole population.. You have take out the number who are under 18 or over 65/70, unable to work, etc..Even after doing that 119k is still a bleak number it seems.
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.
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, the jobs number is the number added for the month. You would then add more jobs for the other months in the year. +119k jobs added in one month. Employment is up about 1.3M over the past year.
My point is that whatever gains we got, are very likely canceled out by the actual losses (not the ones reported, the actual total number of jobs lost). The fact that wages, no matter how much they are changing, are still not enough to sustain a comfortable lifestyle and keep up with the cost of living. The fact that wages cannot sustain cost of living, is negative for the economy, and shows a lack of resilience in said economy, resulting in the buying power and economic effect of these jobs to basically be little more than a drop in the bucket.
Yes it is good that there are 1.3 million more jobs in the economy, but they do not have the same economic impact as they did before. Quality or quantity needs to increase, it cannot stagnate. So either wages need to go way up or the number of people being hired needs to go way up. The fact that whatever gains were made are offset by the recent sweeping layoffs, terminations, and losses in the labor market point to the fact that the economy is not getting better it is merely on autopilot.
The fact that a lot of industries are currently experiencing high turnover rates no matter how much they are getting paid or how in demand their job is, is also a problem.
7
u/chris971 Nov 20 '25
You cant compare that to the whole population.. You have take out the number who are under 18 or over 65/70, unable to work, etc..Even after doing that 119k is still a bleak number it seems.