U.S. Adds 227,000 New Jobs While Unemployment Remains Steady

Everyone is all abuzz this morning with the latest numbers from the U.S. Labor Department, which show we’ve boosted the job count by more than what was forecast in February. While the unemployment rate stayed the same at 8.3%, we added 227,000 jobs, up from the predicted 210,000.

Not only did February see more jobs, it continued to add to six straight months of job growth, the best run the U.S. has seen since 2006, says Bloomberg News.

As more jobs are created, wage gains follow and consumers get the itch to go out and spend all that hard-earned cash. And nothing drives the economy better than consumer spending, which accounts for around 70% of the economy.

Still, U.S. officials like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who warned recently that the labor market is “far from normal,” are trying to remain cautious about this latest uptick. We’ve still got a ways to go, people, but keep up that spending!

Payrolls in U.S. Climb 227,000; Jobless Rate HOlds at 8.3% [Bloomberg News]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Hi_Hello says:

    US economy improves when people spend?? I was taught to save…

    • exconsumer says:

      Yep, the paradox of thrift.

      Economic downturns often encourage people to cut back, spend less, save more. On a small scale, this is a smart decision: if your economic future is uncertain, best to fortify yourself and be more risk averse. But on a large scale: by purchasing less than they normally would, they decrease demand, and other agents begin to cut back, spend less, save more. Under certain conditions, like, well, the past few years, this can be a real hum-dinger.

      • StatusfriedCrustomer says:

        It seems weird to spend when the market is booming. Now’s the time to invest your money because you’ll earn bigger returns. When the market is crashing, your returns and interest are nonexistent so you might as well spend your saved-up money.

        I think if half the people took this contrarian attitude and half the people took the typical “spend more when things are looking up” attitude, the market would get more in balance and wouldn’t be as wildly volatile.

      • Fumanchu says:

        Saving helps the economy basically as much as spending, especially in todays world of globalism assuming you are putting your money in a bank/ira/whatever and not under your matress. Your saved money acts as an anchor/foundation for the banks to lend money to people/corporations that want to spend money. With out your savings banks wouldn’t be able to lend anything in the first place.

        Very few consumer goods are made here anymore so buying random crap just really helps create low paying retail jobs in this country with the vast majority of the money going to the corporate office and then to the supply chain.

        • exconsumer says:

          In general, you’re right, but in certain circumstances, the banks will run out of people to loan to because demand will remain low. Qualified borrowers may choose not to expand or start a business, and those that do try to borrow may find their otherwise swell idea no longer feasible due to low demand. Yes, are stuff is made elsewhere, but US companies still take their cut. Even someone selling goods manufactured exclusively in China will consume more goods, some of which ARE made in the US when they are expanding.


        • Denidil says:

          sorry, trickle down economics do not work. increased reserves (savings) allowing the banks to lend more doesn’t mean the banks will lend more. Not just because the banks are risk adverse but because new loan demand is tied to people thinking they can pay them back faaar more than any other factor.

    • MeowMaximus says:

      And the REAL unemployment rate us about 20%. The government is lying though its teeth.

  2. dolemite says:

    Yeah…but did you know Obama once hugged a law professor that supported equal rights for black people? I say we need to impeach him immediately before gas gets to $4 a gallon.

  3. crispyduck13 says:

    I’ve never understood the comments that always follow news like this. Remain “cautious”, “we’re not out of the woods yet”, etc. Do people really need qualifiers like that to remember that things are still precarious?

  4. Power Imbalance says:

    Meanwhile, real unemployment numbers continue to remain above 16%…

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      “real” unemployment numbers are difficult to estimate accurately. At all you get is that: an estimate.

    • crispyduck13 says:


    • dolemite says:

      While the real number is in-between those 2 numbers, how does the government force the people not looking for work to work? Did the numbers in the past include every person not currently holding a job, even disabled people, those that choose not work, etc? Or is that a recent development? Like…when GW or Clinton was president, did they count every single person not holding a job?

      • Audiyoda28 says:

        Unemployment numbers are based on people receiving unemployment compensation. As recipients run out of benefits they are considered by the system as no longer actively looking for work. When congress didn’t pass extended unemployment compensation, hundreds of thousands of unemployed lost their benefits in mid-February. On March 1st congress passed another extended benefits package so as states start to reinstate extended benefits to those who are eligible we should see the unemployment numbers head back up.

        How to get those who simply don’t want to go out and get a job to actually get off their lazy duffs and work, I have no clue. Here in Michigan they’ve put a limit on the total number of years you can be on state and federal welfare programs at three years. I don’t know if that will work or not – we’ll see in two years.

    • shadow67 says:

      I wonder what the real unemployment number was, way back in 2009.

    • Vox Republica says:

      Well, the fact that more jobs were created and the unemployment rate stayed level is precisely because more people that previously gave up looking for work‚Äînot indexed in American unemployment statistics‚Äîare reentering the potential workforce. Subsequently, the “real unemployment numbers” themselves are dropping.

    • LostEmail says:

      It’s 14.9%, it hasn’t been over 16% since October.


  5. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I blame Obama.

  6. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    There need to be 90K to 100K jobs added every month just to keep pace with population growth of job-holding-age population.

  7. bosozoku says:

    In before the “REAL UNEMPLOYMENT” comments – nevermind, I’m too late.

  8. BennieHannah says:

    I’m seeing lots of jobs here in the South. I could clean condos (which I have done) or work at Sears or Golden Corral. Quite a few businesses want “general laborers” which sounds promising since I’ve given birth twice, after hours of hard labor. Seems like If you don’t mind swallowing your college degrees so that you aren’t “overqualified,” working part-time at minimum wage for no benefits, you can totally get a job — or two!

    We have money in the bank and we are not spending. At all. Even though the interest rates on our accounts are negligible, I’m sitting on our nest egg for the upcoming future.

    • dolemite says:

      So many people I work with have 2-3 jobs. We kind of have the “professionals” then the “laborers” here. “The professionals” have 1 job. But they are not what I’d call “well off”. The “laborers” (floor people) have 2-3 jobs. When they finish their shift here, they usually head over to their other job. Then they usually have some kind of side job like cleaning offices on the weekend or something. Then, many of their spouses have 2-3 jobs. One guy here gets up at like 4 am to deliver newspapers, then comes in and works first shift, and he’s also the pastor at a church. So…while it’s nice to say we’ve ‘added jobs’…are they “professional” or “floor people” jobs?

  9. brinks says:

    Remember that the jobs being added are not exactly desireable in most cases. We’ve added a “floater” position at work. If you’d like to travel between all of our locations in the area, which are about an hour apart, for $9 and no gas reimbursement or mileage, hit me up.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      Exactly. And people would bitch “Well, you should take it, it’s a job!” But they don’t get that a lower-paying job sometimes isn’t worth it, especially if you have costs associated with it, because it doesn’t cover your bills. You’re basically working and sinking at the same time. And forget about any quality of life. By this I don’t mean having a big TV and eating out regularly.

      Read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickeled and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America.


  10. AngryK9 says:

    “U.S. Adds 227,000 New Jobs in Non-U.S. countries While Unemployment in the U.S. Remains High and Steady”


  11. san says:

    The Labor Market numbers are flawed. They do not add people no longer seeking jobs,, people taking jobs at much lower pay than they had..
    Real number are more in the 15-16%-But that’s the government.
    I used to be a registered Republican. Two years ago I became an indepentdent..
    I have lost all faith in the US Congress. The president speaks like the old type used car salesmen.

  12. Cicadymn says:

    It’s easy to say unemployment numbers stay steady when you just stop counting people who are out of work and “not looking.”

  13. Toonzee says:

    Figures don’t lie……but liars figure. The real numbers are here.


  14. jbandsma says:

    How many of those jobs are more than part-time? More than minimum wage? Provide ANY benefits?

    • HomerSimpson says:

      Well you think the “other side” cares about that either? If anything the privileged political class (of both parties) thinks people who are employed need to be glad they even have a job, never mind being paid anything to do it.

  15. dangermike says:

    227,000 new jobs? Wonderful. If we can keep this up, it’ll only be another 40-50 months to reach full employment! That’s completely not a length of time so horrendously long that shifting legislature demographics and international politics could possibly derail this bounding recovery… right? Right?