The U.S. job market turned weaker last month, dashing hopes for an economic rebound.

A report from the Labor Department on Friday shows employers cut 92,000 jobs in February, when economists had expected the U.S. would continue adding jobs, albeit at a sluggish pace. The unemployment rate inched up to 4.4%.

Job gains for December and January were also revised downward, with December now showing a net loss 17,000 jobs.

The weaker than expected jobs report comes as Americans are already anxious about the high cost of living. Those affordability concerns will likely be amplified as the war in Iran has triggered a sharp rise in energy prices. AAA reports the average price of gasoline jumped another 7 cents overnight, to $3.32 a gallon. That’s 21 cents higher than this time last year.

    • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      I expected that was all lies, so it’s still expected. Unless you believed the lies. But then that would be on you. I also expect that the job losses actually are well in excess of 100,000. There’s no way the administration would give anything but the flimsiest lowball number they think wouldn’t get called out immediately.

        • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
          12·
          3 days ago

          There’s 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Our unemployment numbers are purposefully bullshit and have been for years too.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              3 days ago

              The TL;DR version is that the unemployment numbers that tend to get reported are U-3, whereas many people think the U-6 numbers are a more accurate reflection of the real experience.

              The U-3 unemployment rate is the most commonly reported rate in the United States, representing the number of unemployed people actively seeking a job. Meanwhile, the U-6 rate covers discouraged, underemployed, and unemployed workers in the country.

              https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp

            • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
              5·
              3 days ago

              Yes, their methodology. Exclusion of discouraged workers, part-time workers wanting full-time work, and strict “actively seeking work” definitions ensure the numbers don’t actually reflect the reality. But rather the more rosy fiction those in power wish to push.

                • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
                  4·
                  3 days ago

                  Well, if someone points out the official methodology is designed to undercount. One might want to read said methodology. Apart from that, the Internet is your oyster, as well as cable news. Pick a source you find reputable. Fox and NBC point it out any time its advantageous to their chosen candidate. Even trump remarked on it himself in 2023 to attack biden. There are clips from Maddow from 15 years ago talking about it under Obama too. It’s a chestnut old as time used to attack those in power, but never with intent to fix the systemic problem.

                  • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    3 days ago

                    Ah, i was hoping you had some specific research or papers that calls out the methodology being questionable, but another poster provided some links. Hopefully they are reliable.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      Economists had forecast a gain of 48,000 following January’s downwardly revised 11,000 increase – half the original estimate.

      That means the prediction was 22k new juobs, had just been decreased to 11k new jobs, and then shot up to 48k…

      That’s not a sign that we should expect good things, that was a sign that someone may have caved from pressure after saying 11k.and went with a number that was obviously bullshit.

      Apparently some people believed it tho, so I can admit when I’m wrong. I tend to overestimate people

    • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, but the trend has been significant revision downward for months now. Anyone who’s been watching was expecting this.