IBJNews

Stocks retreat after disappointing jobs report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Stocks and interest rates dropped Friday morning after a disappointing employment report renewed concerns about a slowdown in economic growth.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 33 points in morning trading. Broader indexes also fell.

The Labor Department said 131,000 jobs were cut last month, though that was primarily tied to layoffs of temporary census workers. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.5 percent. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast 65,000 jobs would be cut last month and the unemployment rate would rise to 9.6 percent.

Because of the cuts to census workers, investors were largely focused on private sector jobs, which account for most jobs in the country. Private employers added just 71,000 jobs, well short of the 90,000 expected by economists.

The Labor Department also sharply revised lower the number of jobs private employers added in June. The department now says just 31,000 private sector jobs were added in June, compared with a previous estimate of 83,000.

Persistently high unemployment is the most significant drag on the U.S. economy, and has been a key focus for investors. Even people who are employed have been slowing down their spending, which hurts the economy even more. Economists say that about 200,000 new private sector jobs would need to be added each month to drive the unemployment rate lower.

Retailers were hurt following the report as investors expected shoppers to continue to hold on to their money. J.C. Penney Co., Macy's Inc. and BJs Wholesale Club were among those that fell.

Economic data over the past three months has indicated a slowdown in growth, and investors are unsure just how much more the recovery will weaken. The disappointing jobs data magnifies worries that slowing growth could end up leading the country back into recession during the second half of the year.

The latest weak sign on the labor market brings heightened attention to the Federal Reserve's meeting next week. The Fed let several economic stimulus programs expire earlier this year such as purchasing mortgage-backed securities, and investors are now wondering whether the central bank will consider new steps to encourage lending again.

In early morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 32.77, or 0.3 percent, to 10,642.29. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 4.09, or 0.4 percent, at 1,121.72, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 8.86, or 0.4 percent, to 2,284.20.

Investors bid up Treasury prices after the employment report came out, driving interest rates lower in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 2.86 percent from 2.91 percent late Thursday. Its yield, which helps set interest rates on mortgages and other consumer loans, is hovering near levels not seen since April 2009.

There were a couple of more upbeat figures deeper in the report that could indicate hiring might eventually pick up. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent last month after falling 0.1 percent in June. Earnings were expected to rise 0.1 percent.

Also, the average work week rose to 34.2 hours from 34.1 hours in June. Economists had predicted average hours would remain unchanged.

The work week details are considered important because it shows how much work employers are squeezing out of current staff. If it climbs too high, productivity of current workers gets exhausted and employers must then turn to hiring new employees to handle the extra work.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT