This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/7537463.stm
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| US jobless rate at four-year high | |
| (30 minutes later) | |
| The US unemployment rate climbed to 5.7% in July official figures show, its highest in more than four years. | The US unemployment rate climbed to 5.7% in July official figures show, its highest in more than four years. |
| Firms cut workers for a seventh month in a row, but the losses were fewer than analysts had been expecting. | Firms cut workers for a seventh month in a row, but the losses were fewer than analysts had been expecting. |
| The economy lost 51,000 non-farm jobs the US Labor Department said, the same as the newly-revised figure for June, when unemployment was at 5.5%. | |
| Economists had been expecting about 75,000 jobs to go, but said July's data still indicated the economy was weak. | |
| It's not a good number but it's not as bad as expected Marc Pado, Cantor Fitzgerald. | |
| US companies have been reluctant to add staff amid higher oil and food prices, and slowing economic growth. | US companies have been reluctant to add staff amid higher oil and food prices, and slowing economic growth. |
| The only major sectors showing job creation were government, hospitality, education and health services. | |
| About 22,000 jobs went in the construction sector while factories cut 35,000 jobs. | About 22,000 jobs went in the construction sector while factories cut 35,000 jobs. |
| 'Mild, long recession' | |
| The Labor Department also heavily-revised figures for the previous two months. | |
| It said that 47,000 jobs were cut in May instead of the 62,000 previously stated, and that 51,000 were cut in June rather than 62,000. | |
| "People really thought the non-farm payrolls number (for July) was going to be bad number," said Marc Pado, a market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald. | |
| "So not only was the latest number 20-25,000 better-than-expected but the prior two months were revised up. So it's not a good number but it's not as bad as expected." | |
| However, while layoffs were limited, there was no sign of firms going on a "hiring binge" either, said Brian Gendreau of ING Investment, who feared a "mild, but longer recession" than the US saw in 2001-2002. | |
| "This figure might not be as weak as expected but it is still painful," he said. | |
| "I don't think this will change anyone's perceptions on slow economic growth." |