How many jobs will be created in June? Job numbers come out July 6th..

Can you guess what the total jobs created for the month of June will be? May number was 69,000.

I say 50,000.

I am not sure if it will be good, as I am seeing less jobs out there in the Help Wanted sections. Less than 100k for sure maybe 60k for June.

Legitimate job postings as far as I can see are down. I've heard this from real life friends as well. And I've not had an interview in four months. I have a friend flying to SFO for an interview, which is totally nuts in my mind. Based on this anecdotal evidence, which is paltry and meaningless in the bigger picture, I'd speculate it's not going to be a big number. There's no way the economy is suddenly going to heat up before the election to save the day for the incumbent.

I think in the months to come it may even slow down more. Employers thinking about the Supreme Court ruling today will make them think about hiring, or they will hire only part time just to get out of the insurance requirement.

Obamacare certainly isn't going to increase hiring - just like the immigration thing isn't going to help get Americans jobs. And all of this on top of the underlying jobs and real estate debacles. Does this guy want a second term? Or is he just that arrogant that he thinks he can do these things and his cult of personality will carry him through anyway?

Don't blame "Obamacare." These greedy corporate pigs would automate their entire company, if they could get away with it. Whining about how much health insurance costs is ridiculous, when it's so little of most corporations' bottom lines. You can't announce record profits one day, and then whine about how your employees dare to demand healthcare the next.

We also need to look at healthcare costs themselves. There is no reason why a hospital bed should cost $1000 A DAY just TO SIT IN. It does, believe you me. By the time my mom succumbed to cancer, her total bill was over a million dollars over a 3+ year span. That's ridiculous, and needs to change NOW.

Sorry to read about your mom. Healthcare is a business and their #1 goal is profit and nice fat salaries for the top 10% of administration at all hospitals.

Larry in Davie, FL said: Sorry to read about your mom. Healthcare is a business and their #1 goal is profit and nice fat salaries for the top 10% of administration at all hospitals.

Thanks for the condolences. It's been about 6 years now, sometimes feels like yesterday, sometimes 20 years ago.

What goes on in hospitals is shameful, especially to terminally ill and elderly people. That's all I have to say about that. It's enough to send me into panic attacks.

Sorry to hear about your mom.

I'm one of the people you call greedy corp pigs. I have 5 employees. Get mad at me, but my number one job is to keep my doors opened, my employees employed. I had to let someone go a few years ago and I hated it.

I'm in it to make a profit--otherwise I would go work for someone else (and I have been offered a lucrative position, I just prefer working for myself).

I am holding onto some cash now, not knowing what it is going to cost me to have employees--I really need additional workers, and believe I would grow from it. But now is not the time to take chances.

Oh, one other comment... I expect to see jobs down. I was in DFW with a VP of a fairly large corp and he says he has been amazed how empty restaurants have been lately--an indicator to him. I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative number on jobs.

Thanks Ed. You weren't really who I was aiming at, though. Honestly with so few employees, I wouldn't expect any of them to expect healthcare from you. 5 people is like me and a couple of friends. We'd be (or at least I'd be) in it for "the big picture," and wouldn't expect healthcare from you. I'd expect a decent wage, profit-sharing should the business take off...but not healthcare. I know this legislation sounds like it's going to make you give them healthcare anyway, and that sucks for the small business.

It's not you guys who are whining, though. It's the corporations like Walmart, Target, all the banks, etc. who are in Washington crying a river about how they can't afford anything now that everybody needs healthcare. Their profits are better than every before, I don't want to hear it from them.

Ed in Bend, Oregon said: Oh, one other comment... I expect to see jobs down. I was in DFW with a VP of a fairly large corp and he says he has been amazed how empty restaurants have been lately--an indicator to him. I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative number on jobs.

Not only restaurants, but leisure travel too. I see ads ALL over asking people here to go visit everywhere from NYC to Australia. Australia even took out an internet ad that basically said "oy! what happened to our tourism industry? Where are all of you? Still plenty to see here!" It doesn't occur to them that Australia (for me) is probably a $3000 venture for a week. Who has that, anymore?

From what I've heard from people who hopefully are better read on the new healthcare is that a company has to have over 50 (I think) employees before being required to provide healthcare. So, small businesses are still screwed, just not "tiny" business.

Supposedly, those who can not afford the healthcare will get "help" from the feds, then eventually to be passed along to the states. Does that mean the entire amount? I suspect that will also mean higher taxes as well since the feds and many (all?) states simply does not have the money to pay out for the millions who are unable to find a job with a living wage..... and with states tightening up on handing out benefits due to lack of funds, I am at a total loss to explain how this mess is going to work....

Nick in Somerville, Massachusetts said:

We also need to look at healthcare costs themselves. There is no reason why a hospital bed should cost $1000 A DAY just TO SIT IN. It does, believe you me. By the time my mom succumbed to cancer, her total bill was over a million dollars over a 3+ year span. That's ridiculous, and needs to change NOW.

I'm sorry about your mom. Yes, it's crazy what things cost. You can thank insurance for that. Doctors will charge 3 times as much when the person has insurance. Did we have rich doctors before we had insurance? Not really.

On the other hand I can understand why some things are so expensive. We want our nice hospitals and the best care we can get. That costs money, but is it really worth that much or are hospitals just milking the insurance companies dry? Lots of insurance fraud out there too.

When you go to the doctor all they want to do is give tests. This one doctor that my neighbor goes to has to charge the lady going in for a quarterly checkup for something besides the visit each time. Wants a bone density test, xrays or some other test, then it will be pills. Well taking Boniva for more than 5 years will actually cause fractures in the elderly. Doctor knew that, and said that is why you change the medication to something else. Walking will keep bones strong for Seniors, take it slow, but go.
Yes I did read that at least 50 employees for the heathcare bill, so keep it under 50 and you should be good.

Nick in Somerville, Massachusetts said: Not only restaurants, but leisure travel too. I see ads ALL over asking people here to go visit everywhere from NYC to Australia. Australia even took out an internet ad that basically said "oy! what happened to our tourism industry? Where are all of you? Still plenty to see here!" It doesn't occur to them that Australia (for me) is probably a $3000 venture for a week. Who has that, anymore?

This is the first year our city isn't having a carnival set up for the 4th of July celebration. The company that had the rides is no longer and it said that the economy is the cause. I wonder how this will affect the whole celebration that went on for several days with a beer tent and entertainment. All that's left is the fireworks, but you can forget about buying cotton candy and funnel cakes this year.

Kim in Chicago, Illinois said: When you go to the doctor all they want to do is give tests.

They want to give pills for everything. I think they are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies and get a chunk of money just to use that companies medicine. Medicine has side effects and that requires more pills to solve the problem.

designer bee in Waukesha, Wisconsin said: Doctors will charge 3 times as much when the person has insurance.

Not always. Often, insurance companies negotiate rates with doctors. For instance, after I went to a specialist about my feet, I received the statement from the insurance company. The insurance company paid the doctor something like $50 or $75 for the procedure. If I had not had insurance, I would have had to pay $300. I could not have afforded that doctor's visit.

Other times, yes, I am quite sure the doctors gouge the insurance companies. Hospital bed costs are not excusable. Should there be limits? Yes. Can the federal government do that for us? I sincerely doubt it. If anybody believes that the feds CAN do it successfully, please tell us all exactly what programs they have implemented that have actually worked well and without lots of cost overruns.

They will charge more for worker's comp doctor visits than people paying with own insurance.

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: Not always. Often, insurance companies negotiate rates with doctors. For instance, after I went to a specialist about my overruns.

You aren't seeing the whole picture. My niece is a medical biller. Doctors also receive a set fee to handle so many patients a month, in addition to the fee for service. You don't see this.

In one day, a doctor can treat 10 people for an ear infection and each one will "pay" a different price. Depends on whose paying: Blue Cross, Humana, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc. Healthcare is not like buying a Big Mac where everybody pays the same price.

designer bee in Waukesha, Wisconsin said: They want to give pills for everything. I think they are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies and get a chunk of money just to use that companies medicine. Medicine has side effects and that requires more pills to solve the problem.

And my hypochondriac sister loves this. She shops for doctors like most people shop for shoes. If she doesn't get the pills she wants from one doctor, she'll find another.

Ed in Bend, Oregon said: Oh, one other comment... I expect to see jobs down. I was in DFW with a VP of a fairly large corp and he says he has been amazed how empty restaurants have been lately--an indicator to him. I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative number on jobs.

Yeah, only the fast food joints seem to be doing well. A few of my favorite restaurants have closed.

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: Should there be limits? Yes. Can the federal government do that for us? I sincerely doubt it. If anybody believes that the feds CAN do it successfully, please tell us all exactly what programs they have implemented that have actually worked well and without lots of cost overruns.

The problem with mandating a cap on profits is that you will be running your next political campaign out of the trunk of a 1982 Buick in the parking lot of a 99 cents store. Your political campaign funds will dry up over night.

Bluetea in Texas said: You aren't seeing the whole picture. My niece is a medical biller. Doctors also receive a set fee to handle so many patients a month, in addition to the fee for service. You don't see this.

In one day, a doctor can treat 10 people for an ear infection and each one will "pay" a different price. Depends on whose paying: Blue Cross, Humana, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc. Healthcare is not like buying a Big Mac where everybody pays the same price.

The problem with mandating a cap on profits is that you will be running your next political campaign out of the trunk of a 1982 Buick in the parking lot of a 99 cents store. Your political campaign funds will dry up over night.

Quite true, I was unaware of the whole picture. Interesting to find out that different insurance companies pay different amounts, I hadn't thought about that part. I figure that all of the insurance company rates have a significant cut from the price without insurance, am I right there at least?

Caps on profit... of course companies are looking for lots of profits. The new health care act is at least about negotiating the lowest price, and I also am under the impression (looking for clarification here from those who might know) that Obamacare had price setting... as in "here's what we are going to pay for this procedure, too bad if you don't like it".....

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: Quite true, I was unaware of the whole picture. Interesting to find out that different insurance companies pay different amounts, I figure that all of the insurance company rates have a significant cut from the price without insurance, am I right there at least?

Everybody pays the same price for a Big Mac. Not everybody pays the same price for knee replacement - healthcare is non-standard pricing - its negotiable or non-negotiable. Not all physicians accept all policies.

I don't have dental insurance. I pay cash but I don't pay the same price for a filling as someone who has dental insurance. Think of buying gas. Is cash cheaper than a credit card? Is the gas different?

Bluetea in Texas said: Everybody pays the same price for a Big Mac. Not everybody pays the same price for knee replacement - healthcare is non-standard pricing - its negotiable or non-negotiable. Not all physicians accept all policies.

I don't have dental insurance. I pay cash but I don't pay the same price for a filling as someone who has dental insurance. Think of buying gas. Is cash cheaper than a credit card? Is the gas different?

It amazes me how different gas prices are around here...even in a 5-10 mile radius. I've seen as low as 3.28 and as high as 3.85 in the same general area. Some brands like to tout that they put all this stuff in the gas to "make your engine run better." I have a 10 year old Nissan...I don't care about it lasting any long amount of time, here.

Bluetea in Texas said: Everybody pays the same price for a Big Mac. Not everybody pays the same price for knee replacement - healthcare is non-standard pricing - its negotiable or non-negotiable. Not all physicians accept all policies.

I don't have dental insurance. I pay cash but I don't pay the same price for a filling as someone who has dental insurance. Think of buying gas. Is cash cheaper than a credit card? Is the gas different?

Of course not all doctors accept all plans. Some doctors and dentist don't take medicare and medicaid due to pricing being too low to make a decent living and ridiculous amounts of red tape that would choke a giraffe. Plus, someone has to be paid to fill out the forms correctly.

With gas, cash price is typically cheaper, with doctors, insurance pays are typically less than what we would pay with cash.......

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: With gas, cash price is typically cheaper, with doctors, insurance pays are typically less than what we would pay with cash.......

I use to work for a property restoration company. The cash price was always lower than what we would have submitted to the insurance company.
It's been my experince that healthcare is the same way. Fewer forms, a lot fewer.

I and some of my neighbors have had the opposite experience with health insurance than you. Around here, the negotiated insurance prices seem to be considerably less than cash. Medicare and medicaid don't negotiate, they say "here's what we are paying" which is not much at all.

guest in San Francisco, California said:

The number of REAL jobs (no offense against those performing ANY legitimate work) is WAY DOWN but the "throw away" jobs don't pay enough to pay the bills. Certainly you can't pay the rent working at McDonalds.

This is me, right now. At $12/hr and 32hr/wk, I am BARELY treading water with my bills. Something needs to change soon, like within the next month or two. I have so many applications out right now, I bet I'd be surprised to hear from some because I forgot I even applied.

Absolutely, something has to change. From time to time on the news, a story surfaces that some companies can not fill positions due to the lack of qualified candidates. To me, that means it is time for the company to get somebody close and train them instead of crying that they can't find people. I can only imagine that there would have to be people who would be capable of doing the job with "minimal" training.

What happened to all the white collar positions anyway? Many of the jobs I see listed are one end of the spectrum or the other, little in between. I don't know how, but more mid-level positions need to be created in this country. If I had that answer and could promote it well, I would be a millionaire.......

Nah, HRs just DON'T look at the big picture, EVER.

When they look at me, they don't see a person with a Master's and 15 years work experience who seems intelligent, capable and dedicated.

They see someone with a Master's and 15 years work experience who shouldn't be applying to an entry level position, and probably only is because he's going to bolt at the first chance he gets for a better opportunity.

There are SO MANY places where I've applied to, where I apply to "the ground floor" because I assume that everyone has to start there. I'm willing to start there, and yes I expect to move up eventually, but I'm OK with starting where everyone else starts. They just don't see that, they don't look past immediate need unless it's to pessimistically say, "he doesn't look like he's going to last long."

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: I and some of my neighbors have had the opposite experience with health insurance than you. Around here, the negotiated insurance prices seem to be considerably less than cash. Medicare and medicaid don't negotiate, they say "here's what we are paying" which is not much at all.

Might depend on the area. And many physicians will say, "Thanks for coming by, Er, close the door on your way out". They don't handle Federal plans. I encountered this with my mother. Under their breath, they call it "Section 8"

Nick in Somerville, Massachusetts said: Nah, HRs just DON'T look at the big picture, EVER.

When they look at me, they don't see a person with a Master's and 15 years work experience who seems intelligent, capable and dedicated.

They see someone with a Master's and 15 years work experience who shouldn't be applying to an entry level position, and probably only is because he's going to bolt at the first chance he gets for a better opportunity.

They just don't see that, they don't look past immediate need unless it's to pessimistically say, "he doesn't look like he's going to last long.

That is why I sometimes think that those of us with brains left might need a lobotomy to be able to fit in and get a job these days..... we have common sense (why is it called that when it certainly isn't common!)

Bluetea in Texas said:

Might depend on the area.

I would not be surprised if it does. I also expect it varies by industry.

Part of me wants to stay in Boston, because it's a nice town to live in if you have a decent job. I just don't have a decent job. If I'm destined to be poor, then I'd rather do it in/around NYC where there's always a chance I could rub elbows with Someone Important while I'm waiting tables or something. Boston tries SO HARD to be a film crew destination, helped along mostly by Ben Affleck's "Project Greenlight." But Boston just isn't anything close to NYC, entertainment industry wise. Not even close.

Another part of me wants to move to the farthest corner of the country (Phoenix/Seattle) and start completely over.

I have a cousin who has been bouncing between Portland and Maryland. He has historically been poor in both places, he has enjoyed the "lifestyle" of the Portland/ Seattle area, just never able to get a "real" job...... (he has at least a BA from a local college)

I've been told that Seattle is basically Boston West, with more rain and less rabid sports fans. I've thought about Atlanta too, but their crime rates scare me. I'd move to Toronto in a second, but those pesky work visas are a b*tch and a half to get.

When I visited Seattle/ Portland/ Vancouver BC, I loved it. Vancouver was a very pretty and friendly city from what I saw. I really liked Washington and Oregon as well.

I have no desire to move south. I can NOT stand high heat and humidity. Maryland has been running close to 100 and above for almost a week now with another week to go (actually another few months of this). Every time I talk to my folks in Sarasota, it is always cooler there by 5-10 degrees. Seems strange to me that Sarasota always seems to run cooler than here.

Arizona/ Colorado gets hot, but the dry heat and cold is MUCH more manageable than with the humidity found on the east coast.

I also liked the climate of the San Francisco area, but much too expensive for me.

Lots of rain and clouds in Oregon and Washington.

Dry heat in AZ is still hot. We went there in late Sept./early Oct. one year. The temp on the rental car said it was 113 degrees. We thought we could cool off by going to Flagstaff and it was in the 90s. Sedona 113 again. So much for going north.

I'm not sure where that place exists with the most comfortable weather. Every place has its flaws. Then there are many other things to consider.

Yes, after a point, hot is just plain hot and uncomfortable. At least when I was in AZ and CO, I was able to cool off by stepping into the shade. Here on the east coast, sweat does not evaporate and perform the cooling function like it does out west.

designer bee in Waukesha, Wisconsin said: Lots of rain and clouds in Oregon and Washington.

I'm not sure where that place exists with the most comfortable weather. Every place has its flaws. Then there are many other things to consider.

Phoenix is too hot! Seattle is too rainy. San Francisco is too expensive. - Goldilocks.

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: I also liked the climate of the San Francisco area, but much too expensive for me.

You won't make in San Francisco on $10.00. No way. Oregon was my last stop and then the economy tanked. Some parts of Oregon have over 20% unemployment.

Prior to that, it was California but when the big companies started to leave, I hitched my U-Haul to one of them. That state is in the toilet now.

Bluetea in Texas said: You won't make in San Francisco on $10.00. No way. Oregon was my last stop and then the economy tanked. Some parts of Oregon have over 20% unemployment.

Prior to that, it was California but when the big companies started to leave, I hitched my U-Haul to one of them. That state is in the toilet now.

Which is why personally, I am too scared to attempt to sell my house and just pack up to move with no job lined up. Though the stated unemployment in Maryland is about 6.7%, in all reality, we all know it is much higher. If it were as stated, I would be working. In other states with stated higher unemployment rates, I would stand even less of a chance of finding anything resembling work....

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: Which is why personally, I am too scared to attempt to sell my house and just pack up to move with no job lined up. Though the stated unemployment in Maryland is about 6.7%, in all reality, we all know it is much higher. If it were as stated, I would be working. In other states with stated higher unemployment rates, I would stand even less of a chance of finding anything resembling work....

This is why I feel like moving near NYC is a good plan. Everyday on Indeed, the "open jobs" for NYC is near double what it is for Boston. Of course, there are more people in NYC too...but if they were all capable, then NYC wouldn't have something like 15K new listings per day (in theory). It just feels like I would improve my odds. I feel like I've already exhausted all channels in MA. I mean, how many times can entry level jobs turn me down before I take the hint?

John in Catonsville, Maryland said: Which is why personally, I am too scared to attempt to sell my house and just pack up to move with no job lined up. Though the stated unemployment in Maryland is about 6.7%, in all reality, we all know it is much higher. If it were as stated, I would be working. In other states with stated higher unemployment rates, I would stand even less of a chance of finding anything resembling work....

Its an election year. The unemployment numbers are a bit overcooked.

Bluetea in Texas said: Its an election year. The unemployment numbers are a bit overcooked.

Unemployment numbers are pointless anyway. Counting all of the people working at jobs that don't even pay for basic necessities and make them live in poverty as "unemployed," the "rate" is more like 60% of everyone.

I applied for a job with Boeing in the Seattle area and would love to live/work in Washington but it would be crazy moving across the country without a job offer.

I make $20 an hour here in Florida and I'm greatful for a good job with excellent benefits but I really hate what I'm doing. Here in FL jobs are scarce and there's 200 people applying for each opening.

Nick in Somerville, Massachusetts said: This is why I feel like moving near NYC is a good plan. Everyday on Indeed, the "open jobs" for NYC is near double what it is for Boston. Of course, there are more people in NYC too...but if they were all capable, then NYC wouldn't have something like 15K new listings per day (in theory). It just feels like I would improve my odds. I feel like I've already exhausted all channels in MA. I mean, how many times can entry level jobs turn me down before I take the hint?

Another thing you have going for you is that there is no house to attempt to unload, ooopppss, I mean sell. I would one, have to clean up a whole lot of mess, two, spend money (that should be going towards other things) to fix the place up a bit, three, find a place to live, pay security, first and last, etc etc.......

Living in a rented space makes moving easier for sure.

Bluetea,

What were you doing in Oregon before moving to Texas?

Nice,
Sounds like Boston is a dead end for you if a Master's degree can't land you a decent full-time job. NY would be better if you have family there to help you out.

The real unemployment number is around 20%

Larry in Davie, FL said: Bluetea,

What were you doing in Oregon before moving to Texas?

Nice,
Sounds like Boston is a dead end for you if a Master's degree can't land you a decent full-time job. NY would be better if you have family there to help you out.

The real unemployment number is around 20%

Yeah, I really wish that Boston would work out and for 3 years it did. But these 2 years without any money is ridiculous. I can't do a darn thing in this town, and some 1000 applications later, it's pretty clear that I need to leave. It doesn't help that this area has some 6 major universities, and just pumped out tens of thousands of grads into a job market that can't sustain them. I think unemployment in MA is going to get worse, before it gets better.

Also as I said, no actors, directors, or musicians hang out in Boston. Not for long, anyway. In NYC, I could work at whatever, and then be on crew for a whole host of things being filmed, taped, and produced. That doesn't happen here at all, or if it does, I sure don't see it.