The basics, from Reuters:
The U.S. economy added a slightly weaker-than-expected 97,000 jobs in February, the smallest gain in more than two years, as increases in service-sector employment offset declines in construction and manufacturing, a government report showed on Friday.
However, substantial revisions to employment in January and December boosted payrolls by 55,000 more jobs than previously reported, the Labor Department said.
On the sectoral details, Kash Mansori says it as well as I can:
Unsurprisingly, the construction industry has led the way toward a weaker job market, but nearly all sectors of the economy have seen some slowdown in job creation, with the exception of the government and leisure & hospitality sectors.
Here's a version of one of Kash's graphs, if you (like me) prefer the picture-book version:
The experts surveyed by the Wall Street Journal Online can't seem to agree on how to sum things up:
Stronger-than-expected report -- especially after factoring in the revisions to December and January (net +55,000) and the indications of significant weather-related downside in the February data. Our favorite proxy for weather-related influences on the payroll figures -- the "not at work due to bad weather" component of the household survey -- came in even higher than we had expected at 522,000. This compares with an average of 265,000 over the prior five February's. -- David Greenlaw, Ted Wieseman, Morgan Stanley Research
Behind the generally less-weak than expected headlines and upward revisions, however, there is real softness: the February payroll number was flattered by a 39,000 jump in government jobs, and the 58,000 rise in private payrolls was the smallest since November 2004. Note too that the household survey's employment measure fell outright, dipping 38,000, following a mere 31,000 rise in January. -- Ian Shepherdson, High Frequency Economics
For my part, it looks pretty much as expected: Overall activity is soft, but not dramatically so. Construction is weak, but service sector activity appears to be trucking along. Manufacturing employment is, well, manufacturing employment: If you expect too much, you are going to be disappointed.
No news here, folks. Go on about your business.
Elsewhere in blogland:
Tom Blumer characterizes the job gains as "acceptable after so many good months and a relatively cool February weatherwise." Calculated Risk offers a more upbeat grade of "solid" (factoring in upward revisions in December and January.) Barry Rithotlz suggests, and Macro Man apparently agrees, that we not pay much attention to initial monthly employment releases (advice I am happy to take). Barry also has some nice links to information about changes to the Automatic Data Processing National Employment Report. There is more on the ADP report from Murat Tasci and Cara Stepanczuk at the Cleveland Fed website, and some sophisticated advice on what the ADP data can tell us, from Jim Hamilton. Jim thinks the truth is somewhat south of the BLS' 97K. Michael Shedlock concurs, though his concerns rest on questions about the methodology for estimating the creations ("births") and dissolutions ("deaths") of businesses.
pgl's suggestion is that we not pay much attention to the unemployment rate (advice I am also happy to take). My Angry Bear friend again reminds us that the interpretation of the jobs data continues to rest on what we believe to be the underlying trends in labor force participation. Mr. Naybob picks up on that theme: "The jobless rate fell because people dropped out of the labor force, not because unemployed workers got jobs." What does it mean for people to be dropping out of the labor force? Answer that one and you will hold the keys to many mysteries.