Today's job numbers are actually bad

[jeter]

The economy needs to create at least 170,000 jobs every month just to keep up with expanding population and work force.

We only created 126,000 jobs this month. I know, considering Bush's horrible job creation record this is golden for him. But in reality it's not.

That's why the unemployment number didn't change very much. I guess this will be spun. And many here on DU will sense doom and gloom and predict another Bush term. But 126,000 jobs is moderate at best. Pathetic at worse, if you consider that the economy grew by 7.2% and only created this many jobs.

I smell bad times ahead. The last time we were doing this "good" we went into recession (january 2001).

[Skittles]

1. is that you in the pic?

cute

[jeter]

7. Yes Skittles

And I am cute ;)

[LittleApple81]

9. but why is the picture so "out of focus"? n/t

[jeter]

10. Because of my stupid scanner

One day i'll get it right.

[Skittles]

21. YOU ARE SO FREAKING ARROGANT

:thumbsup:

[Wwagsthedog]

2. Didn't I read somewhere that there were 141,000 layoffs in October?

My arithmetic tells me that there was a net loss of 15,000 jobs. Have I got this right?

[stewert]

20. It Was 171,000 Layoffs in October !

Of course none of the corporate media whores reported this story.

Layoffs more than double in October

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Layoff announcements from U.S. companies more than doubled in
October to 171,874, the highest in a year, according to the monthly tally released Tuesday by
outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas.

October is typically the largest months for layoff notices, as companies slash costs at the end of
the fiscal year. The Challenger survey is not adjusted for seasonal factors.

Layoff announcements had fallen for three months in a row before October's 125 percent increase.
Layoffs hit bottom in June with 59,715.

"While perhaps shocking to some, the October spike follows a trend of heavy year-end downsizing
that has occurred since we began tracking job cuts in 1993," said John Challenger, the CEO of the
company that bears his name.

"With factors like technology, outsourcing and consolidation working against job creation, any job
market rebound we see in the near future will be relatively small," Challenger said.

Full Story:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B587E1DC6%2D895E%2D472F%2D8F42%2DC3B1BB851495%7D&siteid=mktw

[La_Serpiente]

3. You can also add to the fact

that the trade deficit is now HUGE

[LittleApple81]

4. Do you think that the Democratic politicians are smart enough to

catch this? All the republicans were gloating today, referring to the best performance since Reagan cut taxes!

[jeter]

6. Not the ones in Congress

They are a bunch of pussies and will be supporting anything else the President shoves in front of them.

Want to know what I find really funny. How in every article or caption it says "jobs 'SURGED' by 126,000" 126,000 is hardly a "surge." Not when you need to create 170,000 to 200,000 just to keep up. At best it is a "rise" at worst a "blip"

[Northwind]

5. What is also scary

Is that most of those jobs are more than likely of the temporary holiday season variety. Night restocking people and store clerks. That we only added 125,000 of them is rather frightening.

[papau]

8. 8.8 million remained unemployed

About 8.8 million remained unemployed last month, with about 2 million without jobs for 27 weeks or more

so how did the rate go down - was it just folks giving up on finding a job?

And the new seasonal adjustments put in Feb 7, 2003 for this year only - and the future - make any comparison to the past tough to do.

The household survey that is used for this make be suspect.

[jeter]

11. I bet that "new seasonal adjustment"

Is Bush trying to fudge the numbers.

You guys realise that Prime Ministers and their governments in other countries go to prison for doing the things that the Bush Administration does.

How these guys get away with it i'll never know.

Part of the blame belongs to the Dems in Congress for not doing their jobs being the loyal opposition. That's what other governments have. Oppositions. That harp on every little detail. The Dems in Congress are so scared shitless of this administration that it's scary.

[Beaker]

12. when people run out of unemployment benefits

they are no longer included in the numbers.

[papau]

14. jobwatch.org has the real analysis

Job Watch -

On October 21, The New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary JohnSnow projected that the economy will generate two million additional jobs,about 200,000 per month, before next years election. This new number is a huge retreat from the administrations previous projection madewhen it was selling its tax cuts. In February the Council of Economic Advisers projected 306,000 per month job growth starting in mid-2003 if the tax cutswere passed and roughly 228,000 jobs created per month without the tax cuts.

It takes 170,000 new jobs each month just to provide jobs for an expanding populationand workforce and 300,000 new jobs each month to lower the unemployment rate by onepercentage point over the course of a year.

http://jobwatch.org/

[many a good man]

18. Astounding! Greatest employment contraction since the Great Depression

Greatest employment contraction since the Great Depression

That's a phrase that jumps out at you.

It should be the #1 campaign theme for any Democrat. And its not just a result of MF's tax cuts: its structural, like the deficit. The world is changing around us and if we don't do something about it our postwar prosperity of the past 50 years will be a fading memory. A bold vision is called for.

People can see it happening all around them and will flock to someone who has a positive message and a realistic plan.

This issue transcends party, race, religion, class, everything.

[SaintLouisBlues]

22. You got it, Angry Villager

Last I heard we were down 3.3 million jobs since the Shrub
takeover. We need 275,000 jobs per month just to break even before the
election.

First President* since Hoover with a net loss of jobs. You'd think the paycheck-to-paycheck crowd would take notice and vote their interests.

[KoKo]

17. The folks who got "downsize" packages or Buy Outs for layoffs aren't

included in the unemployment numbers because they aren't eligible. Most of the bigger corporations i.e. pharmaceutical companies, etc. give their employees "packages." So they never show up as collecting unemployment. That's the missing figure that we need for TRUE unemployment figures. I personally know three Managers at major pharmaceutical companies who were laid off in the last two years and can't find work anywhere. They got packages, so never showed up. And that they are still looking when they have top credentials (two of them ph.d's from top schools and one with Masters from Wharton) and can't find any work because of all the mergers and downsizing in the pharma companies shows things are bad out there. Plus each of them have friends who were downsized with them.

This is everywhere. And, these people don't get talked about. The "packages" are only for the amount of time you worked for the company, when that runs out, you refinance your house and start eating into any savings you have.

That's the true American Economy today! And, also explains the housing market and the mortagage market. It's not all young couples running out to buy houses and people "trading up." It's people trading down or refinancing to live!

[Monte Carlo]

13. Personally, I think something comparable to the New Deal is needed.

As the above mr. jeter mentioned, we have to do more as a nation than just create jobs, we have to do it at such a rate to make up for increasing labor pools. Then we should start making up for the 3 million+ jobs lost in the past few years, many of which aren't coming back, even if the Dow jumped up to 20,000 tomorrow.

Our economy is becoming more and more serviced-based every day. People don't just need to know marketable skills now, they need to be continuously learning new ones to adapt. And with the ultra-low priority Bush has put on education in this country, there is going to be a big mess left for the new guy to deal with.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. It sure will be spun.

And it could work, just like the blip with the GDP.

I seriously doubt the job picture will get significantly better any time in the near future, but any apparent increase or blip will be shouted from the rooftops as some kind of success.

People in good shape will be somewhat comforted that their jobs will stick around, and the unemployed and underemployed will get some hope that they'll do better soon.

It's incredibly difficult to overcome the effects of a sound bite that people want to hear.

You have to patiently explain that the job creation isn't good, just not as dismal as it has been in the past, and spells doom if it doesn't get a lot better. You have to also patiently explain how raw job creation numbers aren't "seasonally adjusted" and include a lot of warehouse, transportation, and retail jobs just for the holiday season. And the new Wal-Marts opening. Patiently eaxplain how many of the new jobs are part-time, temp, and close to minimum wage with few benefits and can't replace the good jobs that were trashed.

I see a lot of talk in the press about "jobless recovery" and I wonder just how well that's sinking in.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. We're STILL in the recession that actually began in late 2000...

...with the raising of interest rates by Greenspan early in the year to combat inflationary tendencies that no one else saw, and the big increase in the costs of gasoline and utilities. IMHO, both of these actions were DELIBERATELY taken in the hopes of making the economy stumble before the 2000 election to further erode Gore's standing in the eyes of the voters. And the tactic worked to a certain extent because the economy began to nose slightly downward in late 2000.

What the Bushies failed to understand is what I call the 6-month rule...any action taken to correct the economy will not manifest itself for a minimum of 6 months. Dubya began squatting in the White House in early 2001 and immediately began seeing the negative impact of the interest rate increases and the big jump in oil/utility prices on the economy. Staffing of new positions had almost stopped completely when 911 took place. Everything halted after 911.

And we have yet to recover from the longest running recession in the country's history since the Great Depression.

[many a good man]

19. Recession ended December 2001...

...officially. This IS the recovery!

I agree with all your points, though.

This is almost the best we can hope for without fundamental change. Raising taxes on the upper brackets, of course, will do a little more good than what we have now but not enough. The question is how to do anything without exploding the deficit to the point where its impact gets felt sooner rather than later.

A rinky dink jobs program is not the answer; it has to be a grander vision. Dems complaining about the state of the economy without a plan to really address the underlying issues will not gain traction anywhere. Greenspan's bag of magic tricks is only creating bubbles and putting off the day of reckoning.

[stewert]

23. Recession Started in March of 2001

The recession started in march of 2001, the NBER is the official source that
decides when a recession starts and when it ends.

http://www.nber.org/

The economy started slowing down towards the end of 2000, but it was not in a
recession.