3.6 Million Jobs Lost

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
He went out with a bang, didn't he? I can imagine him now, reading "My Pet Goat" in the Oval Office while the economy tanked.

We already knew how Bush did away with all of Clinton's surpluses. Well he also pissed away all his gains in unemployment; 7.6% is the highest since September 1992.

I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan. We can't continue losing half a million jobs every month with no end in sight. The stimulus plan will return our country to a period of job growth, which will in turn restore consumer confidence and strength in our financial markets.

Text

U.S. employment plunged in January by a three-decade high, a government report showed, bringing total job losses since the recession started in December 2007 to 3.6 million.

Half of those losses occurred in the last three months alone, and the stepped-up pace of layoffs in recent months suggests no end in sight to the economic downturn.

The report, which included another sharp rise in the unemployment rate to a 16-year high, upped the heat on U.S. lawmakers to enact a large fiscal stimulus package.

Nonfarm payrolls, which are calculated by a survey of establishments, tumbled 598,000 in January, the U.S. Labor Department said Friday, the most since December 1974 and well above the 525,000 drop Wall Street economists in a Dow Jones Newswires survey expected. December was revised to show an even steeper decline of 577,000.

The U.S. "is contracting greatly," said Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and the jobs data "reinforce the need for bold fiscal action."

The government included revisions for all of 2008, which showed the U.S. lost about 3 million jobs last year, roughly 400,000 more than first thought. In the 12 months through January, the economy shed more jobs over that timeframe since the government started compiling those figures in 1939.
video

"Job losses in January were large and widespread across the major industry sectors," said Keith Hall, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mirroring the government data, a Who's Who from Corporate America including Caterpillar Inc., Home Depot Inc., Black & Decker Corp. and Microsoft Corp. all announced layoffs in January.

The unemployment rate, which is calculated using a survey of households, jumped 0.4 percentage point to 7.6%, the highest since September 1992. Employment in the household survey plummeted by more than 1.2 million. Some economists think the jobless rate may hit 9% in coming months.

"Probably for the next couple of months we'll see this hemorrhaging continuing," said Bill DeMario, president of Ajilon Professional Staffing, a unit of Adecco SA. "At this point it's kind of becoming self-perpetuating," as companies adjust to the recession.

By some broader gauges labor-market conditions are even worse than the main numbers suggest. When marginally attached and involuntary part-time workers are included, the rate of unemployed or underemployed workers actually reached 13.9% last month, up almost five percentage points from a year earlier. The employment-to-population ratio was the lowest since 1986.

"By every measure available -- loss of employment and hours, rise of unemployment, shrinkage of the employment to population rate -- this recession is steeper than any recession of the last 40 years, including the harsh recession of the early 1980s," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C.

With no more room to lower official interest rates, which are near zero, Fed policymakers now have to rely on quantitative easing through the Fed's balance sheet to pump money into the financial system. Officials will likely face more pressure to widen their efforts to perhaps even include purchases of longer-term Treasury securities.

Average hourly earnings increased a modest $0.05, or 0.3%, to $18.46. That was up 3.9% from one year ago.

Friday's numbers, along with grim automobile and retailer sales reports, suggest that the economy hasn't stabilized after the fourth quarter's 3.8% slide in gross domestic product, which was the steepest since 1982.

According to Friday's report, hiring last month in goods-producing industries plunged by over 300,000. Within this group, manufacturing firms cut 207,000 jobs, the most since the 1982 recession, with losses concentrated in fabricated metals and motor vehicles and parts.

Construction employment was down by 111,000.

Service-sector employment tumbled 279,000. Business and professional services companies shed 121,000 jobs, the third-straight six-figure loss, and financial-sector payrolls were down 42,000.

Retail trade cut over 45,000 jobs, the 12th-straight loss, while leisure and hospitality businesses shed 28,000, as households curtail nonessential spending.

Temporary employment, which economists consider a leading indicator of future job prospects, fell by more than 76,000.

Among the sole bright spots were health care and education, which tend to be more labor intensive and less productive than manufacturing and other services. Employment in those sectors together rose 54,000.

The government added 6,000 jobs.

The average workweek was unchanged at 33.3 hours, though that's still down sharply from one year ago. A separate index of aggregate weekly hours fell 0.7 points to 102.6.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
I really wasnt aware the President had direct control of the economy. Please, enlighten me.

It really is sad to see though. This is the worst job market I have seen in my adult life.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I really wasnt aware the President had direct control of the economy. Please, enlighten me.

It really is sad to see though. This is the worst job market I have seen in my adult life.

everything about this post is true... It seems the liberals are going to hold onto GWB as long as possible because it is one of the biggest screwups ever, from our current perspective... a few years from now and we could be seeing other studies showing other causes, older, or ones straight from GWB...
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.

Im guessing many of the people who are for the bill are also the ones who thought Obama would pay thier mortgage and gas.


For as much as we all argue with each other here, we are some of the most informed people. Can you imagine just how little most people out there know when someone calls to poll them on an issue like this?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.

Uhh... did they only poll Berkeley? Seems to me that the national polls on this pork bill are no where near 50%

Seems the gallup poll put it at 38%

Rassmussen has it at 37% down from 42
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,629
2,888
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan. We can't continue losing half a million jobs every month with no end in sight. The stimulus plan will return our country to a period of job growth, which will in turn restore consumer confidence and strength in our financial markets.

Hopefully, Americans understand that anything worth doing is worth taking the time to do things right. If someone stands up and says "You must do this NOW or there will be dire consequences", 5 will get you 10 that they're hoping to incite panic to cover up the ill-conceived logic of their plan.

This holds true with everything: Bush's desire to invade Iraq, Paulson's NEED for the bailout money NOW, and yes, Obama's NEED for stimulus NOW as well.
 

Paraguay11

Junior Member
Dec 24, 2008
20
0
0
The stimulus plan. In it's current form will not help. It is simply a laundry list of democratic picked they have been liking to pass for years...
Ameicans will believe anything as long as they think more money is going to them, that is what the democratic party is based off.

Having said all that the some of thd secondary derivatives are looking better this month, I am going to make a prediction that when the epi goes back this quarter will be the bottom of the recession and the stimulus package simply added if passed.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.

Something is wrong if we're passing bills based on popular support. That skips the entire point of a democratic republic.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.

Uhh... did they only poll Berkeley? Seems to me that the national polls on this pork bill are no where near 50%

Seems the gallup poll put it at 38%

Rassmussen has it at 37% down from 42
CBS & Gallup both have results from yesterday at 51% and 52%, respectively.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
There are (at least) two questions that need to be answered before laying economic blame on a president or political party:

1. How long does it take for the effects of governmental policies to ripple through the nation's and the world's economy?
2. Which policies caused the effects?

One may argue that the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic conditions. One may also argue that we are feeling ripple effects of policies set up during the Clinton administration. Then, one might argue those policies were responding to policies of the Reagan/Bush I era. It could go back and back in time.

Trying to assign blame to policies in such a grand scale of macroeconomics is like trying to blame Hurrican Katrina on bovine flatulence. There are just too many variables for anyone to clearly discern cause and effect.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think Americans understand the urgency of enacting Obama's stimulus plan.
Hyperbole? Many think it's ridiculous.
Support is hovering around 51% according to the newest polls; disapproval is around 38%.

I'm guessing most of the people who disapprove are the same people who are buying the GOP charade over the 2% of pork in the bill.

Uhh... did they only poll Berkeley? Seems to me that the national polls on this pork bill are no where near 50%

Seems the gallup poll put it at 38%

Rassmussen has it at 37% down from 42
CBS & Gallup both have results from yesterday at 51% and 52%, respectively.

LINK TO ACTUAL F'N POLL I GOT THE NUMBERS FROM

Your generic poll doesn't actually give a view of reality. The polls by Rass that actually ask more than a yes/no to one question show that people don't support the bloated pork bill.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,123
9,248
136
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I really wasnt aware the President had direct control of the economy. Please, enlighten me.

It really is sad to see though. This is the worst job market I have seen in my adult life.

Democrats and Republicans help created the housing bubble since the 90s. Ultimate it comes down to the greedy individual though, creating jobs on inflated money that never should have existed in the first place.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Mental recession. :roll:

It is all in our heads, they said...

In politics, just as in medicine, a second opinion never hurts.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Wasn't the only reason Clinton had a surplus was due to the fact of taking money away from SS?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
How many of those job losses were on or after Jan. 20th?

I see what you are trying to do there. Sure, go ahead and call this the "Obama Recession" and see where that gets you. Besides, for the ten and a half days Obama was first president, I'm sure he had a MAJOR impact on economic conditions. It is only now (February) that he has yet to do anything that would have effects on the job market. Wall street is irrational right now, so it figures a new president, especially one from a different party, would "spook" them. Gimme a break.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Wasn't the only reason Clinton had a surplus was due to the fact of taking money away from SS?

Dot-com boom ring a bell? We had some decent leadership back then, when the Republican congress had some semblance of principle and pragmatism still left in it. Besides, Congress has been raiding the SS funds for DECADES, so to single out Clinton is pretty misleading. Sure, it probably helped to balance the sheets of the deficit a bit, but I don't see any evidence that he did it any moreso than his predecessors...
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Interesting how the unemployment numbers (source) correspond so well to the voting patterns (states won by Obama are highlighted, by McCain in plaintext):


Top 12 States* with highest unemployment rates:

51 MICHIGAN 10.6 (Obama +16%)
50 RHODE ISLAND 10.0 (Obama +28%)
49 SOUTH CAROLINA 9.5 (McCain +9%)
48 CALIFORNIA 9.3 (Obama +28%)
47 NEVADA 9.1 (Obama +12%)
46 OREGON 9.0 (Obama +16%)
45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 8.8 (Obama +86%)
44 NORTH CAROLINA 8.7 (Obama by a fraction)
43 INDIANA 8.2 (Obama +1%)
41 GEORGIA 8.1 (McCain +5%)
41 FLORIDA 8.1 (Obama +3%)
40 MISSISSIPPI 8.0 4.9 (McCain +13%)


* I realize D.C. is not a state.

Top 12 States with lowest unemployment rates:

1 WYOMING 3.4 (McCain +22%)
2 NORTH DAKOTA 3.5 (McCain +8%)
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 3.9 (McCain +8%)
4 NEBRASKA 4.0 (McCain +15%)
5 UTAH 4.3 (McCain +27%)
6 IOWA 4.6 (Obama +9%)
6 NEW HAMPSHIRE 4.6 (Obama +9%)
8 NEW MEXICO 4.9 (Obama +15%)
8 OKLAHOMA 4.9 (McCain +32%)
8 WEST VIRGINIA 4.9 (McCain +13%)
11 KANSAS 5.2 4.9 (McCain +16%)
12 MONTANA 5.4 4.9 (McCain +3%)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: glenn1
Interesting how the unemployment numbers (source) correspond so well to the voting patterns
That should be obvious. If you lost your job during the Bush administration, why would you vote for his clone?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
How many of those job losses were on or after Jan. 20th?

I see what you are trying to do there. Sure, go ahead and call this the "Obama Recession" and see where that gets you. Besides, for the ten and a half days Obama was first president, I'm sure he had a MAJOR impact on economic conditions. It is only now (February) that he has yet to do anything that would have effects on the job market. Wall street is irrational right now, so it figures a new president, especially one from a different party, would "spook" them. Gimme a break.

Everyone pounded on George W. from Jan 20, 2001. What goes around comes around. Remember the so called Bush recession that began in 2000?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
How many of those job losses were on or after Jan. 20th?

I see what you are trying to do there. Sure, go ahead and call this the "Obama Recession" and see where that gets you. Besides, for the ten and a half days Obama was first president, I'm sure he had a MAJOR impact on economic conditions. It is only now (February) that he has yet to do anything that would have effects on the job market. Wall street is irrational right now, so it figures a new president, especially one from a different party, would "spook" them. Gimme a break.

Everyone pounded on George W. from Jan 20, 2001. What goes around comes around. Remember the so called Bush recession that began in 2000?

No, we collectively called it the "dotcom bust". Bush was given the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. It wasnt' until the he and the Republican Congress started to have their policies' impact felt that we started outright blaming him. Besides, back then things were still good enough to where finding a job wasn't near as hard as it is now. It is a matter of scale. Obama hasn't really done much to affect the economy....yet. That is going to change very quickly once this "stimulus" gets passed. Your attempt at a direct comparison there is laughable.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
No, we collectively called it the "dotcom bust". Bush was given the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. It wasnt' until the he and the Republican Congress started to have their policies' impact felt that we started outright blaming him. Besides, back then things were still good enough to where finding a job wasn't near as hard as it is now. It is a matter of scale. Obama hasn't really done much to affect the economy....yet. That is going to change very quickly once this "stimulus" gets passed. Your attempt at a direct comparison there is laughable.

The economy was freaking great under bush. Get your history straight. It wasn't until dem congress that things started to get unstable.

And this instability is directly linked to dem congress.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
No, we collectively called it the "dotcom bust". Bush was given the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. It wasnt' until the he and the Republican Congress started to have their policies' impact felt that we started outright blaming him. Besides, back then things were still good enough to where finding a job wasn't near as hard as it is now. It is a matter of scale. Obama hasn't really done much to affect the economy....yet. That is going to change very quickly once this "stimulus" gets passed. Your attempt at a direct comparison there is laughable.

The economy was freaking great under bush. Get your history straight. It wasn't until dem congress that things started to get unstable.

And this instability is directly linked to dem congress.


Sure, too bad it was all borrowed money.......Bush was a frickin genious. :disgust:
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |