I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Promises?
Those are for Democrats and Socialists.
Republicans? We don't need no steenking promises.
it's that pesky media talking about "war" all the time's what kept the jobs away
http://epinet.org/content.cfm/
we...tures_snapshots
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession ended in November 2001, as a number of indicators suggested that the economy began expanding in that month. Employment, however, was not one of those indicators. Since the recession ended, the number of jobs has declined by one million overall and by 1.2 million in the private sector.
http://epinet.org/content.cfm/
we...rowth_testimony
With the economy continuing to lose jobs, unemployment above 6% and periods of joblessness growing longer for more and more working people, Americans need the economy to grow fast enough to get people back to work. The Bush Administration’s “jobs and growth” tax cut plan was sold to the public with the promise that it will add 1.4 million more new jobs by the end of 2004—over and above the 4.1 million new jobs the administration projects the economy would generate without any tax cuts.
Time to throw Reagan's question back in their face:
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
I thought the economy had to grow at %3 monthly for a recovery?
%2.4 just doesn't cut it.
Since productivity is growing at 4%, we will have to grow close to 4% for quite a whoel just to keep from losing more jobs. Even 3% will not be nearly enough to stem job loss, and we are not yet at 3%.
Look, people, we can do this if we all pitch in. How many jobs you got on you?
I got a job for someone. I HATE putting out the trash. I am willing to pay someone to put out my trash. And put away the dishes from the dishwasher. Pay DOE. Oh, and you MUST be bilingual--French/English.
There was a nice letter in this week's Newsweek (my mother gets it, okay?) from a nice lady somewhere in middle-America--she described herself as a widow working an average job to support herself and her three children. She conducted an informal poll at her workplace and discovered that among her co-workers, the faaaabulous tax cut from Bushie got each of them $40 a month AT THE MOST. She pointed out that her co-workers' savings COMBINED would not buy a place at one of Bushie's fund-raising dinners....
The awareness is sinking in, folks.
Just an FYI, the link is not correct, but it is an errant link from pla's site, not from Atrios.
DaFahq
Productivity soars, jobless claims drop
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress last month that it has been unusual for companies to achieve healthly gains in productivity when the performance of the overall economy has been so lackluster.
"To some extent, companies under pressure to cut costs in an environment of still-tepid sales growth and an uncertain economic outlook might be expected to search aggressively for ways to employ resources more efficiently," Greenspan said. "That they have succeeded, in general, over a number of quarters suggests that a prior accumulation of inefficiencies was available to be eliminated," he added.
Right. Is anyone else getting tired of seeing this spin? Maybe someone with more knowledge of economics can make me feel better about this, but from my micro perspective, when fewer people are doing the same work, of course productivity goes up. I am glad to still have my job with the borg, after 3 layoffs, bankruptcy and acquisition....but us survivors are asked to do roughly the same amount of work that we did when we had 3-4 times the resources. Our asses and morale are dragging so the company can show a bright margin.
And along with the drop in jobless claims, why don't these reports ever mention the growing percentage of discouraged workers, workers no longer eligible for unemployment compensation, or the increasing number of benefits-free part time workers--the workers taking sh**t jobs to make ends meet?
scylla: Inconvenience. Nothing more.
I note that in the margin of my screen, msn is saying the US worker productivity is "soaring." Well, I guess when your job is hanging by a thread and 3 out of every 4 people you know are out of work, you'll work your ass off.
Plus, with fewer workers out there they've got to be working harder.
scylla:
Mark Fiore has an explanation about how YOU can be part of the JOBLESS RECOVERY!
http://www.markfiore.com/animati...on/
jobless.html
link (maybe?)
Why the U.S. has jobless recovery?
1. Capacity utilization in the manufacturing is 10 points below its historic average (source: stat_usa).
2. Consumers did not quit spending during the recession (thanks to low interest rates) and built up even more debts. Plus with mortgage rates increasing, they can no longer be the source of economic engine (source: Economist). Also quoting Bloobmerg TV "Look, I just don't know how long the American consumer can continue to make $100 but spend $120."
3. Despite beating expectation, private companies are not making enough profits to support investment spending - the difference between earnings reported in the media and earnings declared to IRS is at levels not seen since 2000 Bubble (source: Economist). Also see
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net...ves/
001908.html
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pk...n/
hyperbol.html
It has been almost 2 years since the end of the recession. Unemployment is known to be a lagging indicator, but not that lagged! Let's put a positive spin on that call it the new era of productivity.
It has been almost 2 years since the end of the recession. Unemployment is known to be a lagging indicator, but not that lagged!
actually, if you look at the last recession of 1990-1991, employment level peaked in fall 1990, the recession ended early in 1991, and employment did not regain it's pre-recession level until 1993 after Clinton came into office. Based on the last recession, 2 years seems to be about right.
I'm of the firm belief, however, that one of the reasons employment is lagging is due to the artificially high dollar promoted by the Bushies and its effects on manufacturing and exports. As the dollar comes down, employment should increase.
>>And along with the drop in jobless claims, why don't these reports ever mention the growing percentage of discouraged workers, workers no longer eligible for unemployment compensation, or the increasing number of benefits-free part time workers
you're talking 2 different animals here - the numbers that came out this morning are strictly limited to a report of NEW jobless claims being filed for each week. The stuff you are talking about is the Employment report issued by the BLS each MONTH which shows total employment, total labor force and unemployment as a percentage of the labor force. The jiggling around of what constitutes the "labor force" for purposes of getting an unemployment rate is the issue that you are speaking of - which is a valid one - however that is totally different than just plain reporting how many new people filed unemployment claims last week which is today's numbers.
Andy: ...just plain reporting how many new people filed unemployment claims last week which is today's numbers.
I guess I object to reporting that is not in fact "plain" but highly colored. It's an editorial decision how much information to include for readers who are not economists or business people and what assumptions or conclusions to imply.
These reports rarely qualify "jobless claims". For example, in the AP report I posted the leadin is this:
America's business productivity soared, new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a six-month low and retailers reported strong sales, a triple dose of good news as the economy tries to get back to full throttle.
Good news to whom? Business indicators have only the most tenuous connection with the reality the workforce experiences. And as the gap between what's good for big business and what's good for the rest of us widens, such cheery pronouncements about the significance of business indicators are galling. Just give me the facts...
Moreover, I'd argue the situation for labor is very different than it was in the early 90s, when the exploding tech industry created millions of jobs. The reality is that many US jobs lost today are not likely to be replaced. We'll see a lot more jobs going overseas now that multinational corporations have figured out how to use the technology of the global office. I work for one of those giants and I see it happening. A few years ago we were complaining H-1B visas. Today, there's less and less need to import cheaper professional labor ... we're starting to hemorrhage all sorts of professional services jobs.
Andy X said: " actually, if you look at the last recession of 1990-1991, employment level peaked in fall 1990, the recession ended early in 1991, and employment did not regain it's pre-recession level until 1993 after Clinton came into office. Based on the last recession, 2 years seems to be about right"
So you're saying it'll be another 2 years, because we sure as hell aren't at pre-recession unemployment levels.
I'll help you with the math - that'd be four years since the recession ended, just to get back to where we were before the recession.
Sorry, Andy, that was a pretty pathetic attempt at misleading the reader. You'd convince the typical idiot National Review reader, though. Maybe they have a job for you.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
