PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Economy: Payroll Losses Slow, Unemployment Rate Climbs



SnakeBoy
09-04-2009, 12:42 PM
Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The pace of U.S. job losses slowed in August while the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high, signaling the recovery from recession will be slow to develop.

Employers cut payrolls by 216,000, fewer than forecast, after a 276,000 drop in July, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The jobless rate rose to 9.7 percent; the so- called underemployment rate -- which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- reached a record 16.8 percent.

Today’s figures stoke concern that the recovery forecast to take hold in the second half of the year won’t prompt a turnaround in the job market until 2010. With the ranks of long- term unemployed nearing 5 million, workers are at risk of losing skills, making it even tougher for them to eventually find work.

“The economy is no longer detonating, but we are still losing jobs,” David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates Inc. in Toronto, said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. “It’s going to be a very tough environment for the consumer.”

Stocks fluctuated after the release, and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was up 0.3 percent at 1,005.99 as of 11:23 a.m. in New York. Treasuries were lower, with benchmark 10-year notes yielding 3.38 percent from 3.35 percent late yesterday.

Rising joblessness underscores Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s judgment this week that it’s “too early” to start exiting from the unprecedented stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing the economy.

Lowering Costs

AMR Corp. and Whirlpool Corp. are among the companies continuing to cut staff to lower costs and revive profits in the aftermath of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

“The labor market lags behind the rest of the economy, so we are first going to have to see positive GDP growth,” Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a Bloomberg Radio interview. While 9.7 percent unemployment is “a tragedy,” Romer noted that the pace of job losses has slowed from 741,000 in January.

Romer said the Obama administration’s $787 billion fiscal stimulus is working to boost growth and declined to comment on whether a second effort will be needed.

Revisions subtracted 49,000 from payroll figures previously reported for July and June. The drop for July is now calculated at 276,000, compared with the 247,000 previously reported.

Payrolls were forecast to fall 230,000 in August according to the median of 79 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The jobless rate was projected to rise to 9.5 percent. Analysts in a monthly Bloomberg survey projected the jobless rate will reach 10 percent by early 2010 and average 9.8 percent next year.

Recession’s Toll

The latest numbers brought total jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007 to 6.9 million, the biggest decline in any post-World War II economic slump.

Among the 14.9 million unemployed Americans in August, 4.99 million were out of work for more than 26 weeks. The percentage of jobless who weren’t classified as on temporary layoff rose to 53.9 percent, up from 39.1 percent a year ago.

“Layoffs that we’re having are more structural and not cyclical, and that makes it more difficult to have a meaningful rebound in income growth, which is a key ingredient as I said for sustainable self re-enforcing expansion,” said Tony Crescenzi, a market strategist and portfolio manager at Pacific Investment Management Co., manager of the world’s biggest bond fund.

Breadth of Declines

All major job categories recorded losses in August, with construction payrolls tumbling 65,000, factories cutting another 63,000 and retailers firing 10,000 people.

Whirlpool, the world’s largest appliance maker, is among those firms still eliminating positions. The Benton Harbor, Michigan-based company said Aug. 28 it will close its Evansville, Indiana, manufacturing plant, resulting in the elimination of 1,100 jobs.

Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines, a unit of AMR, said this week it will furlough 228 flight attendants and put 244 more on involuntary leave.

Federal Reserve officials had “particular” concern about the job market when they met Aug. 11-12, minutes of the gathering showed this week.

“Long-term unemployment and permanent separations continued to rise, suggesting possible problems of skill loss and a need for labor reallocation that could slow recovery in employment begins to expand,” the Fed said in the minutes released Sept. 2.

Fed Rate Changes

Federal Reserve policy makers waited at least a year after unemployment peaked before raising interest rates in the aftermath of the previous two recessions.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, credited with preventing a second depression in winning nomination by President Barack Obama for a second term last month, has overseen a $1.2 trillion expansion of the central bank’s balance sheet to combat the credit crisis.

Today’s report also showed the average work week held at 33.1 hours in August. Average weekly hours worked by production workers remained unchanged from the month before, at 39.8 hours, while overtime also held at 2.9 hours. That brought the average weekly earnings up to $617.32 from $615.33.

“We’re still going to see some months of job cuts,” said Brian Bethune, chief financial economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “There is a whole range of options, like adding shifts or hours, that companies can put in place until it becomes necessary to hire people back.”

Workers’ average hourly wages rose 6 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $18.65 from the prior month. Hourly earnings were 2.6 percent higher than August 2008. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had forecast a 0.1 percent increase from the prior month and a 2.2 percent gain for the 12-month period.

The U.S. recession “is bottoming out” and the economy is poised for “a slow return,” Alcoa Inc. Chief Executive Officer Klaus Kleinfeld said in a Sept. 2 interview. The head of the largest U.S. aluminum producer said government stimulus in the U.S. and China will affect the New York-based company’s earnings “positively” this year.

SouthernFried
09-04-2009, 12:57 PM
It's called prolonging the recession.

It's what FDR did as well, which prolonged the Depression.

You want to see how quickly you can get out of a Recession that is worse than the one we have now...Look to Reagan.

Increasing taxes and burdens on the populace is not how you get of economic slumps. You lessen their taxes and burdens.

Common sense just is not common anymore

George Gervin's Afro
09-04-2009, 12:58 PM
It's called prolonging the recession.

It's what FDR did as well, which prolonged the Depression.

You want to see how quickly you can get out of a Recession that is worse than the one we have now...Look to Reagan.

Increasing taxes and burdens on the populace is not how you get of economic slumps. You lessen their taxes and burdens.

Common sense just is not common anymore

what taxes have been raised?

ChumpDumper
09-04-2009, 01:10 PM
Reagan increased the burden of the deficit every year he was in office.

clambake
09-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Reagan increased the burden of the deficit every year he was in office.

they only bring him up because you're not supposed to pick on a dead man. (other than teddy)

Shastafarian
09-04-2009, 01:20 PM
sIzivCJ9pzU

boutons_deux
09-04-2009, 02:09 PM
"You lessen their taxes"

gotta have a job first. St Ronnie opened the war on employees, which continues today.

What is the Repug alternative to what what Magik Negro is doing "wrong"?

SouthernFried
09-04-2009, 02:47 PM
Oh, well...

nevermind

Johnson
09-04-2009, 02:53 PM
they only bring him up because you're not supposed to pick on a dead man. (other than teddy)

who's picking on Teddy?

http://ironkyle.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/teddy-roosevelt.jpg

ChumpDumper
09-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Many people leave out the role of the fed in the 81 recovery. Back then, Volker was able to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates dramatically because he had jacked up interest rates to kill the inflation that had been plaguing the US for years. It's not that simple this time around since interest rates had been kept ridiculously low for a ridiculously long time and can't be lowered any further.

Yonivore
09-04-2009, 03:04 PM
Reagan increased the burden of the deficit every year he was in office.
Ah, to have Reaganesque budget deficits again.

And, actually, according to this graph, there may have been a slight surplus in '82. But, who's quibbling.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn150/HaoDaMao/AnnualCumDeficitOverPlan.png

http://www.captainscomments.com/images/675-20090321DeficitGraph.jpg

You should be embarrassed to try and compare what Obama has managed in 7 months to what was done by any previous administration. He has eclipsed, obliterated, annihilated, any previous budgetary catastrophe ever even imagined by any previous administration. Period. End of argument.

And, he doesn't seem the least bit phased by our insolvency.

ChumpDumper
09-04-2009, 03:13 PM
according to this graph, there may have been a slight surplus in '82. But, who's quibbling.According to this graph, there was never anything close to a surplus during the Reagan years.

Only deficits.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif

Yonivore
09-04-2009, 03:47 PM
But...Ronald Reagan got those Hostages (without any backroom deals, despite what the jewish liberal media says) and Destroyed Russ..I mean the USSR (despite the fact that communism doesnt work) in the name of God.
Your point?

Was it wrong to gain the release of the hostages?

Was it wrong to stand up to Soviet oppression?

boutons_deux
09-04-2009, 03:48 PM
mental patient Ronnie didn't get no hostages, "his people" did a deal with the Iranians before the election so the Iranians would hold the hostages to make sure Jimmy was defeated.

Ronnie did NOTHING but Hollywood bullshit. The Russian empire collapsed due to the collapse of their hard $$$ revenues from the oil sales, and bankrupting themselves in Afghanistan.

Yonivore
09-04-2009, 04:00 PM
mental patient Ronnie didn't get no hostages, "his people" did a deal with the Iranians before the election so the Iranians would hold the hostages to make sure Jimmy was defeated.
Jimmy wasn't defeated because of the hostages. He had a multitude of other "issues" that doomed his candidacy.

Granted, the hostage situation didn't help him but, he was going down no matter what. It was the economy, stupid.


Ronnie did NOTHING but Hollywood bullshit. The Russian empire collapsed due to the collapse of their hard $$$ revenues from the oil sales, and bankrupting themselves in Afghanistan.
The USSR collapsed because they spent themselves into oblivion over their expansionist policies and ratcheting up the cold war which.

Reagan's refusal to put the Strategic Defense Initiative on the table in Iceland was the straw that broke the Commie's back. We outspent them and Gorbachev knew the jig was up.

Democrats were trying to undermine Reagan at every turn and, had they succeeded, the USSR would have been encouraged to continue the cold war.

Yeah, Reagan, Thatcher, and the Pope had everything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Otherwise, why was Teddy Kennedy trying to work with the Communists to undermine Reagan in '84?

Yonivore
09-04-2009, 06:08 PM
So you're saying that we forced a communist state to overspend? :lol
I'll give you credit, that line has been repeated for ages.
Sometimes "lines" are repeated because they're accurate.

ChumpDumper
09-04-2009, 06:18 PM
So communism was working up until then according to you.

SnakeBoy
09-04-2009, 06:28 PM
Gorbachev calls Reagan ‘a great president’
Despite sometimes tense relations, ex-Soviet leader offers praise


updated 10:14 a.m. CT, Sun., June 6, 2004
MOSCOW - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said Sunday he was distressed by the death of former President Ronald Reagan
with whom he held complicated and tense talks in the fading years of the Cold War.

“I take very hard the death of Ronald Reagan, a man whom by fate sat with me in perhaps the most difficult years at the end of the 20th century,” Gorbachev told reporters at the Gorbachev Foundation, a non-governmental analytical institute that he has run since 1992.

Those were years, Gorbachev said, “when everyone felt that we lived under the threat of nuclear conflict.”

Despite Reagan’s often-forceful statements against the Soviet Union, Gorbachev said he also had a personal warmth that bolstered their relations.

“In terms of human qualities, he and I had, you would say, communicativeness and this helped us carry on normally,” Gorbachev said.

“But when you talk about friendly relations in politics, it’s not the friendship of schoolmates, of the Arbat,” he said referring to Moscow’s main street for promenades and relaxation.

“I deem Ronald Reagan a great president, with whom the Soviet leadership was able to launch a very difficult but important dialogue,” the Interfax news agency quoted Gorbachev as saying on Ekho Moskvy radio.

Earlier Sunday, Gorbachev was quoted by Interfax as calling Reagan “a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better.”

Gorbachev listed Reagan’s accomplishments as helping to “stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange normal relations between our countries,” he was quoted as saying.

“I do not know how other statesmen would have acted at that moment, because the situation was too difficult. Reagan, whom many considered extremely rightist, dared to make these steps, and this is his most important deed,” he was quoted as saying.

But liberal idiots on an internet forum know better than Gorbachev right.

ChumpDumper
09-04-2009, 06:31 PM
But liberal idiots on an internet forum know better than Gorbachev right.What in that article is in conflict with what people here posted?

SnakeBoy
09-04-2009, 07:03 PM
What in that article is in conflict with what people here posted?

It just demonstrates that the simplistic discussion of Reagans role in the end of the cold war and the demise of the Soviet Union is well...simplistic. I have to run an errand so I don't have time to give you a history lesson. In a nutshell, ask yourself if the the soviet union would have fallen without Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Then ask yourself if Gorbachev would have been able to oust the communist hardliners without Reagan. I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that Reagan had nothing to do with it even though Gorbachev himself would disagree with you.

SpurNation
09-04-2009, 11:14 PM
You know...it's amazing to see those posting according to what they think regarding party lines are proven wrong...and with such adherence to party lines...they don't ever leave themselves open to ever being able to accept what may be correct if it is not in accordance to those party lines.

Get a life nut suckers...you still might be able to formulate an opinion not based on brainwashed academia and become a genuine person.

Not all is this or that according to party manipulation.

ChumpDumper
09-05-2009, 12:22 AM
It just demonstrates that the simplistic discussion of Reagans role in the end of the cold war and the demise of the Soviet Union is well...simplistic. I have to run an errand so I don't have time to give you a history lesson. In a nutshell, ask yourself if the the soviet union would have fallen without Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Then ask yourself if Gorbachev would have been able to oust the communist hardliners without Reagan. I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that Reagan had nothing to do with it even though Gorbachev himself would disagree with you.But he didn't say anything about Reagan's deficit spending in there. No need for a history lesson there, you just failed to back up your argument with that particular article.

Wild Cobra
09-05-2009, 07:42 PM
what taxes have been raised?
Not many, but I'll bet some have been in legoslation slipping through congress while everyone is watching health care.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if thates are raised, the fear of taxes being raised causes panic in capital investors. They shelter their money instead of creating jobs. Same with this recession. We weren't robust, but stable. The downplay of the good and the harping of the bad caused what we have now for an economy. It was more important of the left to say how bad things were under president Bush than speak the truth.

Reagan increased the burden of the deficit every year he was in office.
Are you saying the double digit inflation had no effect on the interest on the debt already accumulated? Get real. His cold war spending was justified. The inflation and interest rates he inherited from the outgoing administration wasn't.

Many people leave out the role of the fed in the 81 recovery. Back then, Volker was able to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates dramatically because he had jacked up interest rates to kill the inflation that had been plaguing the US for years. It's not that simple this time around since interest rates had been kept ridiculously low for a ridiculously long time and can't be lowered any further.
Remember you admitted he cause the interest rate increase that you blame president Reagan's defit spending on.

According to this graph, there was never anything close to a surplus during the Reagan years.

Only deficits.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif
After the budgets have been conciliated with additional spending and paying interest, there has not been a end of year budget surplus since 1969. Your chart does not contain all the relevant data.

ChumpDumper
09-05-2009, 08:19 PM
Are you saying the double digit inflation had no effect on the interest on the debt already accumulated?Sure it did -- Reagan still ran up the debt with his spending.
Get real. His cold war spending was justified.Debatable. I know it is the core of your belief system, but to believe that you also have to believe that the Soviet Union was doing great until Reagan spent a lot of money. I disagree with that premise.
The inflation and interest rates he inherited from the outgoing administration wasn't.Boo fucking hoo. Carter and Volker had already made the moves necessary to kill the inflation. You should thank them.


Remember you admitted he cause the interest rate increase that you blame president Reagan's defit spending on.Post in English next time. The figures are in constant dollars.


After the budgets have been conciliated with additional spending and paying interest, there has not been a end of year budget surplus since 1969. Your chart does not contain all the relevant data.So you agree that Reagan ran up the deficit. Fine by me.

PEP
09-05-2009, 10:24 PM
So I guess those that are getting their panties in a wad about the deficits under Reagan are having a worse time right now under Obama. Right??

I love all the Reagan haters on here, he was horrible and terrible, my pussy hurts. How did his elections turn out? :lol

ChumpDumper
09-06-2009, 12:08 AM
He wasn't horrible and terrible, just overrated.

Jacob1983
09-06-2009, 01:00 PM
Reagan was overrated? You sure about that? If anyone is overrated, it's Obama. The guy hasn't done shit as president.

ChumpDumper
09-06-2009, 01:34 PM
Reagan was overrated? You sure about that?Yes, I am sure about that.

hope4dopes
09-06-2009, 09:13 PM
If you think the stimulus bill is working ask someone who isn't.