Reply With Quote
Not at all surprising.
Awwwwww...damn the bad...errr, good luck, eh?
Jobless benefits claims reach 4-year low
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A gauge of future economic activity slipped a bit in January while the number of laid-off workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in more than four years.
The Conference Board reported that its Index of Leading Economic Indicators edged down 0.3 percent last month after having posted a gain of 0.3 percent in December.
The decline was blamed on a jump in energy prices last month, a weaker dollar and cautious business at udes about the future.
Ken Goldstein, a Conference Board economist, said that the leading indicators index, designed to predict activity over the next three to six months, was showing an economy that was "positive, but more spotty than robust."
Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported that a total of 302,000 Americans filed applications for unemployment benefits last week, the lowest level since Oct. 28, 2000, when the country was nearing the end of a decade-long economic expansion.
Last week, total claims fell by 2,000, the third straight weekly decline.
Investors, digesting all the economic news, pushed stocks lower. The Dow Jones industrial average was down 44 points at mid-day.
The decline in jobless claims caught analysts by surprise. They had been forecasting an increase of around 12,000, reflecting a predicted bounce up after the impressive declines of 9,000 and 12,000 in the previous two weeks.
Analysts said the decline in claims provided further evidence that the labor market is continuing to show improvements with fewer layoffs and more companies deciding to hire new workers.
The four-week moving average for unemployment claims, which smooths out week-to-week volatility, also fell last week, dropping to 311,750, the lowest level since Nov. 4, 2000.
In another report, the Labor Department said that prices for imported goods rose by 0.9 percent in January as foreign petroleum prices jumped 4.6 percent and the price of non-petroleum imports edged up 0.2 percent. Import prices are expected to continue rising this year as the weaker dollar makes foreign products more expensive for American consumers.
The January increase in import prices was the biggest jump since a 1.6 percent rise in October. In November and December, import prices had fallen as petroleum prices declined from record highs set in October.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, delivering the central bank's latest economic forecast to Congress, said on Wednesday that the economy was growing at a solid pace with inflation pressures remaining low.
Even though the last recession ended in November 2001, companies kept laying off employees until the summer of 2003 as they succeeded in getting more output from their existing work force. That effort gave the country strong gains in productivity but also contributed to a sustained jobless recovery.
However, in 2004, payroll jobs increased by 2.2 million, after job losses in both 2001 and 2002 and a small increase in 2003. A gain of 146,000 jobs in January allowed President Bush to escape the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to experience a net job loss during his first term in office.
Not at all surprising.
Not at all surprising that some think that there is a strong corrolation between jobless benefit claims and actual unemployment figures.
Because there is?
I also heard that this could because many simply stopped filing and said it.
But like any president, whent the news is good they take credit but when it's not...it was Clinton's fault.
Ding, ding, ding. I'm sure unemployment claims by jobless autoworkers also went down in the 80s under Reagan. They just realized those jobs were never coming back.I also heard that this could because many simply stopped filing and said it.
Dings here and there, normal. The economy is healthy imho. That's just me though.
I guess I must be the only one that would rather have a good economy no matter what the party of the candidate in office.
Do you really think people stopped filing their unemployment claims because they figured the jobs weren't coming back? How stupid is that - to give up free money because you're too lazy to file? I can't imagine anybody not using the full 6 months of unemployment if needed.
I've always been able to find work but I did slack off a bit after I got out of the Corps and that's been the only time I've ever claimed unemployment. (I'm so ashamed)
And to be honest I'm not smart enough to figure out the economic impact because I've always lived by my take home pay.
are you sure you're libral? most librals want to live on my take home pay.And to be honest I'm not smart enough to figure out the economic impact because I've always lived by my take home pay.
The economy is healthy? The DJIA still isn't back to Clinton administration levels, peaking at over 11000 about 5 years ago. If the Dems had the Whitehouse, the GOP would be screaming RECESSION! A company that had flat numbers for a period of 5 years would put the CEO out on his ass. Why should the American public have to settle for less?
The economy is stagnant, at best, and if you factor in that it should be growing at least a few % each year (2?), then it's sliding.
The economy is getting stronger all the time. After all of the bankruptcies of major corporations and 9/11 it's finally getting back on track.
clavin sure knows a lot of for a postman
After all of the bankruptcies of major corporations and 9/11 it's finally getting back on track.Keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night.
The DJIA was at 3500 when Clinton took office. He left it over 10000. That's growth.
All I know is, that a lot of people in this thread must have stayed at Holiday Inn Express' last night.
clinton also had the tech stock bubble...and the burst of it too...
It's gotta to be hard to believe your own lies. Year in which Clinton left office (btw I voted clinton) Nasdaq bursted in flames and I'm sure you remember your investment taking a bath that year. From 5k to 2k in one freakin year, blah! then 9 months later 9/11 and the dow goes from 9700 or so to 7200. Worst market since the depression and neither of the presidents were to blame.Keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night.
The DJIA was at 3500 when Clinton took office. He left it over 10000. That's growth.
I've heard this implied by many right-wing pundits, but can someone explain to me how a President, who after all, has a negligible effect on the economy, can be responsible for the rise and fall of the tech bubble?
Clinton had nothing to do with it, and for the right-wind pundits who say otherwise are just partisans.
We the people have all to do with the rise and fall of the economy, and we the American people should be thankful that we have a system and infrastructure that allows us to be great.
We need the government to get out of our way.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 02-17-2005 at 08:58 PM.
This ties in nicely with the flu-shot shortage story from a few months ago. Coincidence? I don't think so!
Tech stocks are primarily the NASDAQ which was why I used the DJIA as the guideline. However, if you want to bring that into the MIX it was at 4500 at one point under Clinton, and is now at 2100ish, stuck pretty much running in place like the DOW is now.
when analyzing the market it's always good to consider more than just 30 stocks of the over 12,000 stocks in existence. The nasdaq ended at about 2100 under clinton.
If you want to know more about the last stock market boom go back to 80 then start to formulate your opinion.
If you want to know why the Dow went from 3500 to as high as 11700 under Clinton, go back and look not only at the balanced budgets, but the reduction of the deficit under that administration. The lack of either of those situations occuring now is one of the reasons the economy has been flat for the whole Bush tenure.
----The Great American Job Sell Out
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Americans are being sold out on the jobs front. Americans' employment opportunities are declining as a result of corporate outsourcing of US jobs, H-1B visas that import foreigners to displace Americans in their own country, and federal guest worker programs
President Bush and his Republican majority intend to legalize the aliens who hold down wages for construction companies and cleaning services. In order to stretch budgets, state and local governments bring in lower paid foreign nurses and school teachers. To reduce costs, US corporations outsource jobs abroad and use work visa programs to import foreign engineers and programmers. The American job give away is explained by a "shortage" of Americans to take the jobs.
There are not too many Americans willing to accept the pay and working conditions of migrant farm workers. However, the US is bursting at the seams with unemployed computer engineers and well-educated professionals who are displaced by outsourcing and H-1B visas. During Bush's entire first term, there was a net loss of American private sector jobs. Today there are 760,000 fewer private sector jobs in the US economy than when Bush was first inaugurated in January 2001.
For years the hallmark of the European economy was its inability to create any jobs other than government jobs. America has caught up with Europe. During Bush's first term, state and local government created 879,000 new government jobs. Offsetting these government jobs against the net loss in private sector jobs gives Bush a four-year jobs growth of 119,000 government jobs. Comparing this pathetic result to normal performance produces a shortage of 8 million US jobs. What happened to these jobs?
Over these same four years the composition of US jobs has changed from higher-paid manufacturing and information technology jobs to lower-paid domestic services. Why?
During this extraordinary breakdown in the American employment machine, politicians, government officials, corporate spokespersons, and "free trade" economists gave assurances that America was benefitting greatly from the work visa programs and outsourcing.
The mindless chatter continues. Just the other day Ambassador David Gross, US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy in the State Department, declared outsourcing to be an economic efficiency that works to America's benefit. There is no sign of this alleged benefit in US jobs statistics or the US balance of trade.
Repeatedly and incorrectly, US corporations state that outsourcing creates more US jobs. They even convinced a New York Times columnist that this was the case.
The problem is, no one can identify where the US jobs are that outsourcing allegedly creates. They are certainly not to be found in the BLS jobs statistics. However, the Indian and Chinese jobs created by US outsourcing are highly visible.
On February 13, the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News reported that jobs outsourcing is transforming Indian "cities like Bangalore from sleepy little backwaters into the New York Cities of Asia." In a very short period outsourcing has helped to raise India from one of the world's poorest countries to its seventh largest economy.
Outsourcing proponents claim that US job loss is being exaggerated, that outsourcing is really just a small thing involving a few call centers. If that is the case, how is it transforming sleepy Indian cities into "the New York Cities of Asia"? If outsourcing is no big deal, why are Bangalore hotel rooms "packed with foreigners paying rates higher than in Tokyo or London," as the Dayton Daily News reports?
If outsourcing is of no real consequence, why are American lawyers or their clients paying $2,900 in fees plus hotel and travel expenses and two days' billings to attend the Fourth National Conference on Outsourcing in Financial Services in Washington DC (April 20-21)?
On the jobs front, as on the war front, the social security front and every other front, Americans are not being given the truth. Americans' news comes from people allied with the Bush administration or dependent on revenues from corporate advertisers. Displease the government or advertisers and your media empire is in trouble. The news most Americans get is filtered. It is the permitted news. Many "free trade" advocates also are dependent on the corporate money that funds their salaries, research and think tanks.
Another clear indication that outsourcing of US jobs is no small thing comes from the reported earnings of the leading Indian corporations that provide American firms with outsourced IT employees and engineers. During the recent quarter, Ifosys' revenues increased by 53%, TCS grew by 38%, and Wipro was up 34%.
On January 1, 2001, Cincinnati-based Convergys Corp had one Indian employee. Today it has 10,000. Why? Because it can hire Indian university graduates for $240 a month, a sum that is a small fraction of the US poverty level income.
Many Americans think that an outsourced job is an existing job that is moved offshore. But many outsourced jobs are created offshore in the first place. On February 11, USA Today told the story of OfficeTiger, "the sort of young technology company that once created thousands of high-paying jobs in the USA, fueling sizzling economic growth." The five-year old startup business employs 200 Americans and ten times that number of Indians. The company has plans for hiring many more Indians to perform "tech-heavy financial services."
Under pressure from venture capitalists who fund new companies, American startup firms are starting up abroad. Thus, the new ventures, which "free trade" economists assured us would create new jobs to take the place of the ones moved offshore by mature firms, are in fact creating jobs for foreigners.
As a consequence, tech jobs in the US are falling as a percentage of the total. Clearly, tax breaks for venture capitalists are self-defeating when the result is to create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize employment in India and China?
These developments have obvious adverse implications for engineering and professional education in America. The BLS jobs forecast for the next ten years says the vast majority of US jobs will not require a college education. University enrollments will decline and so will the production of PhDs as fewer professors are needed.
As India and China rise to first world status, the US falls to third world status where the only jobs are in domestic services.
This has enormous implications for the US balance of payments. Americans' consumption of manufactured goods is heavily dependent on foreign manufacture, whether that of foreign firms or that of US multinational firms that supply their American customers from offshore. How does an economy in which employment growth is concentrated in nontradable domestic services pay for its imports with exports?
Since 1990 the US has been paying for its imports by giving foreigners ownership of its assets. In the last 15 years foreigners have ac ulated $3.6 trillion of America's wealth.
America has been able to pay for its consumption by giving up its wealth because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. As America's high-tech and manufacturing capabilities decline and its red ink rises, the dollar's role as reserve currency must end.
When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, America will not be able to pay for the imports on which it has become dependent. Shopping in Wal-Mart will be like shopping at Neiman Marcus.
Until recent years, US companies employed Americans to produce the goods that Americans consumed. Employment supported sales, and sales supported employment. No more. By their shortsighted policy of moving US jobs abroad, our corporations are destroying their American markets.
Economists give assurances that the dollar's decline and fall will bring jobs and industry back to the US. Once Americans are as poor as Indians and Chinese are today, the process will reverse. Multinational corporations will locate in America to take advantage of cheap labor and unserved markets. By becoming poor, the US can become rich again.
You might want to ask the economists and our "leaders" in Washington why we should put ourselves and our descendants through such a wrenching process.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
CounterPunch
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
