Unemployment in U.S. Jumps to 10.2%, Payrolls Fall by 190,000

[swag]

Source: Bloomberg

By Timothy R. Homan

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The unemployment rate in the U.S. soared to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October and employers cut more jobs than forecast, underscoring why Federal Reserve policy makers say interest rates will remain low until the labor market recovers.

Payrolls fell by 190,000 workers last month, compared with a 175,000 drop anticipated by the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. The jobless rate gained from 9.8 percent in September and exceeded 10 percent for the first time since 1983.

Companies such as Johnson & Johnson are cutting staff on concern the emerging recovery will be cut short as American consumers retrench. Fed policy makers this week said the economy will probably “remain weak for a time” and reiterated a pledge to keep borrowing costs low for an “extended period.”

“Labor markets overall still reflect recessionary conditions, and further downward pressure on employment and compensation is likely,” Brian Bethune, chief financial economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts, said before the report. “It is no surprise that consumer confidence is backpedaling, and the outlook for consumer spending is poor.”


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP.Qw_ZZQH5w&pos=1

[mucifer]

1. Green jobs program would be nice.

[Born Free]

46. It's still not good , actually bad for too many people

I do like to remind the right wingers how we got here...

[JHB]

53. Be careful what you wish for...

[Fire1]

61. Green jobs are not enough to fill this huge gap in

unemployment. There are overwhelming numbers of professionals and white collars who have invested years and money into their craft and I don't think these people would be willing to start over in an area for which they have no interest or expertise.

[NickB79]

79. Oh, they're great. For China

China is already gearing up to flood the market with wind turbines and solar panels made more cheaply than any American factory could, through their use of dirt-cheap labor and cheap but highly polluting coal power plants.

The only green jobs we'll see in the US will be for the people installing the infrastructure. It's better than unemployment, but not the return of a solid manufacturing base we've all been hoping for.

[change_notfinetuning]

2. That's a heck of a recovery, Brownie. n/t

[Crazy Dave]

3. The good news is...

Just about every news article I read or video I watch on the economy states, "Job losses are slowing down so that means everything is great and getting better"

[Demeter]

18. Less Bad is the New Good

Tell it to the Marines, who now meet their recruitment quotas easily.

[Crazy Dave]

29. It reminds me of George Orwell's "Animal Farm"

No matter how bad things were for the animals on the farm and only getting worse, the pigs who were in charge had them convinced that they were better off than they were before they took over and things were always getting better and they believed it.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, the government and banksters are "Squealer" ...

We, the people gave them what was left of the milk and apples (our tax dollars). Therefore, they won't suffer at all. We've been punked. :grr:

[joeycola]

4. oh no!

[dipsydoodle]

5. BBC News link

The US economy lost 190,000 jobs in October, according to the latest figures from the Labor Department.

The higher-than-expected figures took the jobless rate to 10.2%, which was the highest level since April 1983.

But there was some better news with the revision of September's figure from a loss of 263,000 jobs to a loss of 219,000 jobs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8346936.stm

All singalong now : Things can only get better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=455gh0D1V3Y&feature=related

[high density]

11. Too early for this song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZG3Fs-hN_o

[dipsydoodle]

24. Well it sure beats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPQcnjlwtE4

[high density]

6. I wonder who J&J thinks will buy their products if nobody has good jobs?

The Chinese and the Indians? Time to start writing off the US market I guess.

[Psephos]

104. From their point of view, they wonder how they can offer good jobs if nobody buys their products

This demonization of business does no one any good. Suppliers and consumers have interlocking, mutual interests.

There are asshole companies, and there are asshole workers. Neither class deserves the taints thrown on them by ideologues from both sides.

[FBaggins]

7. It had better improve in the next few months...

...or we're going to have problems in next year's elections.

And to the most obvious rebuttal: Yeah... but we can't rely on people to accept that.

[peace frog]

22. We're already having "problems"

if NJ and VA are any indication. Can we convince our reps and senators to focus on job creation? Not unless their corporate masters approve, i.e. "fat fucking chance".

[FBaggins]

25. I'm afraid that die if already cast.

There is little that can be done today that will impact job creation by June/July (about the cutoff for when economic improvement will be accepted by the voting population in time for November). They couldn't possibly pass and implement something now that would have a significant enough impact by then. We have to hope that things that were done six months to a year ago have more of an impact in the coming months than they have had to date.

[jpak]

66. People's memories are wicked short - just how well did the economy do on the republican's watch?

If McCain, Palin and the GOP were in charge - unemployment would be 25% - no 10%.

just sayin'

[FBaggins]

71. There would be little to no difference at this point

Which was what I was trying to say. Nothing that the President (or Congress) has done since January would have had much of an effect by now (and it hasn't). So McCain/Palin would probably be right about here.

Things might well have been worse by next November... but not by now.

But yes... political memory is VERY short and filled with "what have you done for me lately" - If unemployment is still at or about 10% next summer... we're in big trouble. There are no Republicans in power to point the finger of blame at.

[jpak]

77. Bullshit - and Ron Paul Sucks

They were against the bailout of the auto industry and Cash 4 Clunkers. The auto industry would have collapsed taking millions of jobs with it.

They were against the financial bailout. That would have produced a wholesale collapse of lending in all sectors and destroyed ever sector of our economy.

They were against extended unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies - millions of Americans would be homeless and without medical insurance without that support.

If Palin and McCain and the GOP were in power we would be in a Great Depression right now with NO hope of recovery.

So you are just fucking wrong.

yup!

[FBaggins]

86. No it wouldn't have (and I agree Paul sucks)

1) I doubt McCain would have failed to sign an auto bailout. There's a difference between the noise the opposition makes and how people actually govern. Just look at the President's legal defense of things he ran against a year ago. They most certainly wouldn't have vetoed extensions of unemployment benefits or a financial bailout (most of which took place before the office changed hands)

2) A company going bankrupt doesn't mean that the jobs would have gone. This was the big 3's spin... why fall for it? Note that they basically went under anyway.

3) I know quite a few bankers who believe that the bailout made things worse and collapse more likely... and quite a few Democrats who agree.

[jpak]

89. No - they wanted GM and Chrysler in liquidation - and the financial industry too

Let 'em all fail was and is their mantra.

and they still suck

Thank the Goddess for Obama and the Democratic Congress!

[FBaggins]

100. "Fail" and "Liquidation" are not the same thing.

Again... the "give us money or we'll be in liquidation and all these jobs will go away" was the industry's spin to defend themselves.

[No Elephants]

87. Agree on Ron Paul, big time.

[No Elephants]

73. First, no one here forgot anything. Second, no one knows what unemployment

would be under McCain Palin.


The point is, we are not doing well, and no one seems to know how to change that. Instead, they float stuff that is supposed to make everyone feel better.

[jpak]

80. Obama and the Democratic Congress saved us from a Great Depression

PALINomics would have had us there last summer.

Viva Obama!

[No Elephants]

85. No point arguing with people who pull stuff out of their ears, but

no one respects their posts, either.

!Adios!

[jpak]

88. Ron Paul Still Sucks! Adios!

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

68. I think we will have trouble, but I also think NJ and VA are not indications, with

an exception for NJ I'll get to in a second.

NJ had its own problems, Corzine is not a great candidate and was not a great Governor and Corzine is a Goldman Sachs alum. VA is a purple state, more red than not and Deeds was a lousy candidate. I don't think either election had much to say about state seats for good candidates or anything to say about seats in the federal government.

The exception: NJ IS an indication that the Democratic policy of going big for the incumbent, no matter what, is still alive and well. I don't think that policy is going to do the party any favors in the next election.

Whether incumbents in Congress deserve primary support and re-election is another issue.

[FBaggins]

72. Both parties would like to make it "either/or"

and debate whether it was all local issues or something that reflects a national mood.

The problem is that with a 20% swing, it could easily be (and likely is) <B>both</b>.

If Corzine had won by two points when the President carried the state by 15%... it could be one or the other. Neither alone accounts for this large a loss.

<i>VA is a purple state, more red than not and Deeds was a lousy candidate.</i><P>

This is undeniably true. But Deeds wasn't in the only race in the state (and Virginia has never had a problem voting one way for Gov and the other way for other races... even statewide races). We got a shellacking.

[No Elephants]

83. A large loss by Corzine could not occur on local issues and Corzine himself?

I heartily disagree. The large number of corruptions arrests in NJ, property tax, Corzine's GS roots, Corzine's negative campaigning on Christie's weight (hello, more people are now fluffy than thin), etc. etc. etc.--lots of local/Corzine issues--could easily have put Corzine away soundly without saying anything about 2010 federal elections. As far as Obama's winning it by 15%,

Obama was an unusual candidate with an unusual amount of money and an unusually good organization; and NJ is a basically Democratic state. (See edit below.) I think a good Democratic candidate could have carried NJ this year, but, even at that, it would have been tough.

I don't know as much about Virginia as I do about New Jersey.

However, this was not even an off year election. It was an off off year election. It's hard to get people to the polls, period, unless they are very pissed about something.

And Democrats did pick up two Congressional seats. Re-districting may or may not have been solely responsible for NY 23, but I don't think the same is true of the California seat.

The one group that polls lower than Congress is still Congressional Republicans, which is another reason I think you cannot draw a straight line between state elections and Congress, by saying we got a shellacking in Virginia, therefore we know we will get a shellacking on federal seats in 2010.

I think we WILL lose seats in 2010. I just don't think this 2009 election proves that unequivocally. I thought we would lose seats in 2010 before this election was callable.

BTW, my posts are not motivated by the Party line. I calls em as I sees em.

On edit: Obama had pretty much the perfect storm for geting elected, too.\

[FBaggins]

90. No

Or at least... I wouldn't say so.

Note that Corzine was able to win by 10 even after McGreevy (and against a better candidate than Christie)

Re-districting may or may not have been solely responsible for NY 23,

I don't think it was involved at all... but neither were national issues. Sure... the 23rd provides a barometer... as long as we nominate anti-choice candidates who reject gay marriage while they appoint pro-choice candidates who suport gay marriage and then have their base rebel and have the republican nominee endorse you.

The one group that polls lower than Congress is still Congressional Republicans,

This is true enough... but doesn't help much. Because the people looking to take away our "coat-tail" seats won't be "congressional republicans" (they'll be "outsiders" who feel free to attack any republilcan mistakes that they think the electorate doesn't like - it's so much easier to run without a record). They also aren't the party in power. Our candidates will also have "Reid" and "Pelosi" tagged to all the attack adds against them (approval in the 20s to low 30s).


I think we WILL lose seats in 2010. I just don't think this 2009 election proves that unequivocally

Oh I agree. What the 2009 elections demonstrates is that the political winds that blew so strong in 2008 aren't blowing any longer... not that they're blowing the other way.

It's still a warning signal to get our act together.

[Doctor_J]

94. If we could get our reps to act like Dems, we'd be fine.

It's the DINOS who are continuing Bushonomics

[bdamomma]

55. next year's elections, the repigs aren't promising to Americans either

they seem to have very short memories.

[AllentownJake]

8. These numbers are so bogus it is laughable

The state of PA was counting me as employed because I was making $100 a week for helping out on a political campaign. Nevermind I was making $65,000 before getting laid off.

Oh and I was still collecting benefits since the work was part-time.

[Skittles]

38. yup

the unemployment rate is much, much higher than 10 percent

[Doctor_J]

95. Bernie Sanders - if you count part time, benfit-less, and underemployed,

actual number is more than 20%

[TomClash]

9. Actually the economy is getting better

Productivity soared on Thursday with significantly increasing output. That MUST happen for jobs to return to the private sector.

[AllentownJake]

12. Productivity isn't necessarily a good thing

IF you ship a call center to India your productivity will go up.

[TomClash]

15. It's a prerequisite for job growth

and has been in every economic recovery since DOL and NBER started keeping stats. Without profits, no one hires, especially small and mid-sized companies, where most of the jobs are. Call centers going to India is not what is happening in the economy right now.

[AllentownJake]

20. Actually a large bit of this is outsourcing

Companies have been using the crisis as cover to outsource jobs.

Take your old economic models and throw them out the window. They are based on a world that no longer exist.

[TomClash]

26. Where is the evidence that outsourcing is the biggest factor in productivity growth?

And why has output increased significantly even accounting for the job decline factor?

What new and different economic models do you use?

[FBaggins]

75. There is no such evidence

Productivity should not be impacted much by outsourcing since it deals with domestic production and employment. There are some ways that it has an impact on the margins, but nothing that would rebut the substantial productivity gains we've been seeing.

[Yavin4]

106. How Do You Determine "Domestic" Production?

For example, HP is an American corporation with their HQ here. However, they can send the bulk of their work to their subsidiary in India and have that count as productivity. IOW, there's no way to isolate the work that is being done here vs. work being done overseas when it's all under the same corporate umbrella. This is why the gains in productivity in the past decade have not lead to job and wage growth as the economists have expected.

This is also why the housing sector collasped. Folks were basing their data on historical numbers when people had union jobs and would pay their mortgages on time. Today's economy is filled with layoffs on a minute's notice, part time, and temporary jobs, and none of these things lead to sustained employment that would enable people to pay off a mortgage over 30 years.

[FBaggins]

27. That's not entirely the case.

The collapsing dollar has had a significant impact on outsourcing overseas. It has also had a modest improving impact on domestic production for export.

[AllentownJake]

28. Imports went up last quarter

next.

[FBaggins]

36. So did exports. So???

Exports have been growing faster (or shrinking slower) than imports for a couple years now.

Additionally... imports "went up" largely because the same amount of "stuff" (in this case oil) cost more... not really because more was being imported.

[Crazy Dave]

31. So a US based company can say...

"We created 200 jobs last year" but what they won't say is, "They were in India and China"

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[AllentownJake]

34. They will lay off 2000

move 1800 to china and than hire 200 in the United States and Obama will declare victory.

[Fire1]

67. I think he knows we're not that stupid. n/t

[girl gone mad]

16. Increased productivity means fewer people doing more work.

That isn't the recipe for reducing unemployment.

[TomClash]

23. Look at the numbers more closely

You would be right if output was flat or decreasing. Instead output is increasing significantly. When output increases enough, the current workforce cannot perform the necessary tasks, managers see business will suffer and new workers must be hired to meet the increased demand. I think we are already at or getting close to that point.

[Abq_Sarah]

113. I don't know of anyone

Who is seeing increased demand. We're all hanging on by our fingernails.

[PSPS]

30. Sadly, it doesn't work that way

Worker productivity is good for profits but poor for the worker unless there's a corresponding increase in wages, which there hasn't been in many years. Plus, improved productivity reduces the need for employees since that's the very definition of "productivity."

The only thing that can turn around the dismal employment picture is a new or resurgent industry. And since we no longer manufacture anything, I don't know where this is going to come from or even if it ever will. I can't think of such an industry. Nobody can. Our economy consists largely of people who perform services for other people. Unless that changes, there won't be anything to increase wages and employment -- both of which are needed for any meaningful recovery.

[TomClash]

43. See my response above on productivity

You're only looking at half of the equation.

Decline in manufacturing is a problem but it is not insurmountable. I would like to see us make more for a variety of reasons. But manufacturing in the 1950s at its peak was a little more than 1/4 of the economy.

Your other point is well taken. But I think you're mixing two concepts - economic recovery, a short run issue, with long-term growth, which may require the "new or resurgent industry" you ponder. You can have an economic recovery without having fantastic sustained growth. Green technology, public works, biotechnology and health care (not insurance) are four areas of possible growth, but I also wonder if any of those are enough.

[Skittles]

39. LOL

I'm doing twice the work I did last year - at less pay and at the price of sheer exhaustion

[TomClash]

45. That proves my point nt

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

57. Nice comment nt

[NickB79]

81. The point is that, when you drop dead from exhaustion your boss will be forced to hire a new worker

See? Job creation!

[caseymoz]

40. No, it means they're whipping the remaining workers harder

because with unemployment like this, nobody dares lose their job.

Sorry, you're just wrong. The only thing that will get jobs to return to the private sector is having somebody to sell goods and services to. Somebody who has money to spend. Because the American consumer doesn't have it, that would either be the rich, the Federal Government, or the Chinese.

In other words, we have to have jobs to create them.

[madrchsod]

47. no--- more output from the same or fewer workers

the auto supplier plant my daughter works at is pretty tense. she`s been their three years and the intensity level is growing. some of it is do to the crap they have to work with and some of it is from their customers. it`s not a joy working these days in america

[ShortnFiery]

50. IMO, bullshit. The few people who still have jobs are working their asses off for less pay.

These assholes are in the process of moving to Dubai in preparation for when the USA economy fully tanks. I'd say, a decade or two from now.

[NickB79]

91. AP: Productivity gains may be bad news for job seekers

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Productivity-gains-may-be-bad-apf-1644758630.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Companies across the economy are finding ways to do more with fewer workers, dimming hopes that hiring will take off anytime soon.

Employers became leaner and more efficient in the third quarter. Wages, meantime, remain flat or falling. The result is that productivity -- output per hour of work -- jumped at the fastest pace in six years.

The good news for companies, though, may be bad news for the jobless. As long as companies can get their workers to produce more, they have little reason to hire -- at least until consumer spending picks up. And the squeeze on incomes could depress consumer spending, putting the economic recovery at risk."


Well, that shoots your argument out of the water.....

[TomClash]

93. Not at all

Read the thread. Then ask yourself how more jobs are created if there isn't a productivity increase first.

I would caution against getting economic analysis from AP stories.

[Doctor_J]

96. Bullshit. It means more people are doing two jobs

yeesh.

[TomClash]

99. Read the thread nt

[customerserviceguy]

10. "...the outlook for consumer spending is poor."

I saw some of that last night, went to "Doodle for Hunger", an event put on by the Capuchin Food Pantries of New York, where famous illustrators and other celebrities make signed drawings that are auctioned off to raise money for feeding the hungry. Many items went for the minimum bid only, and a goodly number of the silent auction items failed to even reach that.

My lady and I got our tickets from a friend who was sick with flu and couldn't go, her office always buys tickets to this event. I guess even the well-to-do don't have the bucks they used to.

[AngryAmish]

13. Bush did this

[FBaggins]

14. While arguably true... it didn't sell in NJ or VA.

Another year down the pike doesn't make it any easier to sell.

[caseymoz]

42. If this country elects Republicans, this is going to continue.

And no matter how out of touch working-class Republicans are, ultimately they'll realize that.

[FBaggins]

51. While true... it doesn't make for a very effective campaign slogan.

"We're not half as bad as the other guy" rarely sells.

To make things worse... the President won't be on the ticket (making references to Bush that much harder). This will be a Congressional election only... and Republicans will be quick to point out that Democrats have had control of the House and Senate since well before the economy turned south and that Congress has more impact on the economy than presidents do.

They may even be smart enough to spin the fact that the last time everything was going great in the economy... we had a Democratic president and a Republican congress.

[LibDemAlways]

60. The repuke who "represents" my Congrressional district is already

writing pieces for the local rag screaming that the repukes will restore jobs. That's going to be a powerful mantra next year.

[caseymoz]

63. I'd mantra right back at them: how? By the same Repub methods that failed.

[caseymoz]

62. Then why has the economy consistently done so well under Democratic Presidents?

Statistics show that, somehow, the President does matter, as the economy performs consistently better under Democratic Presidents. The statistics are significant. So significant, that it implies that the President does matter. At least one study shows that a change in Congressional Party seems to have only 10-30 percent of the effect of a change in Presidential Party:

http://www.nber.org/digest/jul07/w12751.html

Here are the statistics for the Presidency, but there are many sources which point out the same thing:

http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf


So, why isn't this well-known? I mean, isn't it time for Democrats to declare that they have the superior economic program?

[FBaggins]

65. Sorry... while appeaking that doesn't make sense.

While I believe that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans (which isn't to say both can't screw things up when they try this hard)... such studies have little merit. I can think of a couple reasons right off the top of my head.

1) - There's a serious lag between when an action is taken and when it impacts the economy as a whole. This year and next are most certainly examples. Fifty years from now someone will look at Obama's first year in office and score a big negative of D presidents. Of course that would be wrong. Little to nothing the President has done has had time to make much of an impact. Republicans can reasonably say the same thing about Reagan. His first couple years were pretty dreadful, but his poor economic policies hadn't caused it.

2) The argument ignores the simple fact I posted. Congress spends money... creates programs... sets tax rates... creates regulatory framework. The President attempts to guide these decisions, but the economy is more the product of Congress than the White House. AND there's still that lag.

Your first link doesn't make your point. It compares the market impact of a change in control (which isn't the same thing as reality) and it compares congressional impact on the economy to <b>external</b> factors. I don't deny that. The Fed also has a greater impact than the president (at least most of the time).

[caseymoz]

108. On the first, you might have a good point, but you're wrong about the second.

1) Yes, I know that there is a lag time. But we with a presidential time in office of 4-8 years, we're talking generally about enough time to correct for anything their predecessors have done. You don't just measure the first two years of the Reagan Presidency, you measure it over eight years. For economic growth, you look at aggregate amount the economy grow during his time in office and average it out for eight years. I think it does give some indication. Unless people can agree that the first eighteen months or two years of a new presidential term is really his predecessor's economy. But then you have the "charisma" factor, that is "people just believed in an economy so much more under Reagan." I've always thought that was overstated. If, like a relief pitcher, we could consider the first two years of a new president's term to be his predecessor's responsibility, we could get a truer idea of how well or badly an economy does under the two parties.

I must comment also that the Democrats have better numbers even considering that awful economy during the Carter Administration, something that I've always thought amazing. If however, we make the first two years under Reagan part of Carter's responsibility, then it will probably even out the two parties stats. However, we do know that the massive inflation and unemployment was caused by the end of the Vietnam War. Was that Carter's doing? You can have a good President who faces just horrible circumstances left by years of bad policy. You really can't lag that.

2) No, you are wrong on this one. True, Congress only spends money, creates programs, sets tax rates, and makes the regulatory frame work if the President signs these policies into law. This means that Congress either has to tailor the bills into something they know the President won't veto, or they have to compromise across the aisle to override the veto. Unless the party controls Congress by an overwhelming majority, the President has a lot of sway over those policies, just by being there with his pen. Moreover, the President is the one who appoints those head regulators. These both mean he has enormous sway over what Congress could even think of doing economically.

[Doctor_J]

97. How about, "vote out repukes and Dems who mimic them"

[bdamomma]

56. if this country elects republicans there is only one word for that

insanity, they are the ones who got us into this mess, plus you don't hear any plans or policies from them, they will just finish us off, and keep pushing for permanent tax cuts for the rich.

[Psephos]

107. But Obama hasn't fixed it...or even slowed it down.

Robert Reich makes a very good point when he says that Obama has focused on the wrong things first.

“Obama’s focus on health care rather than jobs, when the economy is still so fragile and unemployment moving toward double digits, could make it appear that the administration has its priorities confused. While affordable health care is critically important to Americans, making a living is more urgent. Yet the administration’s efforts to date on this more basic concern have been neither particularly visible nor coherent.”

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-reform-is-critically.html

[Demeter]

17. Anybody Surprised by This? Anyone? Beuller?

What a bunch of wankers

[INdemo]

19. You know somehow I dont believe these numbers and here's why

The corporations that report these number could be fudging a little. Why? It certainly makes Obama's job stimulus pkg look like a failure..And overall its a bad reflection on him..Now the labor department will only report the stats as they see them and on the other side of the coin...back in the Bush days when our economy had already gone down the tubes they were still reporting growth and the real unemployment numbers were never accurately given..Why?.. well they wanted to keep Bush numbers propped up as high as possible.
So with that ..sure the jobs are not there but I know that in certain industries that some have called back workers and I'm just not buying this large job loss because it just doesn't fit in with the other economic numbers being reported...
The corporate media seems to be having fun reporting this though

[AllentownJake]

21. This is the dumbest thing I have read on DU in a while

You need to go look up where the unemployment number comes from.

[caseymoz]

52. There are problems with what you say.

It fits perfectly that unemployment is still terrible in an economy that is purportedly recovering. In the most recent "recoveries" they have called unemployment a "lagging indicator." The last recovery from the 2001 recession, it was a full two years before employment began to go up. My own opinion is that it isn't a recovery unless jobs are coming back.

If you want to look for chicanery, what I think is really happening is that companies are cutting jobs so that they could transfer the funds for the payroll to the other side of their balance sheet, turning wages into what appears to be profit.

For other recovery indicators, the wealthy are going to be sure to make money before anybody else does. Such as with housing. If housing prices are up, that could actually be an indication that speculators are driving up the prices. In other words, the market is getting better because people anticipate it getting better. Which is fine, if it doesn't get worse instead.

Positive numbers in manufacturing, again, could be several different things. It could mean that there are new customers who have money: such as the Federal Government, or perhaps the Chinese, not American consumers. It could also be because our dollar has fallen so far that the Chinese consumers could now buy our goods. And again, a ramping up in manufacturing could mean the anticipation of a real recovery.

If there's an increase in productivity, it is not a good indicator in this economy. It more than likely means that those with a job are being driven to exhaustion because nobody wants to be unemployed in this economy. It also means that fewer people are needed on the job, and so it actually elevates the amount and length of unemployment.

They had better do something about the unemployment numbers or this country is really going to get unstable.

[ej510]

32. We know the unemployment total is closer 20% than it is

to 10%.

[Javaman]

33. Can "jobless recovery" now be added to the list?

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

[Ozymanithrax]

35. The higher this goes, the more seats Democrats will loose in Congress.

Republicans will do nothing to help, but there is no other alternative in our system.

[bdamomma]

58. republicans offer no resolutions to the problems that they created.

[Skittles]

59. it's not their problem now

it's Democrat's problems, and their so-called "solutions" are sucking - BADLY

[FBaggins]

101. Yes and no

It's too early to say that the Democrats solutions stink. They are multi-year programs and the economy simply doesn't turn on a dime.

But you're correct that it "isn't their problem now" in the sense that the electorate is no make patient and far-seeing than your post was. "We elected you two years ago (more for Congressional Democrats) and things still suck" is hard to drown out with "but it isn't my fault"... even when it isn't your fault.

We knew things were bad when we elected the team we have now. They implicitly (or explicitly in some cases) said "we'll fix it"... there is only one option for electoral safety... it must be fixed.

[Ozymanithrax]

74. Republicans arn't in charge. Once Democrats took the reigns of two of

the three branches of government, we became responsible.

As I said, it doesn't make a difference that Republicans won't do anything. They know that sooner or later all recessions end. The cycle of boom and recession is a part of our economic system. What goes down, will go up. They are betting that the up cycle is not going to really get going until it is too late for Democrats to profit from it. They have history on their side.

[caseymoz]

37. They're getting the economy to grow by cashing out jobs.

What ever these elite economists say, that's what's really happening here. They are taking the money saved and paying it out on Wall Street.

In other words, it's a further transfer of wealth to the rich-- just to get the economy going, mind you.

Lagging indicator my ass.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

41. This is being discussed over in GD where

those who are simply talking about it and are appalled by the increase in joblessness are being harangued as being "negative." Pretty creepy I'd say. I truly believe there are certain folks here who don't want this discussed.

K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6941679

[neverforget]

64. only good news is allowed now. Clap harder!

I like how you're labeled an "agitator" for posting facts. Good grief.

[blue_onyx]

69. Yes, some like to ignore bad news

When you point out that "good news" like "200,000 jobs were lost, fewer than expect" isn't actually good news, you get called out for being "doom and gloom."

[No Elephants]

70. ....

Here's a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don't worry. Be happy
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don't worry. Be happy
Don't worry. Be happy now

(CHORUS)
Don't worry. Be happy.
Don't worry. Be happy.
Don't worry. Be happy.
Don't worry. Be happy.

Ain't got no place to lay your head
Somebody came and took your bed
Don't worry. Bbe happy.
The landlord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
Don't worry. Be happy.

(CHORUS)
Look at me--I'm happy.
Don't worry. Be happy.
Here I give you my phone number.
When you worry, call me,
I make you happy.
Don't worry. Be happy.

Ain't got no cash. Ain't got no style
Ain't got no gal to make you smile.
Don't worry. Be happy.
'Cause when you worry. your face will frown
And that will bring everybody down
Don't worry. Be happy.

(CHORUS)
Don't worry. Don't worry.
Don't do it. Be happy.
Put a smile on your face.
Don't bring everybody down.
Don't worry.
It will soon pass,whatever it is.
Don't worry. Be happy.
I'm not worried. I'm happy.

[Ozymanithrax]

78. It is easier to, as Scarlet O'Hara said, "think about it tomorrow."

I'm unemployed and trying to change my profession. A lot of people don't want to consider or just don't know about history to see the rammifications of a unhappy electorate. I think about this every day. I won't vote for a Republican, and though I'm smart enough to know voting thrid party in our system is, at best, a form of protest, I may vote Green next November.

[xchrom]

44. so can we stop the h-1b visas now? nt

[Psephos]

105. Revoke every last one of them from this year's quota, and it adds up to...

...about a week's worth of unemployed at the current rate.

Less, if you look at the average rate this year.

No solution there.

[xchrom]

109. IT'S A FUCKIN JOB! nt

[DemReadingDU]

49. Are people with extended benefit counted in U3 or U6 rate?

If people have dropped out of the 'official' 10.2% unemployment rate, but when they start receiving the extension UE benefit, then wouldn't the official U3 rate grow higher?

Or would these people receiving the extension be counted in the U6 rate?

[Doctor_J]

98. I am unsure whether the benefits extension has an effect on the U status

[NickB79]

76. But the newsman just said holiday sales will be good because people aren't afraid to spend anymore

And my friend sitting next to me was nodding the entire time. So, I had to explain to him that everyone that still has a job (assuming they really aren't afraid to spend again) would have to spend what they normally would AND THEN SOME to make up for the lack of spending by the millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans out there.

Some people really, really want to drink that Kool-aid.

[KillCapitalism]

82. We're going to hit 1933 unemployment levels.

Obama/Biden & Congress MUST get another WPA or CCC work program going.

[robcon]

84. The recession may be over.

Based on the last 5-6 recessions, unemployment peaked just when the recession is over. Employment is always a lagging indicator of the state of the economy.

[FBaggins]

92. Actually it goes farther than that.

Unemployment tends to peak several months AFTER the recession is over.

The recession may very well have ended some time back. The question is how robust the recovery will be and/or whether it "double-dips".

[depakid]

102. Half measures in the stimulus are coming home to roost

Very predictable of course- economists warned explicitly about this result and the numbers backed them up.

But the Dems and the administration let the Bobbsey twins from Maine and the a few blue ideologues in the Senate carve up the package irrationally, rather than make a stand and fight.

[murdoch]

103. Karl Marx said

Karl Marx said capitalist economies will enter into ever-worsening crises (what we would call recessions or depressions) as time goes by.

Much of what he prophesied in the 1800s is more correct than what most modern economists were saying about the economy before the current crash (and even at the moment).

The crowd at monthlyreview.org has some interesting reports about the current economy. Even if you don't think their analysis is correct, and I tend to think they are usually right, they have some interesting charts culled from government data.

[Prometheus Bound]

110. Wall Street Journal: Real unemployement rate is 16%

What’s the REAL Unemployment Rate?

....We all know if you count those individuals who are underemployed (part time workers who would like full time jobs) and those that have given up on their job search, the actual unemployment number is more like 16%.
http://wallstreetpit.com/11898-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate

[Prometheus Bound]

111. Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official

Aug 26, 2009 02:25 PM US/Eastern
The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday.

"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4452bed82adf3124e5884678e236d7fb.361&show_article=1

[Prometheus Bound]

112. March 09: The real unemployment rate? Try 15.6%

By Catherine Holahan
MSN Money

An 8.5% unemployment rate is unmistakably bad. It's the highest rate since 1983 -- a year that saw double-digit unemployment, nearly 30 commercial bank failures and more than 15% of Americans living below the poverty line.

But the real national unemployment rate is far worse than the U.S. Department of Labor's March figure, announced today, shows. That's because the official rate doesn't include the 3.7 million-plus people who are reluctantly working only part time because of the poor labor market. And it doesn't include the workers who have given up scouring want ads for seemingly nonexistent jobs.

When those folks are added to the numbers, the unemployment rate rises to 15.6%. In March 2008, that number was 9.3%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking this alternative measure (.pdf file) in 1995.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx