Large-scale layoffs up in April (157,314 jobs nationwide)

[UpInArms]

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2004/05/24/daily17.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Mass layoffs increased in April in Ohio, although they remained below their levels of a year ago.

Ohio employers initiated 51 mass layoffs in April, resulting in 5,811 initial claims for unemployment, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said Wednesday. In March, Ohio lost 4,167 jobs in 31 mass layoff events. A mass layoff is defined as 50 or more jobs cut from a single location within 30 days.

The state saw 10,704 initial claims for unemployment in April of 2003 from 62 mass layoff events. Ohio had the largest year-over-year drop in initial claims, the bureau reported.

Nationwide, U.S. employers cut 157,314 jobs in 1,458 mass layoffs in April, compared with 92,554 jobs cut in 920 mass layoffs in March. Last April, 1,581 mass layoff events resulted in 161,412 initial claims for unemployment.

...more...

[Parche]

1. economy

But we are in a recovery? Snarf

What recovery

[beyurslf]

2. Nonsense. We are in a booming economy. Reporting anything

else is akin to treason.
/sarcasm off

[Boat Guy]

8. That's right!

Gas prices up, home purchases down, deficit up, stock market down, war casualties up, orders for durable goods down, campaign contributions up -- lessee, in shrub's way of cogitationing, that's four "ups" and only three "downs" -- yep, things is jes' fine!

</sarcasm mode>

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[anelson]

4. I am a long-term lurker....

but now a registered user. I am happy to be here. Repubs are in some steep denial how bad things really are. They just can't accept the level of truth regarding the 7 trillion debt and lies about iraq, patriot act, etc.

Tony in Chicago

[mhr]

5. Welcome To DU anelson!

Glad to see you on board!

[UpInArms]

7. Welcome to DU anelson!

:hi:

Glad to have you with us!

[charlyvi]

11. Welcome to DU

Tony in Chicago

[callous taoboy]

12. Welcome to D.U. anelson

:toast:

[newyawker99]

13. Hi anelson!!

Welcome to DU!!

:toast:

[leQ]

20. welcome tony!

n/t

[Frodo]

10. Looking for me? Here's another graph.

I know how you love the graphs! :-)





Notice the cyclical peaks twice each year? That's because these numbers are not seasonally adjusted. If this number is lower than last April's and last April was lower than April 2002 and April 2002 was lower than April 2001 then this is "good" news.

And guess what? They were.

This year's number will probably go higher then have a large drop some time in August or September - let me just tell you now so we're on the record... that won't be a sign of an improving economy... nor will it be a sign of manipulation of the numbers by the administration. It's just what's expected - as were these numbers.

The first year on the record was April 1995 with almost 190,000 "mass layoff" jobs lost. Was that a particularly bad year for employment?

Or was it good because YOU had a job?

I know it often seems like it, but the world does not revolve around you my friend.

[TahitiNut]

17. Here ya go ...

[Frodo]

18. Thanks, but that's not the "mass-layoffs" figure.

[TahitiNut]

19. Oh, that one. Well ...

... it's not very remarkable. After-Christmas and summer break ... and then all the companies that time their layoffs to hide in the numbers. We're in for a big May and June.

[Just Me]

6. Supply-side, pee on the majority of American workers, economics.n/t

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

9. I remember John Snow on MSNBC a week ago, getting pummeled by...

...Chris Jansing, regarding the people in Ohio who have had to take some of the "new," CRAP jobs that (as she put it) "pay $10,000 a year less than the last job they had" in order to survive...when she asked him about that, Snow replied "Ohio is comin' back STRONG!"

[74dodgedart]

14. $500 billion dollar deficit\huge tax cuts, and this is what we get

Voodoo economics is dead

[mhr]

15. Frodo, Frodo, Frodo - Why Oh Why Did Your Charts Mislead Us All?

eom

[Frodo]

16. Why? They predicted it.

Did you see anywhere that the number was "higher than expected"?

Or that it "called the 'recovery' in to question"?

See post #10