Still better then nearly all of the last 38 years.
Posted on 03/07/2008 12:50:44 PM PST by NoWayMcCain
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers made their deepest cut in staffing in almost five years in February, the Labor Department reported Friday.
There was a net loss of 63,000 jobs, which is the biggest decline since March 2003 and weaker than the revised 22,000 jobs lost in January. Economists had forecast a gain of 25,000 jobs.
The weak report fueled already mounting recession fears and is likely to keep the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates further when it meets later this month.
"Based on today's Employment Report, if we are not in a recession, it is a darned good imitation of one," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of fixed income at Morgan Keegan. "We are in an unprecedented real estate and credit crisis that is whipping its way through the U.S. economy like a Midwestern tornado."
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
No where in that first paragraph do you see that unemployement fell to 4.8% (beyond full employment).
But that would be going against the newsmedia talking down the economy.
Considering we have gone a record time for job increases this sounds worse than it is...
It's posted just under the headline.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/news/economy/jobs_february/?postversion=2008030711
Job losses: Worst in 5 years
Payrolls sink in February, fueling recession anxiety. Unemployment rate declines, but that's because there are fewer people in the workforce.
Ummm.... still better than when Clinton was in office, less than 7.5 %. Why compare BEST to less than best? If we are in a recession now, we must have been in a DEPPRESION during Clinton. The media is really trying to get to a “ It’s the Economy, Stupid.” moment to downplay Bush’s legacy.
Fewer people in the work force, how do they eat?
And no where do you read about how many of those job losses were not in the public sector but in Government jobs, which is not a bad thing if those numbers fall.
Oh joy, more Gov’t jobs.
Half of them laid off by Hillary Klinton’s campaign.
vs CNN during Clinton:
July 5, 1996 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent.
5.6 is already low under clinton. 4.9 is something you improve from under Bush.
See BGHater's #9.
Still better then nearly all of the last 38 years.
Or by mortage lenders who made bad loans.
Why don't they just go ahead and make interest rates 0.00, and be done with it? /sarc
Well, the answer is clear, we just need more Government jobs, so everyone can work!
Bass Pro Shops cleaned out its design department today with the exception of 5 people. Bass Pro is feeling the pinch like most retailers are. But everything is fine isn’t it? Ask those people who got the axe.
They did in Japan a couple of years ago.
Design ... product or advertising?
Excellent! Time for $110.00 oil.
Yowza!
Do you understand how we get the unemployment stats? They really tell us nothing about the real condition of the economy.
The stock traders are a hell of a lot smarter than you about the economy and how to read it...and THEY are scared.
BTW if you were part of the 4.8% and read that fewer jobs were created how would you feel about that? Maybe you would have to look into welfare instead of jobs when your benefits run out and you “fall” off the roles
Yeah, but UNEMPLOYMENT FELL
FWIW: Trucking freight, as I have posted in the past is to us an indicator (Rule Of Thumb) of the real condition of the economy as we learned many years ago. Involved with the movement of freight since the late ‘60’s.
Traditionally the movement of freight drops terribly the end of any year and remains slow until no later than Mid April, therefore it is currently in the annual slump period, but it’s right where it is supposed to be when the economy is in good shape. “There’s a whole lot of consuming going on...”.
We will start to believe the economy is in lousey shape if in Mid April when the freight market traditionally accelerates, it doesn’t.
Some may think our guage of the economy is silly, stupid, or naive, but we’ve come to believe in our observations over the years far more than the doom and gloom scenarios presented in the MSM.
To us it has always been an accurate guage.
We don’t trust the media, no matter the media as “Agenda” has overtaken “truth” as by law of journalism.
I also know there is under counting of employement and this has been explained many times by economists.
http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2007/03/manufacturing_j_1.html
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200609/Massachusetts.html
Houston, Texas is doing just fine. Ya’ll come on down and stay awhile.
My understanding is it included the entire enterprise, products, advertising and construction.
How does that work. If there are fewer people now in the workforce... doesn't that mean that the unemployed would now be proportionally higher?
Or, are you saying that a bunch of unemployed baby boomers retired....... retired from being unemployed?
Wow, really reining it in, huh? Most everything they sell would be considered nonessential “discretionary spending,” so they would be among the first to see a problem with sales, I guess.
Bass Pro Shops cleaned out its design department today with the exception of 5 people
AND THE BASS REJOICE!
“How does that work. If there are fewer people now in the workforce... doesn’t that mean that the unemployed would now be proportionally higher?”
It’s my understanding that the unemployment numbers are those people on unemployment. Once you run out of unemployment you are no longer counted. If you aren’t entitled to unemployment you are never counted. We should be very concerned about the numbers of people in the workforce, and the number of long term unemployed. Those are the people who end up on welfare and public assistance.
So, you're saying that there are fewer people in the "unemployment force" instead of fewer people in the "workforce" like this article states. And no, I'm not worried. Things go up, things go down. Government doesn't have that much control over it and we wouldn't want them to have much control over it. And who would take new jobs if they were created? We are at incredibly low unemployment numbers (4.8%) right now. Things will get worse, things will get better. It's not the end of the world no matter what happens. The only thing that scares me is that people belive this media propaganda and those people might elect a socialist to save us.
>>>How does that work. If there are fewer people now in the workforce... doesn’t that mean that the unemployed would now be proportionally higher?
The workforce is defined as those employed and those actively looking for unemployment. Unemployment rate = those actively looking / workforce. Essentially people have become discouraged and have stopped activley looking for work.
Think of the case of a parent in a two-income family that may see few opportunities at a suffiecient wage, so chooses to stay home with the kids instead. That would be someone leaving the workforce.
actively looking for unemployment should read actively looking for employment
quite a difference in meaning there. 8^)
They live off dwindling savings. They take early retirement. They are 2-income couples who become 1-income couples. People move in with their parents. People move in with friends. They take equity out of their homes. They live off skyrocketing credit card debt. They sell assets like 2nd cars or boats. They go back to school on student loans. The sell their collections on e-bay. They leave the country (illegal immigrants going back home.) They get subsistence jobs in the shadow economy, off the books. They borrow money from family and friends. My brother is still getting $1500 per month from my mother to pay for his food and rent, yet he is NOT COUNTED in the unemployment statistics.
The official "unemployment" numbers miss huge numbers of people who aren't drawing unemployment or being counted otherwise.
How do I know we are in a recession?
Every Friday I get the sandwich special at SUBWAY sandwiches. They used to put 3 scoops of tuna in every sandwich. The last 3 weeks they have put only 2 scoops in each sandwich.
Nobody is going to tell be we aren’t in a recession. When sandwich shops start cutting down on the main ingredients, then everybody is hurting. This is nuts.
I don’t go to McDonalds but I have to wonder if they are pinching the French Frys again.
Then they could come up with a better number that includes all those who want to work and are currently not regardless of whether or not they have been declared to be "discouraged".
I went to two different Subways this week and both were out of Provolone Cheese. I have noticed in the past few years that Subway has been somewhat stingy with the veggies that I have to request more.
I went to Starbucks tonight, despite in the rise in the price of coffee, the line was as long as usual and their were plenty of people working. The shopping center was busy tonight, the young lady told me they were busy for this time of year. I saw plenty people walking with bags in their hands tonight. The midscale restaurants at the mall were busy tonight. I stopped going to a restaurant that used to frequent, to order my Salmon Gorgonzola and pinot grigio, from Australia, because my waitress quit (I didn't even have to order, once I walked into the door my pinot was on my table) because they wouldn't make her a bartender.
My local Giant Grocery store has help wanted ads posted on the window, so does the local Dick's Sporting Goods store./p>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.