Skip to comments.
Sharp plunge in U.S. jobs (Media wishing recession on us alert)
CBS Marketwatch ^
| 04/04/03
| Rex Nutting
Posted on 04/04/2003 9:18:50 AM PST by P.O.E.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
Convulsed?
Plunge?
Appalling economic conditions?
Don't forget, the media kept up the recession drumbeat for a year before the 1992 election. If they whisper it enough, it eventually will seep into decision-making by consumers.
Not to deny the economy is sluggish and markets are down. Just wanted to point out the Dems are trying to move the discussion to the economy, brow-beating Bush at every turn. The media is only all too willing to spread exaggerated bad news.
Keep your eyes open for it.
1
posted on
04/04/2003 9:18:51 AM PST
by
P.O.E.
To: P.O.E.
Here we go! Now....what to do with the millions of illegal aliens who came here to take the jobs "we didn't want"?
To: P.O.E.
Don't forget "destroyed"
3
posted on
04/04/2003 9:23:16 AM PST
by
Tai_Chung
To: P.O.E.
Every time the price of oil goes down, the GNP goes up. I think the ratio is $10 drop=1% increase in GNP, but it may be $5=1%. The market knows this. The market also knows that this war has saved approximately $310 BILLION according to one study of what we would have had to put up in enforcement costs; containment of Iraq; and losses in human capital in Iraq itself.
Moreover, this war will open up (slightly at first) still newer markets for U.S. goods.
4
posted on
04/04/2003 9:30:36 AM PST
by
LS
To: LS
The nation's unemployment rate remained at 5.8 percent higher than any would like but news that rate remains the same is reported as a plunge! if they weren't so transparent it would be funny.
5
posted on
04/04/2003 9:35:17 AM PST
by
Steven W.
To: P.O.E.
You have projected your own views of the media by mis-naming the title. There is nothing to indicate that the media "wishes" for a recession. The article is news, and nothing more.
6
posted on
04/04/2003 9:41:01 AM PST
by
Mini-14
To: Steven W.
Yes, it is way too high. But remarkable given that we are at war---but not a "total war" that would employ everyone---and that we are still recovering from 9/11, and that the rest of the world is in recession.
I'm not as optimistic as I was, mainly because I don't see where the tech sector will break through---but that's probably a good sign, since if I could see it, I'd already be rich!
7
posted on
04/04/2003 9:44:44 AM PST
by
LS
To: Mini-14
The article is news, and nothing more. By your comment I can only assume you didn't read the article. This author was not simply reporting the news, but getting an early start on his novel.
8
posted on
04/04/2003 9:45:53 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Coop
This author was not simply reporting the news, but getting an early start on his novel.Are you accusing the author of lying about the unemployment figures?
9
posted on
04/04/2003 9:47:38 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Mini-14
The sub-title was spot on.
Only a matter of moments before the usual suspects here show up, too.
10
posted on
04/04/2003 10:00:50 AM PST
by
MonroeDNA
(An American Black Muslim traitor, acting on his religeous beliefs, tried to take out the top brass)
To: Tai_Chung
Don't forget "destroyed"Someone needs to email this jerk's editor and tell him to tighten up on this guy.
11
posted on
04/04/2003 10:02:03 AM PST
by
Timesink
(When was the last time YOU remembered we're on Code Orange?)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Are you accusing the author of lying about the unemployment figures? No.
12
posted on
04/04/2003 10:05:54 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: P.O.E.
The jobless rate remained at 5.8 percent because 267,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force. Nearly a million Americans dropped out in the first quarter.
" The jobless rate failed to rise only because many unemployed workers stopped actively looking for jobs (a necessary condition to be included in the Labor Department's official labor force count)," said Jade Zelnik, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. "This leaves little doubt that the underlying trend for joblessness is still upward."
More troubling, the number of Americans who currently want a job but are not actively looking because they are discouraged jumped by 558,000 in March to 5.02 million. What is the actual unemployment rate if the number of workers, who have stopped actively looking for jobs, is included in the official count?
13
posted on
04/04/2003 10:10:40 AM PST
by
Marianne
To: P.O.E.
Rex Nutting is the typical left wing lunatic playing economic reporter on the Clintoon Bull $hite net.
Our unemployment is the best of any nation. France and Germany are over 12%.
Notice how these CBS maggots of gloom and doom never talk about the unemployment of other countries.
CBS is a propaganda arm of the US Internal Axis of Evil.
14
posted on
04/04/2003 10:33:35 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Anti America Americans are outing themselves as their side loses in Iraq!)
To: LS
I believe traditionally war increased employment , it did not decrease it.
How can the "unemployment" stats remain constant when jobs are being elimated?
Common sense says if there are fewer places of employment then the unempolyment stats must be higher..
Could be the way we count who is "unemployed"
15
posted on
04/04/2003 10:59:36 AM PST
by
RnMomof7
To: RnMomof7
How can the "unemployment" stats remain constant when jobs are being elimated? The number of people who have been unemployed so long that they've given up looking (5.8 million) just keeps on growing.
It's almost a question of what unemployed - is.
To: familyofman
How can the "unemployment" stats remain constant when jobs are being elimated? because they're two sides of the coin - new jobs are created while others are eliminated, in this case the net offset negated each other (but is errantly described as a "plunge" out of apparent bias by the author)
To: Steven W.
"new jobs are created while others are eliminated, in this case the net offset negated each other " in a manner of speaking. The calculation of "unemployed" involves a number of metrics; size of available workforce, number of jobs filled, new jobs created, jobs eliminated. For most analysts the unemployment rate is a useful number, but is not as important as the "net jobs created" - which fell again. The current estimate is that there has been a net loss of over 2.4 million jobs over the last 2 years.
Not included in the analysis is the fact that the avaolable labor pool was decreased by the number of National Guard & Reserves called up - no one has a real good handle on that because it's not normally considered. There was what is known as the "jobless recovery" of the early nineties where the unemployment rate remained constant even while jobs were being created.
To: P.O.E.
The wife just attended a meeting with a Commerce official who explained rather dryly that the IT industry is now going the same way as textiles: programming jobs are moving to India, Russia and...Viet Nam. We're covering the cost through federally-subsidized insurance, business loss guarantees, etc. You Bots can cheer Bush and pat each other's behinds as much as you want, but the Republic is gasping and twitching...
To: P.O.E.
The nation's unemployment rate remained at 5.8 percent, with 8.45 million Americans officially looking for work.
I seem to remember statistics claiming between 8 & 10 million illegals currently within our borders.
Ain't that something?
20
posted on
04/04/2003 12:56:26 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson