Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/june-job ... d=14020360" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Way to go Obama

At what point does this move from "Bush's fault" to Obama's issue.

We're in "recovery!" Yay!!!

Stock market's doing a'ight. I'm doing a'ight.

Of course, if you want to run around being miserable, go for it.

--
Here's a stock tip for you...if Celgard is on the NYSE? you need to short their stock...

President Obama On Job Numbers: "We Are Turning The Corner"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ^ | July 8, 2011 | Tom Giusto And Rachel Martin

President Obama praised the latest jobs report today in a visit to a factory in Charlotte, NC, that makes parts for batteries. The company, Celgard, received nearly $50 million in taxpayer money from the Recovery Act in order to expand its production.
“Today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs,” he said. “We are turning the corner.”
But the president also sounded a cautionary note.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...

Public sector jobs are WAY down - that is what is driving the unemployment. You want government to cut jobs, then you complain when all those people hit the job market.

If corporate America would do it's part - hire/spend instead of holding on to massive cash, then we would be fine.

Bronco wrote:--
Here's a stock tip for you...if Celgard is on the NYSE? you need to short their stock...

President Obama On Job Numbers: "We Are Turning The Corner"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ^ | July 8, 2011 | Tom Giusto And Rachel Martin

President Obama praised the latest jobs report today in a visit to a factory in Charlotte, NC, that makes parts for batteries. The company, Celgard, received nearly $50 million in taxpayer money from the Recovery Act in order to expand its production.
“Today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs,” he said. “We are turning the corner.”
But the president also sounded a cautionary note.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...

the above picture should erase all doubt about the veracity of Mr. Darwin.

93henfan wrote:Stock market's doing a'ight. I'm doing a'ight.

Of course, if you want to run around being miserable, go for it.

I'm with you..as I'm not miserable because I too have a job...

But there are lots of people who don't...

The one consistent economic achievement of this administration is...consistent unemployment

Col Hogan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Stock market's doing a'ight. I'm doing a'ight.

Of course, if you want to run around being miserable, go for it.

I'm with you..as I'm not miserable because I too have a job...

But there are lots of people who don't...

The one consistent economic achievement of this administration is...consistent unemployment

The American economy simply put is in the toilet when it comes to jobs. The unemployment rate isn't good and hasn't been good for a whie. The # of people not working added to those that have stopped looking is its highest in decades.

For those of us that do have jobs - hours for salaried workers are higher and overall job market wages are lower. And believe it or not I'm a glass half full guy.

Public sector jobs are WAY down - that is what is driving the unemployment. You want government to cut jobs, then you complain when all those people hit the job market.

If corporate America would do it's part - hire/spend instead of holding on to massive cash, then we would be fine.

You are usually pretty reliable when you make a statement of fact but would you mind giving a reference for that statement that public sector jobs are way down? I wonder about that because I know that the Federal government went ape hiring people after the Obama administration came in. The other thing I wonder about is whether or not cutting public sector positions means a bunch of people who had jobs with government are now out looking for other ones due to being cut from government payrolls I say that because government reductions in force usually rely heavily on attrition combined with opting not to fill empty positions.

On the second statement: I don't think the purpose of a corporation is to provide jobs to people. Corporations typically need people to do things for them so jobs result. But that's not the purpose of a corporation's existence. The purpose is to maximize profit. I never have understood this thing where people think that corporations are somehow obligated to provide jobs so as to reduce the unemployment rate.

bluehenbillk wrote:The American economy simply put is in the toilet when it comes to jobs. The unemployment rate isn't good and hasn't been good for a whie. The # of people not working added to those that have stopped looking is its highest in decades.

For those of us that do have jobs - hours for salaried workers are higher and overall job market wages are lower. And believe it or not I'm a glass half full guy.

Yep.

"And The "Real" Unemployment Rate Explodes To 16.2%

Another thing about this horrible jobs report:
In addition to the increase in unemployment (from 9.1% gto 9.2%), the alternative measure that includes "discouraged" workers jumped from 15.8% to 16.2%.
Remember, this includes part-timers, and other marginally attached, unedermployed workers."
http://www.businessinsider.com/and-the- ... 162-2011-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/and-the- ... z1RZPwZxTt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:Public sector jobs are WAY down - that is what is driving the unemployment. You want government to cut jobs, then you complain when all those people hit the job market.

If corporate America would do it's part - hire/spend instead of holding on to massive cash, then we would be fine.

Amen. Conks, you listening, you fvcks?

Don't count on the private sector to create new jobs for the moment. Most businesses I deal with right now are concerned that, within the next few weeks, they will be spending much more for credit. Why? Because they fear the pols in Washington are not going to reach a deal on the debt limit; and this will cause a default on government obligations; and the cost of credit will go up across the board as interest rates rise.

Even after all the positive economic data released this week, I had a bad feeling about what the unemployment numbers were going to look like just from talking to clients, etc. Businesses are not going to take on new expenses when they have no idea what the cost of credit is going to be come August/September.

JoltinJoe wrote:Don't count on the private sector to create new jobs for the moment. Most businesses I deal with right now are concerned that, within the next few weeks, they will be spending much more for credit. Why? Because they fear the pols in Washington are not going to reach a deal on the debt limit; and this will cause a default on government obligations; and the cost of credit will go up across the board as interest rates rise.

Even after all the positive economic data released this week, I had a bad feeling about what the unemployment numbers were going to look like just from talking to clients, etc. Businesses are not going to take on new expenses when they have no idea what the cost of credit is going to be come August/September.

It's been hovering around 9% for well over a year now. Have they really been concerned about a possible default for that long?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Public sector jobs are WAY down - that is what is driving the unemployment. You want government to cut jobs, then you complain when all those people hit the job market.

If corporate America would do it's part - hire/spend instead of holding on to massive cash, then we would be fine.

You are usually pretty reliable when you make a statement of fact but would you mind giving a reference for that statement that public sector jobs are way down? I wonder about that because I know that the Federal government went ape hiring people after the Obama administration came in. The other thing I wonder about is whether or not cutting public sector positions means a bunch of people who had jobs with government are now out looking for other ones due to being cut from government payrolls I say that because government reductions in force usually rely heavily on attrition combined with opting not to fill empty positions.

On the second statement: I don't think the purpose of a corporation is to provide jobs to people. Corporations typically need people to do things for them so jobs result. But that's not the purpose of a corporation's existence. The purpose is to maximize profit. I never have understood this thing where people think that corporations are somehow obligated to provide jobs so as to reduce the unemployment rate.

I don't have the stats, and I've been drinking so I don't care to look them up. You can take my post for what it's worth, hearsay from a drunk guy, but I think Jon is right. The Federal government and state governments are cutting spending, which includes cutting jobs.

JoltinJoe wrote:Don't count on the private sector to create new jobs for the moment. Most businesses I deal with right now are concerned that, within the next few weeks, they will be spending much more for credit. Why? Because they fear the pols in Washington are not going to reach a deal on the debt limit; and this will cause a default on government obligations; and the cost of credit will go up across the board as interest rates rise.

Even after all the positive economic data released this week, I had a bad feeling about what the unemployment numbers were going to look like just from talking to clients, etc. Businesses are not going to take on new expenses when they have no idea what the cost of credit is going to be come August/September.

Like it or not, I think we have to raise the debt limit.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Don't count on the private sector to create new jobs for the moment. Most businesses I deal with right now are concerned that, within the next few weeks, they will be spending much more for credit. Why? Because they fear the pols in Washington are not going to reach a deal on the debt limit; and this will cause a default on government obligations; and the cost of credit will go up across the board as interest rates rise.

Even after all the positive economic data released this week, I had a bad feeling about what the unemployment numbers were going to look like just from talking to clients, etc. Businesses are not going to take on new expenses when they have no idea what the cost of credit is going to be come August/September.

Like it or not, I think we have to raise the debt limit.

Agreed, but without the committment to lower expeditures, this battle means nothing.

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Like it or not, I think we have to raise the debt limit.

Agreed, but without the committment to lower expeditures, this battle means nothing.

Neither side is committed to lower expenditures. Both parties are willing to cut the other parties interests, but are not willing to sacrafice their own spending habits. The debt limit fight is unnecessary, and maybe irresponsible (depending on which economist you are listeneing to ).

dbackjon wrote:Public sector jobs are WAY down - that is what is driving the unemployment. You want government to cut jobs, then you complain when all those people hit the job market.

If corporate America would do it's part - hire/spend instead of holding on to massive cash, then we would be fine.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a source for that. Public sector jobs are not way down. They aren't even down. Plus, even if they WERE down, public sector jobs would need to have dropped out by more than 30-40% to give us a 9.2% unemployment rate. That, my friend, will NEVER happen under a Democratic OR a Republican administration.

As to the other premise- corporate America's part is not hiring and spending. Corporate America's part is making money, and right now they are not doing that which is why they are hoarding their liquidity.

Plus, since corporate America equals private America, it is nobody's business but the shareholders how they operate. Shareholders (including guys like me who have 401Ks and other investments) get a little nervous when "corporate America" starts doing dumb things, like NOT hoarding their cash in a recession.

Here's a question for you: would you buy stock in US manufacturing companies right now? General Motors? I doubt you would. Working under that assumption, why would you expect "corporate America" to exhibit fiscal behavior that even an economic layman knows is risky at best and plain stupid in general.

clenz wrote:At what point does this move from "Bush's fault" to Obama's issue.

Neither and both.

I think Obama and both parties in congress could be doing more to create jobs rather than spending a year on not fixing healthcare or trying to defund PP, but the employment problem runs much deeper than just recent history. We were losing something like 700,000 jobs per month at the onset of all this and during the 90's and the .00's a shit ton of manufacturing left our shores. So you can lay much of the blame at the feet of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, not only for not doing more to protect domestic manufacturing, but also not fighting illegal immigration, and for pushing free trade. Our trade policies and manufacturing policies have been on full fucking retard for 30 years.

CID1990 wrote:Where do you get that? I don't think you have a source for that. Public sector jobs are not way down. They aren't even down.

57,000 jobs were added in the private sector.
39,000 jobs were lost in the public sector.

Public Sector Job Cuts Threaten Recovery
Since peaking in 2008, local governments have shed almost 500,000 jobs

A measly 18,000 jobs were added in June, carried by an increase of 57,000 jobs in the private sector but dulled by losses of 39,000 jobs in the public sector. As government stimulus winds down and states move to close massive budget gaps, public sector cuts should continue to grow, labor market experts say.

While the overall picture painted in the report is gloomy, the bigger story may lie in cuts on the government front. In June, local governments reported job losses of 18,000, and the federal government shed 14,000 jobs. Nearly 100,000 local government employees have lost their jobs so far this year, and 464,000 have found themselves jobless since local government employment peaked in September 2008. Meanwhile, private sector employers, who cut jobs at a more rapid pace earlier in the recovery, have slowly added jobs. Since March 2010, when private sector employment rose for the first time in more than two years, private employers have added about two million employees to their payrolls.

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/a ... n-recovery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Don't count on the private sector to create new jobs for the moment. Most businesses I deal with right now are concerned that, within the next few weeks, they will be spending much more for credit. Why? Because they fear the pols in Washington are not going to reach a deal on the debt limit; and this will cause a default on government obligations; and the cost of credit will go up across the board as interest rates rise.

Even after all the positive economic data released this week, I had a bad feeling about what the unemployment numbers were going to look like just from talking to clients, etc. Businesses are not going to take on new expenses when they have no idea what the cost of credit is going to be come August/September.

It's been hovering around 9% for well over a year now. Have they really been concerned about a possible default for that long?

No. But the lack of jobs growth in the past year was largely the result of other sketchy/stagnant economic numbers, including consumer confidence, consumer sales, etc.

But, other than the employment numbers, the overall economic data for June was generally positive. Consumer confidence, for example hit a three-year high in June. You might have expected that this would have caused employment growth, as retailers/manufacturers, etc. took on new employees to deal with pent-up consumer demand for goods and services, and increased sales opportunities resulting from the improving consumer confidence.

Employers are holding back, however, because they cannot anticipate the cost of credit in the near-term.

So in other words, the last month brought economic news which could have served as a catalyst for employment growth, but employers aren't ready to take the plunge given the uncertainty of the credit markets.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Where do you get that? I don't think you have a source for that. Public sector jobs are not way down. They aren't even down.

57,000 jobs were added in the private sector.
39,000 jobs were lost in the public sector.

Public Sector Job Cuts Threaten Recovery
Since peaking in 2008, local governments have shed almost 500,000 jobs

A measly 18,000 jobs were added in June, carried by an increase of 57,000 jobs in the private sector but dulled by losses of 39,000 jobs in the public sector. As government stimulus winds down and states move to close massive budget gaps, public sector cuts should continue to grow, labor market experts say.

While the overall picture painted in the report is gloomy, the bigger story may lie in cuts on the government front. In June, local governments reported job losses of 18,000, and the federal government shed 14,000 jobs. Nearly 100,000 local government employees have lost their jobs so far this year, and 464,000 have found themselves jobless since local government employment peaked in September 2008. Meanwhile, private sector employers, who cut jobs at a more rapid pace earlier in the recovery, have slowly added jobs. Since March 2010, when private sector employment rose for the first time in more than two years, private employers have added about two million employees to their payrolls.

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/a ... n-recovery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So 466k local govt employees have been cut. Despite that, still leaves us with the same # of local govt employees as 2006. Reuters article from yesterday: The # of local and state govt employees is the same as it was in 2006:
"The level of local government employment -- 14.143 million employees -- is the lowest since June 2006. State government employment is the lowest since August 2006."
http://news.yahoo.com/state-local-gover ... 30799.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And from this Feb:
"Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million
The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.....

......From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -of-big-g/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the # of local and state govt employees is at the same levels it was in 06' and since the fed has added close to a quarter million more employees.

So the 9.2% unemployment can't be blamed on govt cutting jobs. Even if you added a 1/2 million govt jobs now, that would only take the 14.1 million unemployed to 13.6 million, in a workforce of 153 million which would only drop the to about 8.9%.

Blaming the high unemployment rate on local and state govts trimming bloated payrolls = FAIL.

Wars always grow the federal government. It ain't rocket science.

When I left the Marine Corps in 2000, the active duty strength was ~165K. It's now well over 200K, and the Marine Corps is the smallest of the four main services.