Miserable: Unemployment Rate Up to 9.2%

[CID1990]

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;

Ok, you guys are laying turds all over this thread and I am too lazy to multi-quote, so one at a time:

This is nothing more than a scare piece, trying to justify runaway public sector hiring at the federal level. I'll give you one example as to why this number is misleading. The Charleston Police Department from 2008 to 2010 has "lost" 5 positions. However, those people were not fired. They left for greener pastures, and CPD did not replace them. However, those jobs are counted as "lost". Jobs lost in this way to do not increase the unemployment rate.

Secondly, even if your numbers are spot on, you do realize that there are more than 300 million people in this country, right? You could take away significantly more than that and not budge the unemployment rate one iota.

Here's a very simple question for you, SK.

How many public sector jobs need to go away tomorrow to raise the unemployment rate by just 0.1%?

(Here's a hint: Take the number of working age Americans, and then multiply by one tenth of a percent.)

[Col Hogan]

When the Space Shuttle lands, unemployment goes up by about 9200...the total NASA and contractor jobs that will be eliminated...

High paying, high tech jobs...because Obama killed the shuttle program...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

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.

Because it is SOP for them?

Hyperbole.

And, not accurate. Is it SOP for Dell? Alcoa? MIcrosoft? Where is this prevalent slice of American private sector companies that thrive by throwing away their money?

How's YOUR investments, HD?

[CID1990]

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.

As long as their actions can infringe upon the rights of individuals, corporate practices are everyone's business. A long time ago states used to protect the public's interest by holding corporations more accountable.

Mmmm hmmm. I read you loud and clear there, kalm.

10-4.

So you are saying that hanging on to their cash in a recession is a corporate practice that infringes on the rights of individuals?

The regulations you are referring to concern things like anti-trust (protecting competition) and physical plant practices (like dumping dioxin into a river).

Making the leap to somehow argue that spending and hiring less infringes on individual rights (and therefore opening the door to government regulation that would compel a private company to spend during a recession) is the road to fascism (which at its base is private ownership but government control of industry).

The worse the economy gets, the more Chicken Little socialist you guys become. You're as predictable as the moon.

[Grizalltheway]

When the Space Shuttle lands, unemployment goes up by about 9200...the total NASA and contractor jobs that will be eliminated...

High paying, high tech jobs...because Obama killed the shuttle program...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice try, Hoagie.

The shuttle program, which was scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2011, saw the final launch with Atlantis launching on July 8, 2011, in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration[9]. The shuttle's planned successor was to be Project Constellation with its Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Spacecraft; however, in early 2010 the Obama administration asked Congress to instead endorse a scaled-back plan with heavy reliance on the private sector.

[kalm]

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. We the people...

The word corporation does not exist in the constitution, we were partly fighting a corporatocracy in the Revolutionary War, incorporation in this country was initially created to specifically promote activities that benefited the public good. who owns the court system? Who resolves disputes? If you want to argue degrees of governement intervention and scope that's one thing, but in case you didn't notice, you live in a democracy, filled with other people, who also have rights.

Wow you are dumb sometimes.

Who do you think owns the businesses/corporations you so hate?

Like a democracy, corporations are either privately or publicly owned, by people.

What right does government have to tell those people how to run their business and what to produce?

Wow, you are dumb sometimes.

Corporations are not neccessarily democracies, and government, representing the people, has every right to regulate them. You're confusing shitty government with all government. Like I said we can talk degrees and lord knows I can come up with stories from my business of pain in the ass over-reach. But I'm also aware that it's not always about just me or my business.

Are there stupid laws and regulations? Yep. Are there laws and regulations that appear stupid to me, but were probably created for a legitmate reason of which I'm ignorant to or perhaps is now being mis-applied? Of course.
Does your state appear to FUBAR'd when it comes to silly nanny state regulations?

I feel your pain, I really do, but spare me the partisanship. It's plain and simply silly and makes you look like a

[CID1990]

When the Space Shuttle lands, unemployment goes up by about 9200...the total NASA and contractor jobs that will be eliminated...

High paying, high tech jobs...because Obama killed the shuttle program...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice try, Hoagie.

The shuttle program, which was scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2011, saw the final launch with Atlantis launching on July 8, 2011, in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration[9]. The shuttle's planned successor was to be Project Constellation with its Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Spacecraft; however, in early 2010 the Obama administration asked Congress to instead endorse a scaled-back plan with heavy reliance on the private sector.

All of those NASA employees had a future home in the Constellation program, which the Obama Administration shut down.

The Constellation program was not only going to retain the employment numbers from the STS days, but add to them (another Bush era big spending plan, by the way). The shuttle program money was meant to be freed up to make way for Constellation. Saying the shuttle program was killed is like saying the Gemini program was killed.

Obama didn't kill the shuttle program. He killed Constellation, and that's why those 9200 NASA employees are now going elsewhere.

A few of them will go to China, others to Russia, so they won't starve, though.

[bulldog10jw]

You're confusing shitty government with all government.

All government IS shitty government.......at least so far.

[kalm]

As long as their actions can infringe upon the rights of individuals, corporate practices are everyone's business. A long time ago states used to protect the public's interest by holding corporations more accountable.

Mmmm hmmm. I read you loud and clear there, kalm.

10-4.

So you are saying that hanging on to their cash in a recession is a corporate practice that infringes on the rights of individuals?

The regulations you are referring to concern things like anti-trust (protecting competition) and physical plant practices (like dumping dioxin into a river).

Making the leap to somehow argue that spending and hiring less infringes on individual rights (and therefore opening the door to government regulation that would compel a private company to spend during a recession) is the road to fascism (which at its base is private ownership but government control of industry).

Yeah, that's what I said.

Government should have very little to no say in domestic hiring practices and spending. It's when these companies suck off the government teat in the form subsidies/bailouts/tax cuts that I draw the line.

[kalm]

You're confusing shitty government with all government.

All government IS shitty government.......at least so far.

Until your house is on fire.

[citdog]

You're confusing shitty government with all government.

All government IS shitty government.......at least so far.

the BEST GOVERNMENT is HOME

[bulldog10jw]

All government IS shitty government.......at least so far.

Until your house is on fire.

Even then

http://www.ruralmetro.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Until your house is on fire.

Even then

http://www.ruralmetro.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well then.

[CID1990]

Mmmm hmmm. I read you loud and clear there, kalm.

10-4.

So you are saying that hanging on to their cash in a recession is a corporate practice that infringes on the rights of individuals?

The regulations you are referring to concern things like anti-trust (protecting competition) and physical plant practices (like dumping dioxin into a river).

Making the leap to somehow argue that spending and hiring less infringes on individual rights (and therefore opening the door to government regulation that would compel a private company to spend during a recession) is the road to fascism (which at its base is private ownership but government control of industry).

Yeah, that's what I said.

Government should have very little to no say in domestic hiring practices and spending. It's when these companies suck off the government teat in the form subsidies/bailouts/tax cuts that I draw the line.

If that isn't what you were saying, then your reply has little bearing on the conversation.

[kalm]

Yeah, that's what I said.

Government should have very little to no say in domestic hiring practices and spending. It's when these companies suck off the government teat in the form subsidies/bailouts/tax cuts that I draw the line.

If that isn't what you were saying, then your reply has little bearing on the conversation.

Sure it does, but I'll walk back my first sentence a bit and suggest that there are tons of companies and entrepreneurs ready for expansion or with marketable ideas that have been holding back due to a lack of available credit from banks that were bailed out by you and me. And what about GM?

[houndawg]

Because it is SOP for them?

Hyperbole.

And, not accurate. Is it SOP for Dell? Alcoa? MIcrosoft? Where is this prevalent slice of American private sector companies that thrive by throwing away their money?

How's YOUR investments, HD?

Very liquid.

[BDKJMU]

BDK's article he claims is from this year is from February of 2010.

Want me to post an article from 1999 about how great the economy is?

That article was about how the fed has added a qtr million jobs 08'-2010'. You think the fed has all of a sudden dropped a qtr million jobs in the last yr. Reading is fundamental.

[BDKJMU]

BDK's article he claims is from this year is from February of 2010.

Want me to post an article from 1999 about how great the economy is?

Why don't you instead post an article stating how many jobs the Federal Gov't has shed since February of 2010?

Exactly. Dumbass can't read.

[Skjellyfetti]

That article was about how the fed has added a qtr million jobs 08'-2010'. You think the fed has all of a sudden dropped a qtr million jobs in the last yr. Reading is fundamental.

Dumbass. You're confusing "government" with "fed."

We've lost half a million government jobs since 2008. I know this will come as an absolute shock to you... but, there are lower levels of government. And those levels of government provide far more jobs than the federal government.

[Skjellyfetti]

Exactly. Dumbass can't read.

Dumbass posts an article from a year and a half ago and claims its from this year.

[CID1990]

That article was about how the fed has added a qtr million jobs 08'-2010'. You think the fed has all of a sudden dropped a qtr million jobs in the last yr. Reading is fundamental.

Dumbass. You're confusing "government" with "fed."

We've lost half a million government jobs since 2008. I know this will come as an absolute shock to you... but, there are lower levels of government. And those levels of government provide far more jobs than the federal government.

500,000 equals 1/3rd of one percent of the US population.

It equals less than 1/2 of one percent of the US working age population.

At best (or worst), and even taking this article a face value (it has a couple of inaccurate definitions), I am failing to see where the public sector jobs have a any significant effect on the 9.2% unemployment rate. Private sector hiring is not driven by public sector hiring. Plus, the article simply shows how many public jobs have gone away. Some of those folks are working elsewhere.

Plus, given that this number (9.2%) is well OVER the rate that Smokin' Joe Biden and the rest of the administration promised us all that the stimulus would PREVENT, the rise is quite obviously not due to the fact that government is not creating jobs that are not needed, simply to create jobs.

Cities and states don't have the Chinese ATM that the Federal gummint enjoys, so they are having to cut back now. If you want to see what the runaway borrowing and spending is going to look like for us all in the US, look no further than local governments (and few few European ones) today.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, CID... you were claiming a couple pages ago that public sector jobs aren't down. That's what started this whole back-and-forth. You still standing by that?

The economy isn't treading water because the public sector isn't adding enough jobs. I haven't claimed as much... so I'm not sure why you're telling me I'm wrong for believing that. Was just pointing out that you're statement was wrong.

But, you seem to just want to argue other things instead of admitting you were wrong.

[BDKJMU]

That article was about how the fed has added a qtr million jobs 08'-2010'. You think the fed has all of a sudden dropped a qtr million jobs in the last yr. Reading is fundamental.

Dumbass. You're confusing "government" with "fed."

We've lost half a million government jobs since 2008. I know this will come as an absolute shock to you... but, there are lower levels of government. And those levels of government provide far more jobs than the federal government.

No dumbass, I'm not confusing "govt" with the "fed". In the the USNEWS article YOU posted,
"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."

Again, the fed 08'-10' GAINED 250k jobs, exactly as I stated. It doesn't matter if that article is from 2010.

If the fed has dropped a few k jobs in the last yr (the article that YOU posted stated 14k, which is an extremely small #) the govt is still up close to a qtr million jobs since 08'.
Again, reading is fundamental.

- about 1/2 million local + about 1/4 million fed= - about 1/4 million total govt jobs. Add about a qtr million jobs and you only lower the unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1 or 9.0%.

Again, local govt shedding some jobs has LITTLE to do with the high unemployment rate.

[Skjellyfetti]

No dumbass, I'm not confusing "govt" with the "fed". In the the USNEWS article YOU posted,
"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."

Again, the fed 08'-10' GAINED 250k jobs, exactly as I stated. It doesn't matter if that article is from 2010.

lol. You are having a lot of trouble with this complicated math... aren't you?

The federal government gained 250k jobs '08-'10. Gotcha
Local governments lost 464,000 jobs since September 2008.

Hmmm. let's see if I can figure out how to do this complicated math problem...

250,000 minus 464,000 equals -214,000.

Wait. What the fuck is that negative sign? Hmmmmm. It must mean that's a LOSS OF 214,000 jobs.

It doesn't matter whether the fed added 250,000 jobs. This statement is false:

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.

If the fed has dropped a few k jobs in the last yr (the article that YOU posted stated 14k, which is an extremely small #) the govt is still up close to a qtr million jobs since 08'.
Again, reading is fundamental.

- about 1/2 million local + about 1/4 million fed= - about 1/4 million total govt jobs. Add about a qtr million jobs and you only lower the unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1 or 9.0%.

Again, local govt shedding some jobs has LITTLE to do with the high unemployment rate.

And, in this part you are arguing with me about something I never said or claimed. So, fuck off.