Worse jobs report in a year

[BDKJMU]

"Hiring standstill points to growing recession risk
Employers added no jobs in August, signaling economy is still at risk of another recession

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers added no jobs in August -- an alarming setback for the economy that renewed fears of another recession and raised pressure on Washington to end the hiring standstill.

Worries flared Friday after release of the worst jobs report since September 2010. Total payrolls were unchanged, the first time since 1945 that the government reported a net job change of zero. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent.

The stock market plunged in response. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 253 points, or more than 2 percent.

Analysts say the economy cannot continue to expand unless hiring picks up. In the first six months of 2011, growth was measured at an annual rate of 0.7 percent.

Companies are mostly keeping their payrolls intact. They're not laying off many workers, but they're not hiring, either. Without more jobs to fuel consumer spending, economists say another recession would be inevitable. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of economic growth.

Like a wobbling bicycle, "you either reaccelerate or you fall over, said James O'Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global. "Something has to give."

Consumer and business confidence was shaken this summer by the political standoff over the federal debt limit, a downgrade of long-term U.S. debt and the financial crisis in Europe. Tumbling stock prices escalated the worries.

Even before it stalled last month, job growth had been sputtering. The economy added 166,000 jobs a month in the January-March quarter, 97,000 a month in the April-June quarter and just 43,000 a month so far in the July-September period.

"Underlying job growth needs to improve immediately in order to avoid a recession," said HSBC economist Ryan Wang.

The dispiriting job numbers for August will heighten the pressure on the Federal Reserve, President Barack Obama and Congress to find ways to stimulate the economy.

So far, the Fed has been reluctant to launch another round of Treasury bond purchases. Its previous bond-buying programs were intended to force down long-term interest rates, encourage borrowing and boost stock prices.

On Thursday, Obama will give a televised speech to a joint session of Congress to introduce a plan for creating jobs and spurring economic growth.

Even for people who do have jobs, income growth is stalled. That will hold back their ability to spend. The only sure way to reduce the risk of recession is with more hiring, economists say.

"The importance of job growth cannot be overstated," said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc.

The economy needs to add roughly 250,000 jobs a month to rapidly bring down the unemployment rate. The rate has been above 9 percent in all but two months since May 2009. Roughly 14 million Americans are unemployed.

The weakness was underscored by revisions to the jobs data for June and July. Collectively, those figures were lowered to show 58,000 fewer jobs added than previously thought. The downward revisions were all in government jobs.

The average workweek and hourly earnings also declined in August. Cutbacks by federal, state and local governments have erased 290,000 government jobs this year, including 17,000 in August.

"There is no silver lining in this one," said Steve Blitz, senior economist at ITG Investment Research. "It is difficult to walk away from these numbers without the conclusion that the economy is simply grinding to a halt."

The unemployment rate for black men jumped a full percentage point in August to 18 percent. That's the highest level for that group since March 2010. And unemployment for black people as a whole surged from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent even as unemployment for white Americans ticked down to 8 percent from 8.1 percent.

Obama has faced doubts within his own party, including black lawmakers who say he hasn't done enough to help chronic unemployment in black communities.

Yet Obama is unlikely to win support for any new stimulus spending from congressional Republicans, who oppose further spending and argue that the president's economic policies have failed. They favor deeper spending cuts and less government regulation.

On Friday, Obama took a step toward winning their support. He directed the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon rules that would have tightened health-based standards for smog. Republicans and some business leaders have said the proposed rules would have cost jobs.

Kurt Karl, chief economist for the Americas at Swiss Re, said the August jobs report "implies a rising probability of recession."

Still, he noted, employment fell for six quarters after the 2001 recession -- and the economy kept chugging along at an annual rate of 2.1 percent over that time.

The economy's 0.7 percent growth rate in the first half of 2011 was the slowest six months of growth since the recession officially ended in June 2009.

Most economists expect growth to improve to about a 2 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter. Lower gasoline prices have provided some relief to consumers. And factories are revving up again after being interrupted by Japan's earthquake and nuclear crisis.

Before Friday's jobs report, the economy had been showing signs of better health. Consumer spending was strong in August. Auto sales were brisk. Manufacturing expanded. And fewer people applied for unemployment benefits.

Yet even 2 percent growth isn't fast enough to generate many jobs. And the economy remains vulnerable to outside shocks -- a worsening European debt crisis or more political brinkmanship in Washington.

"The economy's perforated at this point," said Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Economic Competitiveness. "Any additional strain on it will tear it apart."

The Obama administration has estimated that unemployment will average about 9 percent next year, when Obama will seek re-election. The rate was 7.8 percent when he took office.

The White House Office of Management and Budget projects overall growth of just 1.7 percent this year.

"The economy continues to stagger," said Sung Won Sohn, economist at California State University Channel Islands. "It wouldn't take much (of a) shock to tip it onto a recession."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Employers ... et=&ccode=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

"We Are in 'Worse Situation' Than in 2008: Roubini

The world’s developed economies are trapped at the “stall speed” of low growth and need to have greater fiscal stimulus and less austerity to kick-start growth, leading economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC Friday.

Speaking at the Ambrosetti Forum on the shores of Lake Como, near Milan, Roubini said in an interview: “We are in a worse situation than we were in 2008. This time around we have fiscal austerity and banks that are being cautious.”...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44368995" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet people like KY think Obama is going to get re elected If the economy remains the same, or goes into a double dip, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate. Obama will be toast...

[BlueHen86]

"We Are in 'Worse Situation' Than in 2008: Roubini

The world’s developed economies are trapped at the “stall speed” of low growth and need to have greater fiscal stimulus and less austerity to kick-start growth, leading economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC Friday.

Speaking at the Ambrosetti Forum on the shores of Lake Como, near Milan, Roubini said in an interview: “We are in a worse situation than we were in 2008. This time around we have fiscal austerity and banks that are being cautious.”...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44368995" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet people like KY think Obama is going to get re elected If the economy remains the same, or goes into a double dip, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate. Obama will be toast...

I also think he gets re-elected. If things get worse, all bets are off, but right now people aren't happy with either party.

We re-elected Bush, who should have been toast, we can re-elect Obama. The GOP needs a candidate that the whole party can get behind, I don't see that right now.

[BDKJMU]

"We Are in 'Worse Situation' Than in 2008: Roubini

The world’s developed economies are trapped at the “stall speed” of low growth and need to have greater fiscal stimulus and less austerity to kick-start growth, leading economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC Friday.

Speaking at the Ambrosetti Forum on the shores of Lake Como, near Milan, Roubini said in an interview: “We are in a worse situation than we were in 2008. This time around we have fiscal austerity and banks that are being cautious.”...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44368995" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet people like KY think Obama is going to get re elected If the economy remains the same, or goes into a double dip, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate. Obama will be toast...

I also think he gets re-elected. If things get worse, all bets are off, but right now people aren't happy with either party.

We re-elected Bush, who should have been toast, we can re-elect Obama. The GOP needs a candidate that the whole party can get behind, I don't see that right now.

Likely things will get worse.

As far as re-electing Bush, 04' the economy was doing quite well, at least compared to now. What is it- no POTUS has been re elected with a unemployment higher than 7.6% since FDR.

[BlueHen86]

I also think he gets re-elected. If things get worse, all bets are off, but right now people aren't happy with either party.

We re-elected Bush, who should have been toast, we can re-elect Obama. The GOP needs a candidate that the whole party can get behind, I don't see that right now.

Likely things will get worse.

As far as re-electing Bush, 04' the economy was doing quite well, at least compared to now. What is it- no POTUS has been re elected with a unemployment higher than 7.6% since FDR.

Obama is no FDR, but as I said in another thread I think he will get the die hard Dem vote and the black vote no matter what.

Ironically, he might get the "unemployed" vote if the economy continues to suck or get worse since the GOP will be more likely to cut unemployment benefits.

[Bronco]

-
Even the die hard Dem's are starting to see that he's in over his head

Flashback Obama in 2010: New Jobs Plan after Vacation
CNSNews ^

Flashback Obama in 2010: New Jobs Plan after Vacation Monday, August 29, 2011 By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) –

President Barack Obama, in an Aug. 29, 2010 interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation, the same claim he made after returning from his vacation this year.

“We anticipated that the recovery was slowing – the economy is still growing, but it’s not growing as fast as it needs to. I’ve got things right now before Congress that we should move immediately, and I said so before I went on vacation, and I’ll keep on saying it now that I’m back,” Obama told Williams when asked if he had a jobs plan.

“There are a whole host of measures we could take – no single element of which is a magic bullet – but cumulatively can start continuing to build momentum for the recovery,” he said.
T
he promise of a plan echoes a similar promise Obama made on Monday, saying that in the coming week he would present concrete proposals that would spur hiring and economic growth.

“Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle-class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation’s roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy,” Obama said on Monday at a Rose Garden ceremony for new Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Alan Krueger.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

[BlueHen86]

-
Even the die hard Dem's are starting to see that he's in over his head

He is in over head, the die hard dems will still vote for him.

[Gil Dobie]

From street level, the job situation isn't any better than the last couple years. Still have 10 head-hunters contacting me for the same contract job when one opens up. Good thing I have a permanent position.

[houndawg]

I think you meant "worst" job report in a year.

[blueballs]

-
Even the die hard Dem's are starting to see that he's in over his head

He is in over head, the die hard dems will still vote for him.

This is correct. If you look at polling regardless of how bad things or how stupid he looks he still always never falls under 42%. Therfore he has 42% of the vote regardless, even if he took a shit on the oval office desk...

The key thing this time around is this: He can't run on his abysmal record so will the demonizing that has already started against the tea party and the GOP be enough to rally a record turnout of what before the election of 2008 was previously politically disinterested young people, minorities, and welfare queens? Also, will independents break his way in as big of numbers as they did in 2008?

Given the current economic climate I would think the answer to both is no.

[houndawg]

He is in over head, the die hard dems will still vote for him.

This is correct. If you look at polling regardless of how bad things or how stupid he looks he still always never falls under 42%. Therfore he has 42% of the vote regardless, even if he took a **** on the oval office desk...

The key thing this time around is this: He can't run on his abysmal record so will the demonizing that has already started against the tea party and the GOP be enough to rally a record turnout of what before the election of 2008 was previously politically disinterested young people, minorities, and welfare queens? Also, will independents break his way in as big of numbers as they did in 2008?

Given the current economic climate I would think the answer to both is no.

Au contraire, Pierre....

1) Yes, if he can successfully throw the blame on the opposition Congress, which is obviously very doable given that collection of dipshits, half-wits, and pin-heads.

2) Independents won't break as big for him, but he won't need them to; most of them would vote third party or stay home before bothering to bestir themselves to vote for the clowns that the Republicans are trying to pass off as serious candidates. Either way is bad - third party votes will hurt the Rs directly, and independents staying home will emphasize independents lack of interest in Republicans.

[Baldy]

This is correct. If you look at polling regardless of how bad things or how stupid he looks he still always never falls under 42%. Therfore he has 42% of the vote regardless, even if he took a **** on the oval office desk...

The key thing this time around is this: He can't run on his abysmal record so will the demonizing that has already started against the tea party and the GOP be enough to rally a record turnout of what before the election of 2008 was previously politically disinterested young people, minorities, and welfare queens? Also, will independents break his way in as big of numbers as they did in 2008?

Given the current economic climate I would think the answer to both is no.

Au contraire, Pierre....

1) Yes, if he can successfully throw the blame on the opposition Congress, which is obviously very doable given that collection of dipshits, half-wits, and pin-heads.

2) Independents won't break as big for him, but he won't need them to; most of them would vote third party or stay home before bothering to bestir themselves to vote for the clowns that the Republicans are trying to pass off as serious candidates. Either way is bad - third party votes will hurt the Rs directly, and independents staying home will emphasize independents lack of interest in Republicans.

But you didn't take into consideration the vast numbers of lifelong party line Donks who are so unimpressed and uninspired (not to mention he fooled them once already) with Obama that they are just gonna sit this one out.

[kalm]

"We Are in 'Worse Situation' Than in 2008: Roubini

The world’s developed economies are trapped at the “stall speed” of low growth and need to have greater fiscal stimulus and less austerity to kick-start growth, leading economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC Friday.

Speaking at the Ambrosetti Forum on the shores of Lake Como, near Milan, Roubini said in an interview: “We are in a worse situation than we were in 2008. This time around we have fiscal austerity and banks that are being cautious.”...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44368995" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet people like KY think Obama is going to get re elected If the economy remains the same, or goes into a double dip, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate. Obama will be toast...

[YoUDeeMan]

"Leading" economist? As in, leading around in a circle?

The guy predicted things would get better in 2009. Whoops!

"In 2010, he again warned that despite an improved economy with rising stock markets, the crisis was not over and new bubbles were on the horizon:

"We are just at the next stage. This is where we move from a private to a public debt problem . . . We socialised part of the private losses by bailing out financial institutions and providing fiscal stimulus to avoid the great recession from turning into a depression. But rising public debt is never a free lunch, eventually you have to pay for it."[20]

And, now in 2011, he wants governments to spend money. Of course, he doesn't say how everyone is going to pay for his new call for stimulus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Au contraire, Pierre....

1) Yes, if he can successfully throw the blame on the opposition Congress, which is obviously very doable given that collection of dipshits, half-wits, and pin-heads.

2) Independents won't break as big for him, but he won't need them to; most of them would vote third party or stay home before bothering to bestir themselves to vote for the clowns that the Republicans are trying to pass off as serious candidates. Either way is bad - third party votes will hurt the Rs directly, and independents staying home will emphasize independents lack of interest in Republicans.

But you didn't take into consideration the vast numbers of lifelong party line Donks who are so unimpressed and uninspired (not to mention he fooled them once already) with Obama that they are just gonna sit this one out.

There will be some, but not enough to swing the election. The R's just don't have any candidates who are not butterfly net material.

[bulldog10jw]

The R's just don't have any candidates who are not butterfly net material.

As opposed to a proven failure.

[BlueHen86]

The R's just don't have any candidates who are not butterfly net material.

As opposed to a proven failure.

2004.

Bush was not popular, but the Dems put up a weak candidate, so Bush won.

The GOP MUST put up a good candidate, or Obama wins.

[BlueHen86]

Au contraire, Pierre....

1) Yes, if he can successfully throw the blame on the opposition Congress, which is obviously very doable given that collection of dipshits, half-wits, and pin-heads.

2) Independents won't break as big for him, but he won't need them to; most of them would vote third party or stay home before bothering to bestir themselves to vote for the clowns that the Republicans are trying to pass off as serious candidates. Either way is bad - third party votes will hurt the Rs directly, and independents staying home will emphasize independents lack of interest in Republicans.

But you didn't take into consideration the vast numbers of lifelong party line Donks who are so unimpressed and uninspired (not to mention he fooled them once already) with Obama that they are just gonna sit this one out.

I think you may be right about a lot of Donks sitting this one out, but I think there is a good chance that a lot of the GOP will sit this one out as well.

I don't see the conservative base getting exciting about Romney and I don't see moderates getting excited about Perry. Bush was able to get both groups to vote for him, I'm not sure any of the current bunch is capable of doing that.

[bulldog10jw]

As opposed to a proven failure.

2004.

Bush was not popular, but the Dems put up a weak candidate, so Bush won.

The GOP MUST put up a good candidate, or Obama wins.

Bush actually won a bigger %-age of the popular vote and a larger number of electoral votes in 2004, than he did in 2000.

Was Kerry actually that bad a candidate? Compared to Al Gore?

I can't imagine BO getting anywhere near the popular or electoral votes he got in 2008, no matter who the Rep's run.

[BlueHen86]

2004.

Bush was not popular, but the Dems put up a weak candidate, so Bush won.

The GOP MUST put up a good candidate, or Obama wins.

Bush actually won a bigger %-age of the popular vote and a larger number of electoral votes in 2004, than he did in 2000.

Was Kerry actually that bad a candidate? Compared to Al Gore?

I can't imagine BO getting anywhere near the popular or electoral votes he got in 2008, no matter who the Rep's run.

Kerry was worse than Gore. Gore lost, in part, because of: anti-Clinton backlash, Ralph Nader syphoning of votes and his chameleon-like personality during the debates. Two of those things were beyond Gores control and Gore did well in the debates as far as discussing the issues was concerned. Kerry couldn't defend his war record against a guy who didn't serve. You knew where Gore stood on things, even Kerry didn't know where he stood.

I agree that this election will be closer than 2008, unless the GOP puts up a complete wackjob.

This just reminds me so much of 2004, only this time the party's have changed. There is a long way to go, and Obama is no lock to win, but I wouldn't bet against him right now.

[BDKJMU]

He is in over head, the die hard dems will still vote for him.

This is correct. If you look at polling regardless of how bad things or how stupid he looks he still always never falls under 42%. Therfore he has 42% of the vote regardless, even if he took a **** on the oval office desk...

The key thing this time around is this: He can't run on his abysmal record so will the demonizing that has already started against the tea party and the GOP be enough to rally a record turnout of what before the election of 2008 was previously politically disinterested young people, minorities, and welfare queens? Also, will independents break his way in as big of numbers as they did in 2008?

Given the current economic climate I would think the answer to both is no.

Actually, he dropped to 39% middle of last month in Gallup's daily tracking:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... to-gallup/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

I think you meant "worst" job report in a year.

Nope. He is actually saying that next year's will be worse.

[houndawg]

Bush actually won a bigger %-age of the popular vote and a larger number of electoral votes in 2004, than he did in 2000.

Was Kerry actually that bad a candidate? Compared to Al Gore?

I can't imagine BO getting anywhere near the popular or electoral votes he got in 2008, no matter who the Rep's run.

Kerry was worse than Gore. Gore lost, in part, because of: anti-Clinton backlash, Ralph Nader syphoning of votes and his chameleon-like personality during the debates. Two of those things were beyond Gores control and Gore did well in the debates as far as discussing the issues was concerned. Kerry couldn't defend his war record against a guy who didn't serve. You knew where Gore stood on things, even Kerry didn't know where he stood.

I agree that this election will be closer than 2008, unless the GOP puts up a complete wackjob.

This just reminds me so much of 2004, only this time the party's have changed. There is a long way to go, and Obama is no lock to win, but I wouldn't bet against him right now.

Gore lost because he couldn't carry his home state.

[BDKJMU]

Jobless claims up again...

"......The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of an anemic employment picture just hours before President Barack Obama unveils a plan on job creation in a major address to Congress.....

.....Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 414,000 in the week ending September 3 from an upwardly revised 412,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Wall Street analysts had been looking for a dip to 405,000......"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-joble ... et=&ccode=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Kerry was worse than Gore. Gore lost, in part, because of: anti-Clinton backlash, Ralph Nader syphoning of votes and his chameleon-like personality during the debates. Two of those things were beyond Gores control and Gore did well in the debates as far as discussing the issues was concerned. Kerry couldn't defend his war record against a guy who didn't serve. You knew where Gore stood on things, even Kerry didn't know where he stood.

I agree that this election will be closer than 2008, unless the GOP puts up a complete wackjob.

This just reminds me so much of 2004, only this time the party's have changed. There is a long way to go, and Obama is no lock to win, but I wouldn't bet against him right now.

Gore lost because he couldn't carry his home state.

I thought Gore won Wash DC pretty handily - he had 85% of the vote there.