New Employment Numbers
May we please have our economy back, Mr. Presdient?
Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month and both July and June’s private-sector job figures were upwardly revised, the Labor Department said Friday.
[...]
Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs as 114,000 temporary census positions came to an end. For the first time this year, the manufacturing sector lost jobs - down a net total of 27,000 for the month. The auto industry accounted for 22,000 of those lost jobs, the department said. But those losses were largely due to a shift in the timing of the industry’s summer shutdowns.
State and local governments shed 10,000 positions and have had net jobs losses in every month but one this year.
[...]
Temporary employment rose by nearly 17,000, after a slight loss in July. That indicates employers are looking to boost their work forces, but are reluctant to do so permanently. Temporary hiring averaged 45,000 per month from October to May, but has since slowed.
The jobless rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent in July. More than a half-million Americans resumed their job searches in August, which drove up the jobless rate. When the unemployed stop looking for work, they are no longer counted in the jobless rate. It’s the first time the labor force has grown since April.
Temporary employment rose by nearly 17,000, after a slight loss in July. That indicates employers are looking to boost their work forces, but are reluctant to do so permanently.
Like you was saying the the day:
UncertaintyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1127 hrs
This latest news only serves to reinforce the contention that economic policies (and results) vary little from one administration to the next.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Let me guess the annointed ones solution to fix this will be extend unemployment benefits again.
Come next week we can again laugh as he huddles with his advisors and they throw more borrowed money at the problem. Because that will fix it , that is the answer we just didnt throw around enough money the first time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1310 hrs
Listeing to NPR, you’d think the economy is improving as they are only reporting the ‘67,000 private sector jobs added’...
Posted by Smeety on September 03, 2010 at 1417 hrs
No you can’t have it back! Republicans put it in the ditch in the first place, and Mr. Obama is going to keep it in that ditch until you all learn your lesson!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1635 hrs
“The stimulus was too small, that is the problem.”
“Too much of the stimulus was tax cuts.”
Can anyone guess who I am?
Seriously though. We spent nearly a trillion dollars, and the tax cuts were VERY temporary… Is it possible, even a little that maybe FDR and Keynes were wrong? Seriously, doesn’t history prove it? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1648 hrs
“The stimulus was too small, that is the problem.”
“Too much of the stimulus was tax cuts.”Hugo Chavez? Karl Marx? Scott?
Posted by Smeety on September 03, 2010 at 1756 hrs
Ok, Smeety, let’s narrow it down with another more recent one…
“The stimulus probably should have been twice as much…”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1811 hrs
Paul Krugman-PHD in Economics-but what does he know compared to a blogger in West bend?
Krugman campaigned against the banks expansion in the 80"s and 90’s. he was right then and he’s probably right now (if history is any judge)
The whining about giving something back to you (the economy, your country) assumes you owed it in the first place.(It’s annoying and small kind of,well girly)
We did this to ourselves, just like we did in the late 90’s ,when we went home and watched our net worth rise each day in tech stocks and mutual funds that we had little idea about but we did know we were getting richer by the day,assuming prices only went up.
So it was with housing (by way of the banks and our using our houses as ATM’s) and a globilization policy that sounded good on paper but has cost americans millions of jobs
All of us supported some or all of these policies by voting for the folks who supported them.
The middle class need the help-period.and the Republicans are no better than the democrats, always playing politics and keeping score and never helping anyone who doesn"t have a lobbyist or a PAC.For the record,FDR tried to balance the budget in the middle of a depression in 1936 with disastrous results.
But facts are difficult things-
In a year, sarah Palin will tweet that Obama bailed out the banks andthe lemmings of the right will believe it and someone from the far left will say something stupid about Bush and the lefties will repeat it as gospel.
Put on your big boy and girl pants and quit blaming others in lock step-parroting talking points and talking about “Your countrty and your economy”
We are in a hole deeper than anyone will tell us and it will take longer to get out than any politician will own up to.
New rule- if you compare a current politician to someone who changes the world’s history forever, you have to at least have read the cliff notes of their work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 2037 hrs
Huh, interesting…
Was there a point in there, other than Paul Krugman has a PHD?
Furthermore, who the hell cares. Obama went to Harvard, Bush went to Yale, then Harvard….
Look where we are.
FDR did NOT try to balance the budget in 1936…. Nice try though.
“No balance. Said President Roosevelt last week: “In the budget message of last year I said, speaking of the fiscal year 1936, that we should plan to have a definitely balanced budget for the third year of recovery. . . . ‘We have not yet reached a point at which a complete balance of the budget can be obtained.”
The President followed that conclusion with a momentous statement: “I am, however, submitting a budget for the fiscal year 1936, which balances except for expenditures to give work to the unemployed.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930754,00.html#ixzz0yWNfmmgxPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 2048 hrs
In fact, he increased the national debt by 10% in ‘36…. Seems familiar…. HMMMMMMMMM…...
Public debt. At the end of fiscal 1933, four months after Franklin Roosevelt took office, the U. S. Public Debt was $22,538,000,000. A year later, at the end of fiscal 1934, the public debt was $27,053,000,000. If his forecast made in his budget message a year ago came true, the public debt next June at the end of fiscal 1935 would be $31,834,000,000. Last week he revised that estimate because New Deal spending had gone more slowly than he expected, set it at $31,000,000,000. For the close of fiscal 1936 he set a new high figure: over $34,239,000,000.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930754-2,00.html#ixzz0yWOKxE9b
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 2050 hrs
As Mark said…
facts are difficult things
would be nice if he knew some.
Posted by Owen on September 03, 2010 at 2053 hrs
New rule- if you compare a current politician to someone who changes the world’s history forever, you have to at least have read the cliff notes of their work.
pfffft. I’ll consider the source.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 2059 hrs
Here’s a few more “cliff notes” of his work for ya Mark…
IN MILLIONS
Expenditures 1934 1935 1936
Running expenses $1,086 $1,235 $1,622
Veterans’ pensions 556 610 740
Interest on debt 757 835 875
Tax refunds 63 68 65
AAA 290 788 472
Emergency expenses 3,993 4,472 4,110
Total outlay*6,745 8.008 7,884
Total Revenue †3,116 3.711 3,992
Annual deficit 3,629 4,297 3,892
So, do you want to eat your words? Or maybe just practice what you preach from now on?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 2112 hrs
I think that is actually good news.
Unemployment in the public sector is sure to continue to increase for several years.
We’ll see if the private sector can come through.Posted by Charlie Hillman on September 04, 2010 at 2350 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 10:50 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).