• (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Unemployment rate 10.2% Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Brehus Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:17 AM

Unemployment tops 10 pct for 1st time since '83
Economy sheds larger-than-expected 190,000 jobs in October

WASHINGTON - The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher.

Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended.
Many economists worry that persistently high unemployment could undermine the recovery by restraining consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy.
The Labor Department said Friday that jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September, but more than economists expected.


The jump in the jobless rate reflects a sharp increase in the tally of unemployed Americans, which rose to 15.7 million from 15.1 million. The net loss of jobs occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. That tally is based on a separate survey of businesses.

Economists say the unemployment rate could climb as high as 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.

Christina Romer, who heads President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the rate was not unexpected but was still a disappointment.

"It's a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done to get people back to work," she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

There were some positive signs hidden in the numbers, Romer said, specifically pointing to a 34,000 increase in temporary service jobs.

"That's often the first sign of firms kind of dipping their toe back into hiring people," she said.

Still, counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."

Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring.

"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," Greenhaus said in an interview Thursday.

The economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, Greenhaus said, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of various government stimulus programs aimed at home and car buying fade.

October was the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years. The report showed job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs, the most in four months. Construction shed 62,000 jobs, down slightly from the previous month.

Retailers, the financial sector and leisure and hospitality companies all continued to reduce payrolls. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.


There were some bright spots in the report. Professional and business services companies added 18,000 jobs. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, after losing positions for months. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

Still, economists expect jobs likely will remain scarce even as the economy improves. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said that small businesses, a primary engine of job creation, still face tight credit and don't have the cash reserves to support extra workers.

And many companies are squeezing more production from their existing work forces. Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.

That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.

The Federal Reserve said earlier this week that it will keep a key interest rate at a record low level of nearly zero for an "extended period" to support the economy.

The central bank said economic activity has "continued to pick up," but Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues warned that rising joblessness and tight credit could restrain the rebound in the months ahead.

While the unemployment rate hasn't yet topped the post-World War II high of 10.8 percent set in December 1982, many experts say this recession is worse.



The unemployment rate was much lower when the recession began — 4.9 percent in December 2007, compared with 7.2 percent in July 1981, when a brutal downturn started. That means the current job cuts have been much steeper to get to the 10 percent mark.

And the work force, on average, is older now as the baby boomers have aged and fewer teenagers are out looking for work. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, notes that older workers are more likely to be employed than younger ones. As a result, it takes a tougher job market to push the rate to 10 percent.

"This may be the toughest employment situation we've seen in the postwar era," Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University, said in an interview earlier this week.

Meanwhile, U.S. businesses cut inventories at the wholesale level for a record 13th consecutive month in September, but sales rose for a sixth straight time.

The hope is steadily rising sales will encourage businesses to begin restocking shelves, a move that would boost production and bolster an economic recovery. But worries persist that consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, could falter as various government stimulus programs begin to wane and unemployment keeps surging.

The Commerce Department says businesses reduced inventories at the wholesale level 0.9 percent in September, slightly less than the expected 1 percent drop. Sales by wholesalers rose 0.7 percent, slightly better than the 0.6 percent gain economists expected



Persistently high unemployment is likely to become a political liability for Obama and Democrats in Congress. Most economists expect the jobless rate will remain above 9 percent through next November, when congressional elections are held.

When unemployment topped 10 percent in the fall of 1982, President Ronald Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats in the House.

One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They comprise 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. Obama is expected to quickly sign the legislation.

link

This post has been edited by Brehus: 06 November 2009 - 11:19 AM

1

#2 User is offline   Statick Icon

  • Falcon Lord
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 14,452
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:18 AM

You beat me.
0

#3 User is offline   eatcorn Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:23 AM

This isn't much of a surprise. Commercial construction is in horrible shape and will remain so for another year or year and a half. I think it's a good sign though, and a good endorsement of the American economy that we posted growth, meaning that companies are managing to turn profits in this climate.

I think it's a matter of time, probably a year or so, until jobs really start to come back. The worry is that companies will have shifted into bunker mode so much that they will not be able to meet demand once that demand really hits its stride.
0

#4 User is offline   Brehus Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:41 AM

View Posteatcorn, on 06 November 2009 - 10:23 AM, said:

This isn't much of a surprise. Commercial construction is in horrible shape and will remain so for another year or year and a half. I think it's a good sign though, and a good endorsement of the American economy that we posted growth, meaning that companies are managing to turn profits in this climate.

I think it's a matter of time, probably a year or so, until jobs really start to come back. The worry is that companies will have shifted into bunker mode so much that they will not be able to meet demand once that demand really hits its stride.


I think we are going to get caught up in bad cycle because consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the economy.
Most of the unemployed and under employed people are going to have a very limited spending power and won't spend much money this holiday season. The companies are going to be getting less income because people have less to spend power, so the companies are going to be reluctant to increase their work force.

This post has been edited by Brehus: 06 November 2009 - 11:43 AM

0

#5 User is offline   Lee Harvey Oswald Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 15-July 09

Posted 06 November 2009 - 12:34 PM

I keep hearing the phrase, "Oh, I think its gonna come back ________.(insert a future date)"
My question is...How?
0

#6 User is offline   Lee Harvey Oswald Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 15-July 09

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:29 PM

Government numbers are cooked, but Bob Chapman just said unemployment is 22% right now.
0

#7 User is offline   eatcorn Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:41 PM

View PostLee Harvey Oswald, on 06 November 2009 - 05:34 PM, said:

I keep hearing the phrase, "Oh, I think its gonna come back ________.(insert a future date)"
My question is...How?
Companies contract in order to make money. Those companies make money (GDP growth) and are therefore able to get credit. Those companies use that credit to expand, therefore hiring more workers.

It is difficult to see where the demand will come from, especially with savings at such a high, but there are indicators that the manufacturing slump will ease up in a year or so based on construction contracts signed.
0

#8 User is offline   hammerhead Icon

  • GO FALCONS
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Joined: 27-November 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:16 PM

In a year or so :lol: Good answer eatcorn. a year or so meaning 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 you get the idea the word so could mean indefinitely . And where did you get these indicators from ,do you have a link?

This post has been edited by hammerhead: 06 November 2009 - 04:17 PM

0

#9 User is offline   eatcorn Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:24 PM

I do not have a free link. The company that I own is in architectural aluminum manufacturing. We pay for a service that provides us with information on all construction contracts signed in a number of different markets (DODGE). The contracts signed number then is used as an indicator for when the actual work will begin. We have seen steady dropoff, but the data is beginning to bottom out and rebound a little in some areas about a year from now.

Institutional work remains fairly steady.

I'm not sure what you found funny.

EDIT: Here is a link to the service http://dodge.construction.com/

This post has been edited by eatcorn: 06 November 2009 - 04:27 PM

0

#10 User is offline   hammerhead Icon

  • GO FALCONS
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Joined: 27-November 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:45 PM

You can go to the county court house and pull up the recent construction permits that have be filed for free as well, the same principle correct.
0

#11 User is offline   eatcorn Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:46 PM

View Posthammerhead, on 06 November 2009 - 09:45 PM, said:

You can go to the county court house and pull up the recent construction permits that have be filed for free as well, the same principle correct.
Sort of. DODGE compiles all of the data nationally and puts it into editable form with a number of different attributes.
0

#12 User is offline   hammerhead Icon

  • GO FALCONS
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Joined: 27-November 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:59 PM

i used to own a construction company we just found it simpler to use the court house,
then again all the work we did was in new construction in a metro area.
1

#13 User is offline   Dirtybirdn@tion Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 25-July 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:16 PM

We need the government to spend more money.... :rolleyes:
0

#14 User is offline   Brehus Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:59 PM

View PostDirtybirdn@tion, on 06 November 2009 - 05:16 PM, said:

We need the government to spend more money.... :rolleyes:

Problem is even when they do spend it they don't know what to spend it on, so it doesn't work
1

#15 User is offline   BenB321 Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 1,511
  • Joined: 12-August 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:28 PM

View Posteatcorn, on 06 November 2009 - 11:23 AM, said:

This isn't much of a surprise. Commercial construction is in horrible shape and will remain so for another year or year and a half. I think it's a good sign though, and a good endorsement of the American economy that we posted growth, meaning that companies are managing to turn profits in this climate.

I think it's a matter of time, probably a year or so, until jobs really start to come back. The worry is that companies will have shifted into bunker mode so much that they will not be able to meet demand once that demand really hits its stride.


I think your optismism is wishful thinking. The high unemployment numbers will result in a vicious cycle of more foreclosures, bankrupties, less lending and poor consumer confidence. This increased unemployment will result in another recession.

The problem is Obama and the Democrats totally screwed up the stimulus program by only focusing on government jobs like teaching and 1930s new deal programs like infrastructure. Instead they should have given tax breaks to buisness, especially small business since that is were the job growth is, to buy equipment and hire new employees. For instance they could have given businesses a $20,000 tax credit for new hires. If 2 million people were hired that would have cost around 40 billion instead of the close to a trillion stimulus fiasco they came up with. Now we have no money so don't count on a second stimulus any time soon. Get ready for more bad economic news because sadly it won't get better anytime soon. Sorry for hitting you with some reality.
0

#16 User is offline   VincentVanBro Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Joined: --

Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:41 PM

View PostLee Harvey Oswald, on 06 November 2009 - 02:29 PM, said:

Government numbers are cooked, but Bob Chapman just said unemployment is 22% right now.


I really don't like going by numbers like that though.

People can throw out their own claims on how many people are actually unemployed, and they may be right or wrong, but at the end of the day I think t helps to use the same measuring stick for comparisons. If they employment rate actually is at 22%, then it sure as heck wasn't at 6% when the economy started to tank under Bush.
0

#17 User is offline   Herr Beast Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Joined: --

Posted 07 November 2009 - 05:43 AM

So I heard Obama is considering another stimulus package? He is really losing it economy wise, he acts like the typical Euro socialists in the 1970s economic crisis and those left us nothing good. As much as I am in favor his policies on all other fields, I am really worried about what the heck the guy is doing with money. Either he isjust the typical politician who just loves to act and pretent to act like a problem solver (of course by spending lots of money) or he is just lost.

This post has been edited by Herr Beast: 07 November 2009 - 05:43 AM

1

#18 User is offline   poutlipper Icon

  • Supreme Falcon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 10,455
  • Joined: --

Posted 07 November 2009 - 10:23 AM

View PostHerr Beast, on 07 November 2009 - 05:43 AM, said:

So I heard Obama is considering another stimulus package? He is really losing it economy wise, he acts like the typical Euro socialists in the 1970s economic crisis and those left us nothing good. As much as I am in favor his policies on all other fields, I am really worried about what the heck the guy is doing with money. Either he isjust the typical politician who just loves to act and pretent to act like a problem solver (of course by spending lots of money) or he is just lost.

100% Bravo.
0

#19 User is offline   opensource01 Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 17-September 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 10:44 AM

View PostHerr Beast, on 07 November 2009 - 03:43 AM, said:

Either he isjust the typical politician who just loves to act and pretent to act like a problem solver (of course by spending lots of money) or he is just lost.



I'm not sure he can't be both at once. He clearly has no idea what he is doing. I don't really mind that. I mean, thinking a politican knows what they are doing is idiotic. If they weren't mindless, power hungry drones, they'd be doing meaningful work (like engineers, or... engineers). No, my problem is I don't think he has a clear idea of what he wants. Health care reform, great. How? Stimulate the economy, great. How?
0

#20 User is offline   RockPaperScissors Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 07 November 2009 - 01:18 PM

In reality unemployment numbers are way higher. I know a bunch of contractors and construction guys who can't claim unemployment (and therefore can't be added to the dept of labor's official numbers) due to getting paid off the books and having to owe back-taxes.
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


Copyright © 2008 Atlanta Falcons. All Rights Reserved. Do not duplicate in any form without permission of the Atlanta Falcons.