5
   

Jobless rate bolts to 14-year high of 6.5 percent

 
 
Woiyo9
 
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:06 am
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's unemployment rate bolted to a 14-year high of 6.5 percent in October as another 240,000 jobs were cut, the government said Friday. It was stark proof the economy is almost certainly in a recession.

ADVERTISEMENT
The new snapshot, released by the Labor Department, shows the crucial jobs market deteriorating at an alarmingly rapid pace.

The jobless rate zoomed to 6.5 percent in October from 6.1 percent in September, matching the rate in March 1994. Employers have cut jobs each month this year.

Unemployment has now surpassed the high seen after the last recession in 2001. The jobless rate peaked at 6.3 percent in June 2003.

Employers got rid of 240,000 jobs in October, marking the 10th straight month of payroll reductions.

Job losses in August and September turned out to be much deeper. Employers cut 127,000 positions in August, compared with 73,000 previously reported. A whopping 284,000 jobs were axed last month, compared with the 159,000 jobs first reported.

So far this year, a staggering 1.2 million jobs have disappeared.

The employment market is much weaker than economists expected. They were forecasting the unemployment rate to climb to 6.3 percent in October and for payrolls to fall by around 200,000.

Job losses were widespread. Factories cut 90,000 jobs, construction companies got rid of 49,000 jobs, retailers cut payrolls by 38,000, professional and business services reduced employment by 45,000, financial activities cut 24,000 jobs, and leisure and hospitality axed 16,000 positions.

All that more than swamped some gains elsewhere, including in the government, as well as in education and health care.

Racing to assemble his new Democratic Cabinet, President-elect Barack Obama will huddle with economic advisers later on Friday. His team has been in close contact with the Bush administration to pave the way for a smooth hand-off of power.

All the economy's woes -- a housing collapse, mounting foreclosures, hard-to-get credit and financial market upheaval -- will confront Obama when he assumes office early next year. And, the employment situation is likely to get worse.

Many expect the jobless rate to climb to 8 percent, possibly higher, next year. In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent before inching down.

To provide fresh relief, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats, in a lame-duck session later this month, are pushing to enact another round of economic stimulus of around $100 billion.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081107/economy.html?.v=6

I do not know what the answer is, but I do not believe that another "stimulus" check is the long term answer. Pelosi really is not someone who I can have any confidence in.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 878 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:41 am
@Woiyo9,
Its all Obamas fault. He just gets elcted and already the ashit is hitting the fan.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:49 am
@Woiyo9,
woiyo wrote :

Quote:
I do not know what the answer is, but I do not believe that another "stimulus" check is the long term answer.


i'm sure that a stimulus is not a "long term" answer .
sometimes a "short term" answer is needed to get the cart back on the road . it's always better not to get stuck in the first place ... ... but that's hindsight , and when you are stuck , getting the cart out of the mud is the first thing one needs to do imo .

it reminds me of my old boss . when someone talked of "long term" solutions , he would often mutter : "in the long term we're all dead " .
hbg
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 09:41 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

I do not know what the answer is, but I do not believe that another "stimulus" check is the long term answer. Pelosi really is not someone who I can have any confidence in.

I agree that another check is not the answer. I thought the first check was silly. I would go with moving some 2010/11 infrastructure spending up to 2009. Let's repair some roads, fix some bridges, build some levies. That puts people to work, invests in local economies and just spends money we were going to spend anyway a little sooner.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:10 am
@engineer,
I'm with you, engineer and woiyo. Folks need jobs not checks.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 03:27 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
Folks need jobs not checks.


it's always nice to get a cheque with the job - that's always been my opinion .
hbg
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 03:38 pm
@hamburger,
Well, you know what I mean.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:46 pm
@FreeDuck,
freeduck :

let me correct myself :

Quote:
it's always nice to get a BIG , FAT cheque with the job - that's always been my opinion .


Wink

i do understand you , freeduck !
sometimes i try to be funny at the wrong time and in the wrong place !
take care !
hbg

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 11:48 pm
Obviously not Obama's fault, but he will/should be expected to solve the problem.

Glad everyone is giddy about him winning because reality will hit home soon enough.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:36 am
the jobless number is flawed, because it purposefully does not count those who have given up on finding work, and does not count those who are substantially under employed. What is striking to me is that over the last few months the revised employment numbers have been far worse than the original numbers, that is to say that the numbers we are now getting for OC T will in all likelyhood be revised down in Nov, after a more rigorous examination of the evidence. There is every reason to suspect that the employment situation is far worse now than the government is claiming. I am also beginning to see a lot of private (non government) sources claiming that the economy overall is in much worse shape than anyone in government will admitt to.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:35 am
@hawkeye10,
It also does not count illegals who are have returned to their home countries.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:54 am
I 've been thinking for years now
that W is ruining the economy by this pointless war,
whose purpose was successfully accomplished years ago,
when we overthrew Saddam; from that point forward: its all waste.

I 've thought that this woud happen
and he 'd lose to whoever the Demos ran
(regardless of the fact that thay have been complicit
in funding this endless, purposeless war).





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jobless rate bolts to 14-year high of 6.5 percent
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 08:39:51