Job losses in February: Economic storm warnings

I don't believe the liberals on Wall Street saying the economy is tanking.

I believe those reellly smrt conservatives who say Bush is doing an excellent job with the economy.

I like the republicans idea about this. Let's take care of the Iraqi proplr first..then we will have time to take care of us.

We are lossing jobs and McBush wants to send contracts for planes overseas. What a plan. It must be because we created a few more burger flipping jobs.

The job loss numbers confirm what many people already fear. The U.S. is in a recession or it may just be starting in one. We will not know for sure until we know that we had had 2 straight quarters of declines. Fasten you seat belt. I think this next cycle may be a bumpy ride.

the job loss numbers are only the beginning, what they are not talking about are those who have exhausted the unemployment benefits. That number is staggering. Thank you GWB! John W. McCain will only continue the policies of George and Karl.

RomanB, I'll assume you were making a funny. The "liberals" on Wall Street! That's a good one! Those would be the same "liberals" who have benefited mightily from our current corporate welfare tax structure.

Poor Mr. Bush doesn't seem to realize this is happening already. His remarks last week as to the health of the economy showed that he lives in a different "reality." He wasn't even aware that the price of gas is expected to go through the roof.

What a way to end his presidential reign -- with a full-blown recession and a war with no end.

Its called an economical cycle people. Relax and invest when you think it has bottomed out! We'll be okay!!!

Let's face it folks. Illinois is going to heck if we continue with the two Socialist clowns who perport to "represent" us. There is only ONE man who can speak his mind and bring STRONG REBUBLICAN values, and HONOR back to Washington. This man is John D. His background and expertise in growing business is unrivaled. We need his leadership, yesterday!
http://www.ecpzone.com/images/article/1194021072170_f1_2.jpg

Bush has raped & pillaged this country for 8 years. He (and Cheney) will walk away with his pockets full and we will be left here to clean up the mess.

Remember all those speeches of his a few years ago? the ones about 'the economy is strong! More people than ever are buying new homes!'

Uh-huh...look at them now.

Sure, the high-paying jobs are going overseas, where labor is cheaper. But that means that big companies have higher profits, which in turn means that the execs will be able to spend more time in restaurants, hotels and recreational places, AND they'll be buying lots and lots more stuff for themselves. So the opportunity here, if only us gloom-n-doom liberals could see it, is GOLDEN for us to grab 5 or 6 of the newly-opening service jobs at a quarter the pay that the higher-paying jobs would have provided! Talk about not being able to see the glass as half full! All I have to do is give up eating and sleeping, plus my weekends and evenings (okay -- and the benefits, too), and I could be making TONS more money than I was before!

If this downturn and rising gas prices continue thru November, it does not bode well for the GOP.

Thanks a lot GW.

On the plus side, unemployment is down and wages for the employed are up. Oops. I forgot. Only the bad news gets reported when a republican is in office.

Uh, right, she is the best prepared to handle the economy. Then I guess she feels her total mismanagement of her campaign and it's funds makes her the best to handle the economics of the nation.
right.

Unemployment 4.8% - still historically low. Ironically, 5% unemployment used to be the number used to describe FULL employment.

You want to see a positive trend in job creation and consumer confidence? Elect people that will MAKE THE TAX CUTS PERMANENT! This recent job report is a symptom of businesses and corporations fear of tax increases next year..

I have lived in Europe for the past 5 years could someone tell me what they are doing right and we are not? My observation is that they will never be able to compete against the American worker in construction, manufacturing and service.
There business acumen is suspect? Everything is overpriced in Europe!

I believe the "rape" metaphor is too strong of a word to describe what Bush, Cheney and the GOP have done to America. I believe a more apt way to describe it is that they've "run a stop sign and T-boned their high school sweetheart and left the bloody, twisted steel wreck to run off with a wealthy idiot".

I believe a government resolution to curb so much corporate outsourcing of jobs overseas to China and such would save our economy. More domestic jobs means more money flow within our nation.

Its called an economical cycle people. Relax and invest when you think it has bottomed out! We'll be okay!!!

Posted by: Steve S | March 7, 2008 10:06 AM

First of all, I've worked as a financial planner. Trying to "time" the market, just when you "think" it's bottomed out, is the worst startegy you can do.

Otherwise, I agree, to a point, that it is a cycle. I often feel the president is sometimes treated like a sports coach when it comes to the economy. Gets too much credit when it's going well, too much blame when it goes bad. Its the "players" in the market that have a lot to say about it. And, yes, there is a cyclical nature to it.

However, the problem is that Bush' denial of the recession undermines efforts and creates a false confidence in dealing with the problems. He needs to be upfront an honest with the American public. Something he appears to be incapable of doing. Whether the issue is lying to start a war. Or just saying "stay calm, all is well" while we are in a recession.

I also doubt you would have simply said "cycle" when the tech bubble started to burst and the economy started turning down near the end of Clinton's administration. Wouldn't you have jumped all over the Clinton administration for that?

Posted by: David J | March 7, 2008 11:52 AM

David K- I agree with your coach analogy-
I disagree with your premise that Bush is being dishonest in his not using the word recession to describe the economy.. we have not ( yet) had two consecutive periods of negative growth-which is the traditional definition of recesssion.. People don't need the president to draw conclusions that most economists are not even ready to draw- again -yet.

BTW the Clinton campaign are the only folks that are taking credit for the 90s artificial economic gains, and at the same time are ignoring the resulting tech bubble burst

I am so tired of hearing that unemployment is down. If the people who do the counting add in all of the people who are no longer eligible for unemployment and have been unemployed for years, we would have an accurate unemployment number.

Heartburn, I see you need a history lesson.

Note the chart below. Bush '41 handed Clinton a high unemployment rate. Clinton did a remarkable job bringing it down. The curetn Bush has never approached the 3.8 rate in April of 2000. Clinton's rates were consistently lower than Bush II. That's history!!

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Oops, looks like that link didn't quite work. So I cut and pasted the data.

From the Buereau of Labor Statistics

www.bls.gov

Monthly avg's 1993-Present


1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.0
2008 4.9 4.8

David J. I'm a buy and hold investor myself, and am aware that 'timing the markets' rarely pays off...
When the 2000 bust took place, I considered it a correction of a way overinflated hyped up market. I didn't blame Clinton anymore than I blame Bush now. And I wish Bush would acknowledge the negative indicators and quit trying to be so positive about it. The economy has some strong indicators, but its also has some signs of peril (like housing). What can he do about it exactly? Not much but let it ride itself out like it always does.

Posted by: David J | March 7, 2008 12:19 PM

History? You have been manipulated son- and you contradict your own sports coach analogy when you say- "Clinton did a remarkable job bringing it down." ( unemployment). The "history" is that a historic advance in technology (dot-coms, internet based, technologies) created a demand for high tech jobs in the 90s which created the tech boom- not Clinton.
Clinton's role was basically to stay out of the way. He did that well-of course he had a lot going on then, you remember that whole bimbo eruption thing-

now thats history!

I am so tired of hearing that unemployment is down. If the people who do the counting add in all of the people who are no longer eligible for unemployment and have been unemployed for years, we would have an accurate unemployment number.

Posted by: G.Duncan | March 7, 2008 12:16 PM

G.Duncan-your right- that would be a true unemployment number. the problem is that unemployment numbers are published as a measurement of how well our economy is creating or losing jobs- it is not a census.

If you are unemployed for years you either don't want to work, can't work, or you have completely overvalued yourself and your skills.

Interesting that David J cites April, 2000, as a benchmark for employment because it was in April, 2000, exactly when the Clinton recession began with the phony dot-com collapse. Beginning that April -- precisely -- the NASDAQ and the Dow dropped like the dot-bombs on which they were based. And unemployment: In the middle of Clinton's first term, it hit 6.7 percent.

Mr. Swamp conveniently omits THE key figure in the Labor Dept. report: "The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent." Bias in reporting comes in many guises, among them omission.

I am amazed at the preponderance of grammatical errors and typos that appear in the first four comments alone.

Vivianc and "heartburn,"

CNN just reported that the country LOST 62,000 jobs last month but the unemployment rate went DOWN. And the break even number to create enough jobs for the workers entering the workplace is 160,000.

This gives significant credibility to the long-argued liberal perspective that unemployment figures have been skewed favorably (for the administration) as a result of workers being taken off the unemployment rolls once their benefits have run out.

Wrap your head around it: the economy shed 60,000 jobs but the unemployment rate went down. Something's wrong with that picture.

This data is a month old but shows the clear march toward recession: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20080201

On tax cuts- Weren't the 2001 tax cuts initiated to stimulate the economy out of a recession? And weren't the 2002-6 tax cuts to make sure that we don't go into a recession (and screw paying for the war in current dollars, that's so passe)? Now its 2008, the economy is free-falling, and your answer is more tax cuts (that benefit wealth over work no less)?

Just wondering, is there any problem that supply-side tax cuts won't solve? This is why the GOP is going to be entering a long hiatus in the wilderness: when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Sorry guys, more war and more tax cuts isn't the appropriate solution to the problem that a reckless and irresponsible Republican Party has wrought.

BTW the Clinton campaign are the only folks that are taking credit for the 90s artificial economic gains, and at the same time are ignoring the resulting tech bubble burst

Posted by: heartburn | March 7, 2008 12:12 PM

How is the "artificial" gains of the tech boom any different from the artificial gains of the Bush Administration brought on by the housing bubble, endless borrowing, cheap credit, and rapid inflation?

This recent job report is a symptom of businesses and corporations fear of tax increases next year..

Posted by: heartburn | March 7, 2008 11:09 AM

Yeah, that's it. The housing bust, credit crisis, dropping dollar, rising deficits and fuel costs have nothing to do with the economic downturn. It's fear of tax increases.

What a fantasy world you live in heartburn.

I am not a fan of Bush but people who blame him for everything are idiots and just looking to make an excuse for why they are not "making it". What exactly has he done that has caused the downturn in the economy. Please explain. Economies always go thru cycles. I dint hear anyone complainging in the early 2000's when the value of their houses doubled and even tripled in some places. Is it Bushs fault that people bought houses that they could not afford. Is it Bushs fault that places like Cook COunty charge more for everything or that states like IL and Ohio have chased business out of their states by enacting huge corporate tax rates on business. Come on guys take responsibiltiy for your own lives.

And a great time for Cook County to jack up sales taxes.

We can split hairs and deny the history of economic turn down at the end of most presidential administrations, and we can also use vile, disgusting analogies to describe things, as well (the t-boning comment was simply ignorant. take a pill, man).

But, unemployment starts locally and if you think the GOP deserves to be knocked, now, prepare yourselves to dismantle the REAL crooks in your backyard - the Chicago and Illinois democratic machines.

When those sales taxes (increased due to incompetence and graft from the DEMOCRATS) hit .. you darned well better be ready to see the local unemployment rates sky-rocket, and the Chicago economy come to a grinding halt.

Will you be blaming Bush, then?

Well, of course you will - but you'd just be stupid.

Bush ain't free of blame, but be rational folks.

Ah yes, just another economic cycle -- a slight downturn, let's not panic. Unless it is a democratic president, then the economic cycles don't apply.

Bush is the greatest, smartest, most articulate leader we have ever had, and this unfortunate little glitch in the economic cycle will repair itself soon. Whew! I was starting to get a little worried.

What hurts most is families that don't have the extra $ to put the kids in spring baseball, soccer or football because of the costs of those sports. And those are the children that need it most and lose out on activities because parents just can't afford it lately.
I would like to see our government put extra $$ into those programs in all citys and towns.
And not just for the people who can prove their income is below poverty levels - but for all children - I am not below poverty level therefore I do not qualify for funds -but my kids can't play in sports because those extra dollars are going to the higher cost of gas, food, utilities and such.
It hurts my family!

Vivian:

Let me give you an economics lesson about the unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate is based upon the number of people who are actively looking for a job. The reason the rate went down is because more people have given up looking for jobs, and therefore do not count as unemployed. Also, once your unemployment benefits end, you are not counted as unemployed either.

If this was not the case, how could the rate go down after the market LOST 63,000 jobs???

Heartburn:

What are you smoking??? The reason the economy is bad is because companies are afraid of the tax cuts going away??

All of you who bash current US President, will remember Bush presidency as prosperous times with impossibly low unemployment. Don't believe me? Let's talk again after Obama/Clinton/Soros are through with US economy four years from now . .

Ms.VivianC makes a great point. Since Bush has been in office all that gets reported is bad news.
Maybe that's because Mr. Bush has messed this country up so bad that bad news is all there is to report.
Thanks George. Thanks Vivian for pointing this out.

Eight years ago the nation had peace amd prosperity. It was not perfect but one heck of a lot better than the mess the current administration has given us. This disaster should have lasted only four years. A big thank you to all of the morons who voted republican in the last two elections. I wonder if they have learned anything.

Heartburn:

What are you smoking??? The reason the economy is bad is because companies are afraid of the tax cuts going away??

Posted by: BobinATL | March 7, 2008 2:06 PM

Not all but a pretty good part-

the whole common sense thing is on play here.. if you are a small to mid-size business ( our economies largest sector of employers) and you are seeing the risk of a large tax increase next year - will you be inclined to hire or fire?

Let's talk again after Obama/Clinton/Soros are through with US economy four years from now . .

Posted by: ironmet | March 7, 2008 2:16 PM

Typically you won't see the effects of a President's economic policies until you are 6-7 years down the road. So only giving a Democrat 4 years to clean up this mess is not enough time. Don't believe me? I bet you think the economy was roaring in 1984 don't you? Reaganomics didn't take hold until a few years later. Sorry to bring facts and perspective to the equation irnonmet, err heartburn.

Yeah, that's it. The housing bust, credit crisis, dropping dollar, rising deficits and fuel costs have nothing to do with the economic downturn. It's fear of tax increases.

What a fantasy world you live in heartburn.

Posted by: Luke | March 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Mr. Skywalker-

USE THE FORCE LUKE! ( that was fun..)
Seriously- did you miss my qualifier " a symptom of"?

hint- you really should spend some time attempting to comprehend nuance and concept before you allow yourself to be critical.

thank you

I don't know what the surprise is here. 'Dubya' has screwed up everything he has ever touched in his life (check his business dealings and the Texas Rangers). What mader anyone think he would not screw up this country if given eight years to do so? This is just the expected conclusion to letting a good natured moron run what was once the most prosperous country on the planet into the ground.

"All of you who bash current US President, will remember Bush presidency as prosperous times with impossibly low unemployment."

What is with you freakin' Wingnuts? "Impossibly low unemployment?!"

The unemployment rate was nearly 8% when Clinton took over and it was around 4.2% when Bush took over, with an annual average in Clinton's second term of 4.5%. Its now dropped to 4.8% (that's AFTER the economy SHED 63,000 jobs last month), which, by my admittedly simple calculations, is HIGHER than it was when he took office.

"Impossibly low?" Impossible only to a feable mind incapable of comparative historical analysis.

Yeesh.

And one final point, "ironmet," the last time the Clinton crew was in charge (this is no endorsement of Hillary's campaign) the country had the longest period of economic expansion in the nation's history. You can spin spin spin all you want, but the Bush years might (giving you wingnuts the benefit of the doubt) be considered "not as bad as people thought" or perhaps "nearly in keeping with the previous decade's dramatic expansion."

Posted by: heartburn | March 7, 2008 12:43 PM

Your point is well taken. But I didn't say a presidnet's administration should get "NO credit/blame". Yes, the tech boom helped. The bubble bursting hurt.

As for Posted by: Derrick | March 7, 2008 12:49 PM

You say:

"And unemployment: In the middle of Clinton's first term, it hit 6.7 percent."

Not sure where you got that. See the chart I posted above. The unemployment rate decreased virtually every month from Jan '93 until the middle of 2000. The only 6.7 was a decrease from the 7.3 at the beginning of Clinton's first term.

NOT THAT CLINTON OR BUSH I HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

O.K., heartburn?

***sigh***

heartburn-

I understand nuance, unfortunately I find none in your posting.

Yes you said that this job report was a "a symptom of businesses and corporations fear of tax increases next year."

You said it was a symptom of one thing and one thing only. You refrenced no other factors, nor hinted at any other factors. No nuance, a clear simple statement. I responded to the words you wrote, and their clear meaning in the english language.

You idiots would rather argue politics than realize that alot of real people are have real hard times paying for their current standard of living. I don't give a rat's you know what about who is in office because it is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as I'm concerned. What does really bother me is that my gas bill went up 50 dollars last cycle to over 200 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment that I keep the thermostat at 60. A tank of gas in a Honda Civic cost 45 dollars, and despite having a master's degree in Education and yearly raises, I can no longer afford to live in the apartment that I have been in for 7 years.

You see, that is the real issue. Not this ridicilous smokescreen of who is to blame. While you guys are arguing politics, somebody is losing a job. Or better yet, like at my company, somebody is leaving a job and nobody will replace them. That is a little nugget that gets swept under the rug. So, "Democrats or Republicans". I DON'T CARE! I want my standard of living back that seems to get flushed further down the toilet everyday.

"Why is it that you people can't look this up before making pronouncements? The UE rate is UNRELATED TO the claims."

writes sparky

You're saying a phone survey is more a acturate picture

? How about this little gem?

"Persons not in the labor force are those who not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week."

Wouldn't it be great to have a government that's tells the truth. The unemployment report that doesn't report real unemployment, a Clean Air act that makes it easy for business to pollute, the Patriot Act that allows the government to spy on honest people and the Protect America Act that lets them off the hook for breaking the law while doing it! We're in trouble folks.

Mil,

The reason we are arguing politics is because a lot of people are hurting. The question is how to find the best solution that benefits the widest economic base of people.

I would submit that analyzing the past and assessing blame is somewhat necessary to the debate. As a progressive, I believe (hello, with evidence) that taxes should be as progressive as possible without causing undue burden to even those at the very top, budgets should be as balanced as possible, and the government should make investments in education, infrastructure and even defense that benefit the whole of society. In the modern era, this began to gain steam in the second half of the first Bush Administration.

Remember the "no new taxes" pledge that Bush 41 broke, costing him Republican support and throwing the election to Clinton? Maybe its just a coincidence, but the economy took off soon after the pledge was broken and never stopped until almost 10 years later, reinforced again in 1993 by deeper progressivity of the tax scale and increased internal investment under Clinton.

Then there's the Republican formula: tax cuts pay for themselves, deficits, debt and inflation are unrelated to each other and irrelevant to national prosperity, war is America's #1 export.

If Rush Limbaugh and George W Bush and Grover Norquist were correct about "voodoo economics," then reversing supply-side orthodoxy, i.e. raising taxes and focusing the increases on the wealthy, by Bush I and Clinton should have resulted in utter calamity. I don't think it actually turned out that way though, did it?

To your original point I am trying to make is that the answer is right there in front of us. When George W Bush was "elected" in 2000 by losing the popular vote, the country clearly was not voting for a repudiation of all things Clinton. There never was a popular uprising to slash taxes on the wealthy when Bush took office. The policy of slashing taxes on the wealthy and replacing the revenue with DEBT, is directly affecting the inflationary spiral many believe we are in. You see, despite what our Vice President believes, deficits DO matter and the chickens DO eventually come home to roost.

As oil is traded in dollars, the predictable (on account of large structural budget and trade deficits in part precipitated by the nation's second most expensive war ever, paid for on credit, with interest) crash of the dollar vis a vis other developed currencies is one of the primary factors behind the steep increase in oil prices over the Bush years.

It is necessary to assess blame because Republican economic policies have done far too much harm to this country over the last 30 years. If President Clinton and a Democratic Congress had not enacted their bold 1993 budget plan of increased taxes on top earners coupled with increased investment with an eye on balanced budgets as the ultimate economic stimulus, this day of reckoning may have come much sooner.

The national debt cost the United States tax payers $406 billion in interest payments in 2006. That's just a few billion short of the funds spent by the ENTIRE Defense Department in 2006.

Deficits do matter. Fiscal responsibility means BALANACING THE BUDGET, not who can bleed the government into the deepest debt by slashing tax revenues while increasing spending.

>>

Um, an N of 60,000 is quite good, actually. How would you like us to determine the monthly number?

DAvid J,

Re-read your history. The Clinton admin. rec'd a recovering economy, 18 months removed from recession. Also, unemployement is generally a lagging economic indicator, so therefore improved unemployment numbers would follow the recovery. Heartburn summarized Clinton economic "stewardship" quite well, sit back, get out of the way and get a hummer.

Mil,

Obviously you ahve enough money to keep your internet connection. You natural gas bill went last month due to the weather being COLD. Give it a couple of months. As far as you havingan advanced degree and not making sufficient money, maybe its time to look at your expenses or finding another revenue stream. It's your life, be respoonsible for it and quit being a whining member of the NEA.

Nail - deficits do matter. It's the domestic spending, especially the entitlements, that are killing this country's finances. Cut back on the earmark spending that Congress - both parties - is known for. Where President Bush blew it is he did not use his veto pen ehough in his first six years and the GOP Congress thought they could spend their way to popularity.