It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. losing nearly half a million jobs per week

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Jobless Claims Rise in Latest Week


Thursday January 2, 11:30 AM EST

By Nancy Waitz (REUTERS)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lines for state unemployment benefits grew in late December, pushing up new jobless claims by a surprisingly steep 13,000, the government said on Thursday.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits rose to 403,000 in the week ended Dec. 28 from a revised 390,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said.

The rise was bigger than the average Wall Street expectation for 391,000 claims and well above the previous week's original measure of 378,000.

The rise brought the average weekly rate of new claims over the past four weeks to 418,750 -- up from 407,500 in the prior four-week period.

Some economists consider the four-week average a better indicator than weekly claims of the health of the job market and the economy.

Expect it to get much worse before it gets even slightly better. Anyone hear of a White House endorsed stimulus package that's going to create jobs? Anyone? I mean a break on shareholder dividends is all peachy, but do you think that's helping anyone South of a six figure income!?!




posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The problem with your misleading headline is that it does not take into account the number of persons FINDING work during the same period. If we were to take your "sky is falling" attitude, it would mean that 2 million people a month loose thier jobs, and stay unemployed. This is simply not the case.

A story on the topic by the AP said:

"Last week's increase in jobless claims was in line with expectations. Analysts had expected a slight increase after two weeks of improvement."

And that is mainly because...

"Companies have been reluctant to boost hiring or increase their capital investments in the face of continuing uncertainty about what a possible war with Iraq could do to the U.S. economy."

In answer to your question...

"President Bush, mindful that a jobless recovery from the 1990-91 recession was a major factor in his father's 1992 defeat, has his administration working on a new economic stimulus program of further tax cuts aimed at boosting economic growth.

Because of this...

"Bush also has urged Congress to extend unemployment benefits soon after convening next month. But he has not said if he favors a more extensive plan offered by the Senate or a House version that would cover fewer jobless workers.

Because of the impasse on this issue, an estimated 800,000 jobless workers lost their federal unemployment insurance benefits last Saturday.

They had exhausted 26 weeks of state benefits and were receiving up to 13 extra weeks from the federal government. But Congress failed to extend the program before adjourning for the year."

And I give links...

www.foxnews.com...


It's amazing how things come to light when you tell the WHOLE story, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 01:55 PM
link   
And the point, other than backing up my post.......is what? I don't think you realize you said the same thing in a different way.
You're not of the opinion that we are doing anywhere near well economically, are you?
I spend 8 -12 hours a day dealing with those companies.....nothing is happening. As much as I find Bush totally incapable, I would almost gladly love see him ride the Good Karma wave of unemployment dropping 3 points, the Dow/Nasdaq shooting to historic highs and capital expenditures go through a boom.

Unemployment:
House = 5 weeks extra is some states
Senate = 13 weeks extra in all states

Congress & Bush have not served us well, but Bush only weighed in on the subject when political damage was unavoidable.
As for immediate stimulus, none of his tabled measures to date are. Rehashing the failings of trickle down economic theory is all that's in store. If you see something like an immediate rebate to middle income households, that would be something. But a cut in Estate Tax? Nope.



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Wow...you really are didn't understand what I said, did you? You actually believe the sensationalized junk you print. I thought before you were just posting this crap because you love to hate somebody, and have to have somebody to bash, but you actually believe it. That's sad.

Your post says, and I quote, "U.S. losing nearly half a million jobs per week."

This is, at best, a misrepresentation of the data, at worst, a bold faced lie. The point being, the US did not "lose" a half million jobs. There were "unemployment claims" filed. The fact is that many of those that filed claims were either fired or quit, and the positions they had were immeadiatly filled by other workers. The unemployment rate continues to hover around 6%, which is exactly what was forcasted. If you had read my post in another forum, you would have noticed that I predicted the decline in unemployment rates in the last quarter. Now the seasonal trend that happens after Christmas has happened as predicted, and the rate has risen slightly. It's a trend that happens every year as seasonal workers are taken on temporarily to help with the christmas rush. IN NO WAY did my post back up anything you posted. It pointed out the falicy of the one sided crap you wrote. Unfortunatly, you seem to only see what you want to in others posts, and ignore anything that disagrees with what you write.

As far as a tax cut, you must have your crystal ball out again. Bush is about to announce his planned stimulus package, and you claim to know what it is before anybody else. Wow, wish I had your forsight.

Then you said,"If you see something like an immediate rebate to middle income households, that would be something."

Hey, that sounds just like the immeadiate rebate we all got last year!!! A Bush promise that he kept, and now you are asking for it again!!! Amazing!!!

"But a cut in Estate Tax? Nope."

You see, you, as a true Democrat, believe that only the poor deserve a tax cut. I have news for you, the poor don't pay income taxes. They recieve the benifits of the taxes the middle and upper class pay. Tax cuts should be across the board. Fair. ALL TAX PAYERS, not just the ones you aren't jealous of. Do think the rich are the only ones who would benefit from an estate tax cut? When a relative dies and leaves an estate of $10,000, and the government takes 30%, it still leaves peanuts. The "Death tax" is bad for everybody, and should be changed. To do so would benifit ALL Americans.

[Edited on 3-1-2003 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I think the economy should be left to run its course. I want to know, BT, what you expect Bush or ëthe governmentí to do that will improve the economy? You act like there is some magic job creating wand Bush can wave and your mad he hasnít waved it yet.

It is indeed terrible that people are loosing their jobs and the economy isn't in a better state. You've been around long enough to have seen previous economic downturns to know these things tend to run in cycles. With the terrorist attacks and corp scandals this might be worse than before but I've never thought the government capable of doing that much for the economy. Outside of tax cut - I am skeptical at any government action taken to prompt the economy - it would probably have the opposite of its intended effect.

[Edited on 2-1-2003 by Bob88]



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Affirm-Reaction

Do you alway fall so naturally into the angry white male sterotype? No need to answer, you did that already!
Coming online to pick a fight instead of debating points to learn something is your obvious modis operandi....cool, we all were there once....you'll grow out of it.
But that won't stop us from marveling at your need to shout your ignorance.
Look, the article is a direct paste, the heading and what's in italics is mine......what do you say is "a bold face lie"!?!? The Labor Department says they had a 4 week average of 418,000 new unemployment claims per week FOLLOWING the previous 4 week average of 407,000 per week. Round off 400,000 and you'd say half a million. Prior to that, it was at a high 390's average or over 400....read.
Is your head THAT far up your azz to honestly believe that anyone out here in the private sector is actually QUITING a job they're lucky enough to have!?!?
" the positions they had were immeadiatly filled by other workers" is another choice fecal nugget! Look at the payroll figures you moron! LOL!
I wish you had any foresight, maybe you'd pay attention and listen to what Ari, Lindsey, Card have been saying as stimulus standpoints for weeks now.
You're such an idiot you're confusing being intestate with the Estate Tax. Estates = $Millions$
Let's do the math here. An estate tax with an exemption of $5 million would affect only a handful of very wealthy families: in 1999 only 3,300 estates had a taxable value of more than $5 million. The average value of those estates was $16 million. If the excess over $5 million were taxed at pre-2001 rates, the average taxed family would be left with $10 million ó which doesn't sound like hardship to me ó and the government would collect $20 billion in revenue each year. But no; the whole tax must go. That they have the Rank&File Ultra Right Wing idiots like yourself all lined up screaming for a repeal of a 'death tax' is all they needed.
Good Job sparky! Here's your bisquit!



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
I think the economy should be left to run its course. I want to know, BT, what you expect Bush or ëthe governmentí to do that will improve the economy? You act like there is some magic job creating wand Bush can wave and your mad he hasnít waved it yet.

It is indeed terrible that people are loosing their jobs and the economy isn't in a better state. You've been around long enough to have seen previous economic downturns to know these things tend to run in cycles. With the terrorist attacks and corp scandals this might be worse than before but I've never thought the government capable of doing that much for the economy. Outside of tax cut - I am skeptical at any government action taken to prompt the economy - it would probably have the opposite of its intended effect.
[Edited on 2-1-2003 by Bob88]


I do think him a fairy, a bad fairy, so that whole wand thing is appropriate!

The recession officially started in 3/2001....ample time to do something about it, don't you think?
The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates. Ask Greenspan......have you seen rate cuts come flying out of the Fed like this in your lifetime? I haven't.
What can he do/solicit Congress for?
First, extend unemployment benefits, which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession. This will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to the states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services.
Why not have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll taxes?
And how will we pay for all of this? You know the answer to that: Cancel tax cuts scheduled for the future. The economy needs stimulus now. It doesn't need tax cuts for the very affluent five years from now.
This isn't rocket science. It's straightforward textbook economics, applied to our actual situation. I almost forgot to add that investment incentives to businesses - capital expenditures, baby! Buy that new equipment, get some more inventory, buy those services ( mine!) - it creates jobs, gives people money to spend in the economy and push forth our GDP getting up not only domestic investment, but getting back that crucial foreign investment that's been jumping ship like rats since W started screwing up the economy.



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 07:28 PM
link   
A-R, let's not insult one another as you did. Notice the edit? I believe I captured your point but in a less antagonizing way.
Also, "junk" is a better word than the using of the vulgar word for a male bovine's excrement, wouldn't you agree?
It pains me to have to correct a fellow conservative's post, so please work with me!
Bob, why didn't you catch that, huh? I am totally appalled at the lax nature I'm detecting from my two fellow conservatives.
B-T, on behalf of the conservatives, I apologize profusely. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go flog myself to pay the just price for my wayward brethren.



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A-R, let's not insult one another as you did. Notice the edit? I believe I captured your point but in a less antagonizing way.
Also, "junk" is a better word than the using of the vulgar word for a male bovine's excrement, wouldn't you agree?
It pains me to have to correct a fellow conservative's post, so please work with me!

Bob, why didn't you catch that, huh? I am totally appalled at the lax nature I'm detecting from my two fellow conservatives.
B-T, on behalf of the conservatives, I apologize profusely. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go flog myself to pay the just price for my wayward brethren.



I sir, will absolutly NOT "work with"you! How dare you edit my post! As for any off color words, the automated system will take care of that. You edited the text of my message, and POORLY! "you really are didn't understand what I said" Where do you get off editing my message to the point of inserting bad grammer!? I thought this was a forum of free ideas...I guess I was wrong. You edit my post, and attempt to "slap my hand" with this moronic post, but seem to pick and choose whom you edit. Take a look at some of BT previous posts, and then open your eyes! If I am not free to express myself, let me know now, and I will never post on this board again. But never, NEVER, change my words again!



posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
The recession officially started in 3/2001....ample time to do something about it, don't you think?
The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed when the Fed loosens the reins.


I'm sorry sir, but this is wrong.

The meandering attempts of Mr. Greenspan are an inept response that made matters worse.

This recession is the result of a very obvious historical cycle, one we already saw from 1900-1930, and experienced from 1970-2000.

The first cycle was focused around the boom-build-speculate-bust cycle of the rise of electricity as an economic powerhouse. This second cycle was the rise-boom-build-speculate-bust cycle of digital technology. Most people will feel that the so-called dot-com bust has caused the major portion of the bust-cycle, but that is wrong, the Internet is to digital as the Television was to electricity, simply a divergent technology.

As this nation geared up it's massive spending engines in speculating on massive digital profits around consumers, the Internet, and Y2K catastrophe prevention; no one wanted to recall the alarming historical parallels.

As the fall began, "The Fed" should have been very hands-off. In late 2000, we still had a very strong consumer economy (the strongest ever), robust technology infrastructure, and still billions of unallocated venture capital. The economy was poised to absorb a 20% sell-off with virtual ease without Fed intervention. However, as happened in the late 1920's, emotion ruled the day. George W. Bush began talking of economic troubles as part of his campaign platform... building negative buzz. The buzz evolved into serious investigation, which sparked emotional sell-offs of equities (always bad), and further emotional response. This combined with the massive inevitable down-sizing of corporate IT budgets as a result of Y2K survival, further exacerbated the situation from bad to catastrophic as the market psychology was ruled by the "day trader". Throw into the mix the thousands of terrible business plans given life on NASDAQ after the minimum requirements for IPO were reduced, and you have a market crash, down-sizing, and lost jobs.

Right now, the Fed should raise rates as the extreme low rates are now harming the economy, since those who make money on the lending of money are making slightly less than a profitable margin, and the standard rates on "savings accounts" pitiful.


So, for those keeping political score, we can watch the wave of history and gather both "sides" has equal complicity in this current economic situation.



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Bout Time - with all that you've mentioned about Clinton's crotchable area - I am afraid to ask what sort of services you sell.


The first rebate didn't seem to do much. It was said people used it more for personal debt reduction instead of buying stuff. I do agree that the jobless benefits should have been extended.



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
...How dare you edit my post!...

....But never, NEVER, change my words again!


Moderators are in place to maintain the peace. If Thomas felt the need to modify a post, he has the full support of forum management. Please direct any further issues you may have to me, Bob88, or Simon via U2U.



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winston Smith

As this nation geared up it's massive spending engines in speculating on massive digital profits around consumers, the Internet, and Y2K catastrophe prevention; no one wanted to recall the alarming historical parallels.

As the fall began, "The Fed" should have been very hands-off. In late 2000, we still had a very strong consumer economy (the strongest ever), robust technology infrastructure, and still billions of unallocated venture capital. The economy was poised to absorb a 20% sell-off with virtual ease without Fed intervention. However, as happened in the late 1920's, emotion ruled the day. George W. Bush began talking of economic troubles as part of his campaign platform... building negative buzz. The buzz evolved into serious investigation, which sparked emotional sell-offs of equities (always bad), and further emotional response. This combined with the massive inevitable down-sizing of corporate IT budgets as a result of Y2K survival, further exacerbated the situation from bad to catastrophic as the market psychology was ruled by the "day trader". Throw into the mix the thousands of terrible business plans given life on NASDAQ after the minimum requirements for IPO were reduced, and you have a market crash, down-sizing, and lost jobs.

Right now, the Fed should raise rates as the extreme low rates are now harming the economy, since those who make money on the lending of money are making slightly less than a profitable margin, and the standard rates on "savings accounts" pitiful.


So, for those keeping political score, we can watch the wave of history and gather both "sides" has equal complicity in this current economic situation.


Spot on and three cheers! I agree 100% with that assessment but still maintain that the 'cycle' has been misdiagnosed by the Bush economic 'team' by evidence of it's laizze faire let the Fed sort it out attitude. Or, it could just be a manipulation to justify the killing of corporate dividends tax.
But even the things I favor them doing, such as the child tax credit increase, a more rapid phase out of the 'marriage penalty' tax, and increased investment loss right off, can't be considered as even remotely resembling short term stimulus. Long term & short term are needed, of course, but a more favorable slant towards the short will stave off some of the forced reactionary moves in the future.



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Bout Time - with all that you've mentioned about Clinton's crotchable area - I am afraid to ask what sort of services you sell.


The first rebate didn't seem to do much. It was said people used it more for personal debt reduction instead of buying stuff. I do agree that the jobless benefits should have been extended.


IT Staffing & Consulting services, Bobb!
Though what red blooded American teen boy HASN'T dreamed of being a pimp!


I think we've been bouyed thus far by consumer spending, but as the holiday season numbers indicate, that's on the wane.



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:49 AM
link   
oh no! we're in the same industry, BT!

however, I am the one that gets pimped out



posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by William

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
...How dare you edit my post!...

....But never, NEVER, change my words again!


Moderators are in place to maintain the peace. If Thomas felt the need to modify a post, he has the full support of forum management. Please direct any further issues you may have to me, Bob88, or Simon via U2U.


Since you obviously have no problem with censorship, I will no longer post on this board. You require me to answer your "in the open" rebuffs of me via
"U2U". Well, since this will be my last post, I will chartise YOU in the open as you have done me.

Censorship in any way, shape, or form is wrong. I never once complained when BT said to me, and I quote, "You are one dense son of a beeeyaaotch, ain't ya?" You didn't censor him. Why? Afraid of the repercussions? Don't believe me? Here's the link... xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

And there are many other examples, go look for them yourself.

So, as it is obvious you have no idea whom or what you censor, and have no problem chastising in private, but demand replys to you be done in private, I no longer wish to post here. I despise hypocracy, and you have shown tons of it. You can have BT and deal with his lies and misinformation yourself. I'll not be party to your Comunist-like policy. And teach your "moderators" to write. Their grammer is poor. And with that, you can just Fuk off...



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 06:10 AM
link   
What a shame, you think filth should not be washed off, and you think provoking a fellow poster is the proper thing to do as well.

Do you think, I mean do you really think that vulgarity and insult is the way to communicate? Have you no more control of your faculties than that?

As far as why not censor everything, you may not believe it, but nobody reads every post put on the board. I wish I could read that fast, but as it is, the real world calls me away from the board more and more nowadays.
Even if I were to be able to read everything, I'd rather peope become a little mature and not think this site is the bathroom wall. Editing is a drag.
If it makes you feel like a hero or something, you are the first in a long time. What an honor that must be.



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Dear Affirmative A., I would urge you to reconsider your decision to leave our - undeniably "unbrotherly" at times - fraternity.
ATS benefits from as broad a spectrum of views as it can attract.
In this thread, we see such shades and hues: all worth debating - I can well see the merit of your dissection of the journalese of the original headline"; I can see the merit in B-T's approach with fiscal data as evidence; and I can see why Bob suggests that a magic wand" is perhaps an unrealistic desire.
I can equally see why attacking journalistic absurdities in the silly season without data might be contentious; why relying upon selected fiscal data can be misleading and why it is not perhaps unreasonable to expect a "magic wand" when politicians so often insist- generally around the time they want our votes - that they have one. ( indeed -if it's just market forces, one is tempted to ask why we bother with politicians).
Yet - while all this is what makes discussion interesting, combative and often fruitful, the fact remains that Simon has posted pretty clear Terms and Conditions (that all should read before joining, let alone posting) and that Mod's and Admin's are honour-bound to uphold these rules.
Without the personal invective, all that has been posted above would have been just as good -or better.
Dare I suggest that you reflect upon the desirability of civilty and come back to the fold: views and opinions as strong and as forthright as ever.



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
What is "censorship" to you? Do you believe, A-R, that it is "censorship" that public society has certain controls, not on exchange of ideas or opinion, but on the transgression of those without the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, decent and indecent?

Are you saying that you have not the capability to act in a civil manner and still relay thoughts, ideas and opinions to others? If this be the case, whether or not you come here is not the question, the question is whether you should venture in public at all is the one that should be asked.

While you have worthwhile ideas and opinions, your exit will be of no more importance than mine or many others here at ATS, as this forum will still be here for those who have the desire to exchange ideas.

Has it at any time crossed your mind that you have not been censored but corrected in your social faux paus and that you should not be reacting in anger but in embarassment?

We should all strive to achieve the social and comunicative excellance demonstrated by both William and Estragon.



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Well how has this gotten so derailed? Point one, half a million jobs are lost every week...but question was raised how many jobs a week are found? Probably half a million. Surprised no one has tried to find out...

Anyways, this Recession was beginning before the presidential primaries...I saw it, I knew when Bush one that the Democrats would blame it on him, and I even saw them blaming him for it, 15 minutes after he won, if only I had a real version of that "TV" gun we all imagine having as kids, you know the one that blows away the person through the TV.

Anyways....fact is recessions happen every 10 years or so. It's like a sine wave it just happens, some 10 year period people buy more and the next 10 years they find themselves in a pinch and purchase less.

The problem was, that clinton pushed the economy too far, picture a super fat man running on a tredmill, and just as he's sweating ready to get off, an immoral misguided man who is whipped by his wife (figuratively speaking) sits behind the fat man with a cattle prod eating twinkies, while he speeds up the running machine and laughs.

That's why this decade's recession is a bit rougher than usuall, because the last one was 20 years ago abouts. Technically the WTC attacks should have knocked us into the stone age, but Bush saved us, by ordering the shut down of the market....no one ever mentions that though.

No, we just throw turds at him, if it were clinton, he'd probably have been getting a blow job when he got news, and been to busy to react accordingly, and we'd all be communicating through tin cups by now.

Sincerely,
no signature




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join