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.

 

The (Un)Expected US Job Cuts Part 2

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 85,000 jobs in December, cooling optimism on the labor market's recovery and keeping pressure on President Barack Obama to find ways to spur job growth.


The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent in December, but that reflected a surprisingly large number of people leaving the labor force.

www.cnbc.com...




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Part 1 here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Invest in the keyword "unexpected" for Google search leads, folks. You'll get rich.



www.cnbc.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
It wasn't unexpected it was the holiday expected shed of jobs after December 26.

So actually the figures for the month of January are going to be an eye opening, still most temporary jobs as holiday jobs do not offer unemployment benefits so many will not be counted.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by eldard
 


Did these numbers reflect any of the "extra help" hired for the

Christmas season,

Was expecting at least a no increase in unemployment do to that



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent in December, but that reflected a surprisingly large number of people leaving the labor force.

www.cnbc.com...


So where did this "surprisingly large number of people leaving the labor force" go? Did they leave the country? lol Orrrrr.... maybe the number crunchers are trying to keep the % at 10%. Hmmm... me thinks the later.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Yes 47,000
And that does not take into account the population growth stated in the other thread.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by genius/idoit]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
What I found most disturbing on my own google search was this article from The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk...

Now, I'm certainly no financial expert but I presume to have read this correctly - those with the most money are profiteering off these job losses... can anyone verify that this is what I'm reading? Please tell me that's not right.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Most of the American herd will probably still believe what they hear on the msm.
I was surprised a few months ago when the govt announced a "10%" unemployment rate but i'm sure that it won't go much higher officially no matter what happens next.
Of course they were going to propagandize the seasonal temp jobs by including them in the 'hired" and not the 'fired/laid off' stats.
I'm curious how many small businesses will fail this month alone not to mention large companies because of awful holiday sales (and those sales did little or nothing for revenue for those companies as they had to reduce prices to near or wholesale levels in order to move them out).
How about the banks trying to collect their credit due accounts from overdrawn holiday shoppers?
Last but not least, I frown at how Obama wants suggestions from the public as to how the country can create jobs (so how did the country create jobs for the last 200+ years not to mention all the PhD's in Economics who like to talk a good talk but what are they're collective really worth? - not a SPIT i'm thinking). That's scary as hell to me because he's essentially saying that we will not and cannot create manufacturing jobs here in America so what else can we do?
We're looking at two politcal parties that have been hijacked and bought out/sold out by the corporate/wealthy interests that intend to destroy the country. Wouldn't that be the very definition of TREASON????




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The simple fact that the MSM has started reporting what they call the "real" unemployment rate (currently just under 18%) with more frequency indicates to me just how bad things are. We all know that the 18% is just the tip of the iceberg, even though the MSM treats it as if it truly counts every unemplyed American. Truth is, if a person was to consider the underemployed, unemployed, and discourage workers I'd bet dollars to donuts that we're actually looking at a number somewhere around 23-25%, maybe even higher.

I watched a preposterous program last night about what the year 2100 could look like. I farted in the general direction of the program because it decided to focus on Anthropogenic climate change, a topic which I feel is based on anthropogenic theories and profiteering rather than on any solid scientific evidence. However, they did raise some very intriguing ideas about the actual collapse of the United States and the overall world. One thing that struck me was a comment one of their "experts" made stating (paraphrasing) "societies do not collapse instantaneously, it is a gradual process which takes a series of tribulations and crisis events which eventually "break" people and then the society itself crumbles." He also said that something such as the collapse of the federal government would happen suddenly and wouldn't be obvious beforehand to the general population (ie: one day all hell would break loose and when the people turn to the government, they would find it had lost all power and control.) While I disagree with the causes for this collapse that they gave (climate change driven chaos) I certainly believe that the foundation for the manner in which a collapse could occur is materializing before our very eyes. If this economy doesn't get under control soon, including spending our future generations into crushing debt and eventually being unable to finance any debt on any level (public or private, international or domestic), we're going to have more and more people reach their breaking point and the end result will be devastating.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


No.. those jobs usually stick around to Feb. 85,000 jobs lost in December was surprising.. I would imagine that while the service sector probably did trim jobs faster than normal, most of the job losses were corporate and industrial, not service related.

85k jobs lost and the unemployment rate doesn't change because "a surprising amount left the work force" ... I would love to know how and why the Gov decides who and when someone "gives up looking for a job" ....

U6 is nearly 20%. twenty ten isn't looking to be that great of a year is it..



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


No, in my neck of the woods jobs were only until Dec 26, in my son store all the 10 people that were hired for the holiday rush were told that their last day was the 26.

So also most of the store around had the same death line, now perhaps in your neck of the woods was different.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yep. When I worked in retail management we always kept seasonal people on until at least the end of January to help handle post-Christmas returns, inventory, seasonal changes in stock, etc. Sometimes we would keep one of the seasonal people on permanently if they turned out to be good workers but that didn't happen too frequently.

The official unemployment number is indeed a sham. It's easy to track because as long as they're on unemployment compensation, all their information is in the system. When their benefits run out, they're dropped from the report and the number goes down if nobody else loses their jobs or fewer lose their jobs than drop off unemployment.

The excrement will really hit the rotating cooling device when unemployment runs out for more and more people who will no longer be able to keep up with their mortgages, if they're even able to while on unemployment.




top topics



 
3

log in

join