Unemployment rate jumps to 10.2 percent

[Beacool]

AP
Nov 6th 2009

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. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.

But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists' estimates. It's the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

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.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/06/unemployment-rate-jumps-to-10-2-percent/#

The unemployment figures continue to be very worrisome. There's is actual hunger out there.

:-(

[rfranklin]

1. Well, Wall Street is shaking it off right now...

Dow Jones is in positive territory. I guess they "priced it into the market."

[ShortnFiery]

4. F**K Wall Street.

When there's few of us left to buy the cheap ass goods made in China, they'll feel the strain too. However, they'll probably relocate to Dubai. :grr:

[Beacool]

5. Well, bully for them!!!

Meantime, back at the ranch in middle America, people are skipping meals. Food banks are getting much less donations than they used to, while they have many more people who need their help. The donations to the homeless shelter in my town dropped by 65%. My church can barely keep up serving lunch for the homeless (it's the only place in town for them for lunch, the shelter gives them breakfast & dinner). Thank goodness people in our congregation have stepped up and helped with either food or money, despite some of them having lost their jobs too.

This should be the #1 priority for the WH and Congress.

;(

[Kdillard]

2. I was hoping the news would have been better.

[Beacool]

7. Me too.

Early this morning they had predicted a slight increase to 9.9% from the previous 9.8%. Instead, the job loss was worse for October than expected.

[ShortnFiery]

3. I admittedly have not had any economics classes but how in the hell can we say

that the recession has ended if we have so many PEOPLE out of work?

Is the recession merely the reflection of the status of Wall Street?

If so, why in the hell did we use our tax dollars to bail them out when they seemingly don't give a rat's ass about Main Street?

Sure unemployment compensation is a start but these folks need viable JOBS! The "experts" are not even emphasizing how many millions of people are underemployed or holding down two or three jobs. :grr:

[rfranklin]

6. Because they are "supply siders" who believe that they...

create everything of worth in our economy. But as Abraham Lincoln said, "labor precedes capital..."
which is especially true in our current economy, the health of which depends on about 70% consumer spending to keep healthy. So if people have no jobs, they will not spend, and it follows that there is no "recovery."

[Beacool]

8. Hold on, someone will come over and inform our ignorant asses

that job creation is a lagging indicator.

:eyes:

[mkultra]

11. sounds like your ignorant ass has been informed

Always has been, always will be. Jobs in 2010. buckle up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. +1

[MercutioATC]

15. Even IF that were to happen, at sustained 3.5% GDP growth (which won't happen)...

...it'll take over a decade to get back the jobs we've already lost.

What's your definition of "Jobs in 2010"? Lessening losses? Actual increases in employment? How big?

Even if things turned around right now, we're looking at 10+ years of problematic unemployment.

[mkultra]

17. sorry, i would reply

but its not really my day to be in the sty. do some research. read a book.

[MercutioATC]

26. It's your right to be a Pollyanna.

I have done research. The difference between our source material is that I'm not taking the word of the people who created this situation...and who stand to gain by our continued willingness to believe them.

[mkultra]

38. the proper usage of that word is pollyannish

try the dictionary next time.

[MercutioATC]

51. Riiiight...because one can be "bearish" regarding the stock market...

...but it's completely incorrect to refer to them as a "bear".

:eyes:

Is that really the best you've got?

[Beacool]

18. My "ignorant ass" has a brother who is an economist.

He has two PhDs and advises the governments of Spain and France. So, I got my own private adviser. The bottom line, the economic picture ain't pretty and it will remain so for some time to come.

[mkultra]

21. so let me get this straight

Your economist brother says that jobs are NOT a lagging indicator?


On Edit: wait....is Miguel Bunuel your brother? lol

[Beacool]

25. Yes it is, but up to a point.

He's more along the Krugman school of thought and thinks that the US didn't do enough to resolve the banking situation. He thinks that we have only put a Band-Aid on the problem.

My remark was directed at those who immediately post comments stating that it's a lagging indicator as if that alone will help people. Things are bad and they are bad NOW. What can be done to help people now, not next year. The loss of homes and the hunger exists at this moment. Predicting that next year things will maybe, perhaps, improve is no help to anyone at the present time.

[mkultra]

35. then should know full well that the start of a turn around doesnt include jobs

Which is always what brings that slam. Someone complains about the fact that there are no jobs so it can really be a turn around, then someone says jobs are a lagging, then you say, oh but that's not whats important.


But it is.


Nothing has changed since the start of the recession. You have been told a million times how it will go and i would hope your freaking brother has told you as well. GDP first, then jobs. Those of us with jobs help those without until then.

Christ, grab a freaking mop.


I noticed that you did not confirm that Miguel is your brother. did you miss it or ignore it? :)

[Beacool]

39. I missed it.

No, he's not Miguel Buñuel. Even though his bio is not that dissimilar. My brother also studied law. He's much older than I am and, like my dad before him, is a walking encyclopedia.

;)

[mkultra]

42. well, then my only other guess would be

Peter Pogany. In BOTH cases though, these two know that jobs is a lagging and that GDP proceeds jobs.

So does your brother think that Obama saved the economy or wrecked it?

[Beacool]

43. He thinks that he chickened out and didn't go as far as was needed.

I asked him some months ago what was the consensus about Obama in the European community of economists. He responded that they thought him to be a nice fellow and charismatic, but that he didn't know what he was doing.

[mkultra]

45. hehe. Thats generally the view of a certian type of people

Well, i can say only this much: I have a background in economics and while opinions vary, the ones i trust agree, more or less, that his stimulus saved us from a depression. I know many Keynesian feel that greater spending is necessary in move the economy out of a low spend/high unemployment equilibrium, i think they need consider the great depression more deeply. While FDR failed to meet spending levels theorized by the Keynes, the start of WWII created the necessary spending. The end result was not just deficit though but mammoth debt which has severe negatives of its own. Many Keynesian's fail to consider the effect of debt on the value of the dollar.

In Summary, Europeans can say what they like but i would prefer that he not step on the pedal that hard. He is a nice fellow and he is charismatic, but he is also as sharp as a tack.

I would also add, with confidence, that anyone who thinks that there is any fast way out of a recession of this size is just plain ignorant. That's what i see most of here. It always takes time to dig out and the number show that it just started. perhaps we should change the mantra to "grab a shovel"

[Lord Helmet]

44. +1

[Teaser]

14. so it isn't?

.

[Yupster]

23. And to make matters even worsier,

the worst number that came ourt recently was that the average workweek came down to 33 hours per week.

That means that even after companies start doing better for a while, they won't be hiring. They'll start out by giving more hours to their current workers.

[ieoeja]

33. We should switch to a 30 (6x5) or 32 (4x8) hour work week.

A Caterpillar plant in Indiana now employees a couple dozen, yet produces more output than it did when they employed a thousand. Technology has eliminated a lot of jobs, so we should spread the jobs we do have to more people.

If a 24x5 shop running three shifts switched to four shifts, that would be a 25% increase in employment. Obviously, we we would not see a change that extreme in the real world, but you get my drift.

[Beacool]

37. That could be somewhat of a solution.

But a shorter week also means lesser income.

[Yupster]

53. If I'm the boss looking at your plan,

all I see is increased benefit costs.

[uponit7771]

31. Ummm, HOURS WORKED is a leading indicator and it has NOT improved

[Beacool]

34. They have actually declined.

As someone already pointed out, the average work week is now 33 hrs.

[mkultra]

49. aggregate weekly hours actually increased .6% from Sep to Oct

[HughMoran]

13. The generally accepted definition of a recession describes "two down quarters of GDP"

There are other economists that would define it as a 1.5% rise in unemployment. We may want to switch to their definition since cutting a lot of jobs & pent up demand can turn GDP positive LONG before people start hiring back the people laid off during the initial downturn.

[Skittles]

27. because if they TELL us things are getting better

maybe our dumb asses will start SPENDING more

[uponit7771]

30. Supply side rhetoric, bottom up pressure is quicker acting than top down

[HughMoran]

9. This sucks

Even expected news is bad news when we were all hoping that the number would somehow not exceed 10%. It's psychologically damaging to hear numbers like this :(

[Beacool]

10. Not just psychologically...........

Jobs options are skimpy to say the least. This will add to the stress of trying to figure where the hell to get a job. It may also make some employers reluctant to add to staff.

[HughMoran]

22. "stress" and "make ... reluctant" are results of psychological effect

It's not like the environment is any different, it's the perception that things aren't getting better in spite of the many other indicators showing that we might just be able to get out of this at some point in the not too distant future.

[earthside]

16. This is Good News!

I actually heard some economist at the top of the CBS radio news this morning say that the October 10.2 percent unemployment rate was 'good news' because it meant that people were seeing an improving economy and re-entering the pool of job seekers.

Now think about that ... where have all these 'new' job seekers been? Well, there is no doubt a huge body of folks who have indeed given up looking for work since it hasn't been there.

But a 10.2 percent rate is hardly a good development ... especially since yesterday's report (that sent the Dow up 200 points) that worker productivity has surged. Businesses are getting more work out of the fewer employees they have -- that means there's going to be no new hiring, there's no incentive for them to hire more workers.

Nevertheless, who is surprised that the gamblers on Wall Street think that this is actually 'good news'? If they can find a CNBC financial pundit to tell them that it is 'good news', the 'investors' will believe it. For average folks, though, to see the Dow go up in the light of such a dismal unemployment number only proves to us just how out-of-touch Wall Street is with Main Street.

[uponit7771]

20. Whom ever said that was being an asshole whether they knew it or not. U6 unemployment rate is 17.5%

...and the hours worked isn't going up in the face of huge increases in production.

I think folk on the street knew it would get this bad but I don't think WS or the WH did

[uponit7771]

19. The bad news is the number of hours worked and the U6 rate unemployment going to 17.5%

...I pray Obama is looking at these numbers and has a bottom up plan when it comes to getting the consumer back to work and spending.

[Clear Blue Sky]

24. This is the good news.

Bad news is that this doesn't include those whose benefits have run out of who have given up looking for a job.

[uponit7771]

29. UE benefits arent counted by the BLS, the number you're looking for is the U6 EU rate which is 17.5%

[treestar]

28. I thought it was going to go higher before it gets better?

[uponit7771]

32. Yes, to 10.3 percent next year....those were the projections...

[Beacool]

36. Yes, but it's already 10.2.

So, how high is it going to climb before it gets better?

:(

[mkultra]

41. its just like 1933

GDP recovery bottomed in march and they ended the year on higher unemployment. The next year saw 7% GDP and 5% improvement in unemployment. Once good year of post recession GDP and jobs will back to normal.

[harkadog]

52. No one is predicting 7% GDP or anything like it.

[mkultra]

54. no one is making any numerical predictions

1933 had 2% gdp growth. The next year was 7%

[harkadog]

55. Now I know you aren't serious

No one is making any predictions? Did you know the health care bill cost estimates are made using projected GDP growth? Use google and you will find thousands of numerical predictions for GDP http://forecasts.org/gdprealgrowth.htm Consensus for the U.S. is 0.8% growth for 2010.

[mkultra]

60. yeah, i meant anyone real

your website doesn't really count. They where wrong about q3 and haven't readjusted their numbers.

[Oregone]

40. What projections? The Obama administration projected a peak at 8% when crafting the stimulus

[mkultra]

46. so you think they crafted the stimulus based on UE numbers?

[Oregone]

47. It was probably a definite factor, less they would not have mentioned it

I have not the energy today to re-read the stimulus policy paper that came from to see the particular emphasis they put on unemployment. It would make sense though that the amount of stimulus was crafted proportionally to the economic problem (most normally measured by the withdrawl of private capital from the economy resulting in a GDP decline). But informally, many politicians and economist alike also use unemployment as a gauge of the economy too, which may have been considered when crafting the size of the stimulus.

If this graph was merely created as a guess to illustrate the effect of the stimulus, I imagine they didn't pull the UE numbers from thin air, but rather, based it on the same GPD numbers they used to craft the stimulus. While they may not of said, "we need $787 billion to keep UE under 8%", they may of said, "we need $787 billion to increase the GDP, and such an increase will correspond to only 8% of the workforce being unemployed".

Somewhere along the line, as Biden said, they "guessed it wrong". And what they guessed probably determined the size of the stimulus and what they used to predict the UE rate.

[mkultra]

48. "based it on the same GPD numbers they used to craft the stimulus. "

There you go.

[alp227]

50. The unemployment rate surpassed the 1983 rate "even after the recession ended"?

wow what's up with all the "worst since the Great Depression and Reagan's first term" language that the media has been using? And what do you mean "the recession is over" when CIT group recently declared bankruptcy and hoards of the working people still can't find anything useful to do with their lives?

I think that if Reagan survived high unemployment to be re-elected in 1984, then the Democrats won't suffer a 1994 in 2010, and if Obama still does the right things in most cases he'll keep it up in 2012.

BAIL OUT MAIN STREET, NOT WALL STREET.

[akbacchus_BC]

56. And am sure you are blaming President Obama, knock yourself out!

[akbacchus_BC]

57. Are you blaming President Obama for the unemployment rate, he

just took over. Too bad you not blaming Bush and Cheney!

[akbacchus_BC]

58. Guess am not as smart as my counterparts on here! Beacool!!

[Beacool]

59. Point to the post where I blame Obama for the unemployment figure.

:eyes: