Slowing Stream of New Jobs Helps to Explain Slump

[jayfish]

From The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/business/01JOBS.html?ex=1065672000&en=62b28cb80f09da70&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

-SNIP-
"But the number of jobs that businesses created in 2002 dropped to its lowest level since 1995. Compared with the size of the economy, the rate of hiring was even slower than during the weak recovery of the early 1990's."
-SNIP-

Ha ha, Junyas jobless recovery is worse than his daddy’s'.

-SNIP-
"This could be one reason that polls show Americans remaining more upbeat about the economy than they were in the wake of recessions during the 1980's and 1990's, analysts said."
-SNIP

That's strange. I thought the bottom just about dropped out the consumer confidence index the other day. Hmmm...

-SNIP-
"Economists attribute the hiring slump to both the aftermath of the 1990's bubble in stocks and technology spending and the whipsaw nature of economic growth during the last two years. "
-SNIP-

Whipsawing between what? Bottom and rock bottom? Overall this piece is borderline winger garbage, but the message is clear. No one is being hired these days.

Jay

-EDITED FOR COMMENTARY-

[teryang]

1. Whipsaw

Actually there was a bit of a whipsaw which took place between the 2000 and the end of 2001. It was difficult to find employees in 2000, it forced my wife and I to give up a business at a loss due to fatigue and overwork. At first the woman we sold to (at a significant loss) relied on family members to work. A year later all the family members were gone and she had no lack of job applicants. I had to move get another job and sell my home. It really was a bad experience.