Skip to main content

1,000 jobs created in December.

Let me say that again. 1,000 jobs were created in December. In all of the U.S.

The expectations were 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs for the holiday season.

But no. We came in slightly under those estimates. For a total of 1,000.

Before the market opened, the Labor Department (search) reported that the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December, but that companies added only 1,000 new jobs in an anemic holiday-hiring performance.

Analysts had been expecting a gain of 100,000 to 150,000.

"It's certainly negative for market sentiment," said Edgar Peters, chief investment officer at PanAgora Asset Management. "The 1,000 jobs is like no jobs, and people seem to consider that an important indicator of the recovery."

Although December's unemployment rate was the lowest in 14 months, it reached that level because fewer people were looking for work, the department said. More than 300,000 people gave up their search for jobs and dropped out of the pool of available workers, the department said.

This is just ghastly. Let the administration trumpet the nation's GDP growth, because it just points to one unescapable fact -- someone is making out well in this economy. But it sure ain't the American worker.

And to further add insult to injury, November's job growth of 57,000 was revised downward to 43,000.

And for whatever it's worth, the Euro keeps rising against the dollar. The cause? Market shock at the stunning jobs report.

In case you've forgotten, the country added only 1,000 jobs in December.

The dollar fell to a record low against the euro on Friday following a shockingly weaker than expected report showing U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by only 1,000 jobs in December.

The puny gain was in sharp contrast to the 130,000 new jobs that had been expected. Furthermore, the November report, which initially showed creation of 57,000 jobs, was revised down to show a rise of 43,000.

The unemployment rate, however, fell to 5.7 percent from 5.9 percent in November.

The news triggered a sharp sell-off in the dollar against most key rivals. The greenback had been broadly higher just ahead of the jobs report.

"We certainly expect that this is going to support the (Federal Reserve's) position that rates should remain on hold," said T.J. Marta, currency analyst at Citibank in New York. "This certainly is going to cause a continued weight on the U.S. dollar. It's hard to believe this report."

Damn, damn, damn...

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:16 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey Where Are the Jobs? (none)
    Where are the 20 new jobs created in California then?
    I sure don't see them.
    •  Jobs are being created.... (none)
      This is not a jobless recovery (none / 0)

      The growth in the economy is definitely creating jobs. Nonetheless these jobs are not created in America. The jobs are created and/or shifted abroad.
      A job recovery will not happen until there is investment in a new industry within America similar to what previously occured with the computer revolution, hi-speed communication expansion, etc..

      The current economic environment demands the most profitable ventures to succeed. This is definitely occuring through the push in productivity and through the reduction in the cost of labor by offshoring jobs to other countries.

      It doesn't matter if these other countries do not have any worker protections, methods to unionize, workers' rights, or environmental protections. Businesses will do what is in their best short-term interest.

      If you haven't heard the call from the hi-tech industry to redouble investment and renew effort into education to produce a smarter and higher educated employee pool, then you need to learn more on this situation. Otherwise the middle class will quickly see a wide erosion into the lower class...

      My own opinion.
      -Nicholas

      Nothing is accomplished without work. Progress will only be achieved through the effort of those who strive for it.

      by Nicholas on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 06:46:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What percentage of Americans are unemployed? (none)
    So what is the actual unemployment rate, unadjusted for political positioning?

    That's a number that needs to get used more often.

  •  Your job is next... (none)
    Whorishly promoting a diary entry on the same topic...

    The entry

    "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - Because every good circus needs a Sideshow! (Gep has Deanis Envy)

    by RichM on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:33 PM PST

  •  Appropriate Greeting To Bush (none)
    (assuming you can get within earshot:)

    HOOVER, HOOVER, HOOVER!

  •  shocked (none)
    Man we couldn't even make up stuff this bad.....
  •  Let me get this straight... (none)
    Let me get this straight.

    So the  latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving elitists are doing just fine, while the working classes are getting screwed? But that's not what Club for Growth says!

    Something doesn't add up...

  •  1000 jobs (4.00)
    I wonder if any of them were Bikini Inspector.

    Maan, that'd be sweeeeeet.

    "If any question why we died, tell them, because our fathers lied." - Rudyard Kipling

    by Marius on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:25:12 PM PST

    •  Bikini Inspector (none)
      What--you want to work in China, where they make all those bikinis?

      "Making Dallas bluer, one election at a time."

      by precinct1233 on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:55:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Last I Heard ... (none)
        ......China had pretty good job growth with the Red Capitalists in charge. Of course, to get on of those jobs inspecting bikini modelers, you'd have to deal with authoritarianism, pollution, bad food, awful traffic and a level of crony corruption that Halliburton's top dogs can only drool about in their happiest dreams.  
        •  Seriously... (none)
          You honestly think they're more corrupt over there than here?  I find it pretty unlikely.  And I'm not just talking about the upper echelons in Washington either.  At every level in government and also in business the higher ups collectively scratch their backs at the expense of everyone else.  It's really pathetic.  
  •  Good Additonal Comments and posts (none)
    Good stuff on this subject when the story broke

    here

    here

    here

    •  400,000 new jobs? (none)
      I read 'they' were whispering on Wall Street there was going to be 400,000+ job growth in December and November revised upward - pure rumor but tells you the size of the this gaff.
  •  People need to learn UP from DOWN (3.75)
    Where's Al when you need a good up-down speech?

    Under the Bush Administration:

    Corporate Profits go - UP!

    Job Creation goes - DOWN!

    Personal Bankruptcies go - UP!

    The Dollar goes - DOWN!

    US Casualties in Iraq go - UP!

    National Security goes - DOWN!

    Thank you Mr. Bush!

  •  Jobs Flat, Unemployment Down (3.50)
    For the Bush Administration, success is measured by the Dow Jones Index, not by jobs created for Americans. Getting more people to give up on finding a job opens up more jobs to minimum wage guest workers, thus increasing corporate profits.
    •  Consider Bush`s new immigration policy... (4.00)
      I agree.  The underlying subtext of Bush`s new immigration policy is that instead of exporting jobs to cheap countries, we can bring cheap labor into the U.S.  If you have a job, you can get a work visa for 3 years.  Well, now we bring those India programmers here, along with a whole lot of other cheap labor.  Even if there are 120,000 new jobs, they won`t be for the American worker.

      Bush is Hoover. Dean is FDR.

      by Katydid on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Export Jobs, Import Cheap Workers ... (none)
        ...is, of course, all part of the GOP's twin-pronged approach to the New World Order. When these guys say they want a level playing field, they're talking the really big picture.
        •  A New Solar System Order (none)
          Headed by Emperor Bush and his descendants from The Dark Side.
          •  Nope... (none)
            The sad truth is it would NOT be headed by them.  They are just peons.  

            The Republicans in Congress by and large are not THAT wealthy (I'm talking billions here), nor are they that smart.  They're owned by the big corporate interests, but in the scheme of things they are way down the totem pole of power.  

    •  Exactly !! (none)
      Excellent analysis. Bush's answer is , hey I'm trying to lower poverty in Mexico isn't Texas part of Mexico? We need to add Bush to the UE statistics next fall.
  •  Damn, lost my paddle! (none)
    It's just more "up is down" from BushCo™. Personally, the whole lot of them are either sniffing glue in the oval office, or are experiencing a collective flash back from the Mushroom Stew/Peyote Party they held just prior to announcing Dubya's run for Pres. How else do you explain the total lack of reality that permeates their entire policy from the economy to Iraq?

    Guy Andrew Hall a.k.a. Rook

    by Rook on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:29:43 PM PST

  •  149,000 Jobs Lost (4.00)
    This is something I've posted here before, but it needs to be repeated until every American understands it:

    In a given month, the 150,000 US citizens enter our job force.  These recent graduates, ex-stay-at-home parents, former retirees and others represent an unending stream of new demand for employment.  If our economy gains less than 150,000 jobs in any given month, that means a net loss of employment.  To put that another way, this month, the economy lost appoximately 149,000 jobs.  The previous month, we only lost about 107,000, the previous, about 43,000, and so on and so forth.

    A gain of less than 150,000 jobs is a loss, and it is a loss suffered on George W. Bush's watch.  This must become our talking point.  Bush will try to spin these dredful numbers as a sign the economy is gaining, albeit slowly.  Our response is clear.  There is no growth, just 149,000 new people who can't feed their families.

    Ebo

    •  Too Bad You Don't Get to Write the ... (none)
      ...headlines and lead paragraphs of the monthly job stories at the NYT, WaPo, and Fox. Amazing what a little spin in an accurate direction might do to the views of those fence-straddling Americans who still think Dubyanocchio is doing OK as President.
    •  Ex rectum?. (1.00)
      In a given month, the 150,000 US citizens enter our job force.
      Please post a source, if you can, for your statistics. Nothing at BLS or Census supports your assertion.
      ...just 149,000 new people who can't feed their families
      Oh, so they just popped up out of the ground with families already in tow? They weren't previously living with other wage earners, like parents, spouses, etc.? Hmm, that's another interesting assertion. Please post a link to your source for that one, too.
      This is something I've posted here before, but it needs to be repeated...
      Repetition, in and of itself, does not make something true.

      Si vis pacem, para bellum.

      by Grognard on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 06:02:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Extremely misinformed post... (none)
        Yes, it's true about the 150,000 people entering the labor force.  If you read almost any economic articles discussing jobs you'll see it mentioned.  

        I agree that maybe assuming all of those entering the labor force have families is flawed.  HOWEVER a single individual with no family to support competes directly with a father or mother with 10 kids.  Job searchers get no preferential treatment based on their familial status.

        Your argument is really pretty obtuse.  Next time do some research yourself before trying to criticize others.  

  •  I knew it! (none)
    I have been looking for work for over 6 months and I can confirm there are no jobs out there.  All this hoopla about great economy, but I knew that it was not so good - no one is hiring.  Finally glad to there is a statistic out there proving me right.

    As for the 1000 jobs created, are we sure they did their math right and didn't drop the negative sign?  In an economy of about 300,000,000 people, I find it hard to believe they can be accurate to 1000.  I just don't think they can be precise to that level with all the rounding going on.

  •  Bush speaks in front of "Jobs" (3.66)
    Wolf Blitzer asked Jonathan King whether the Bushites were  embarassed when he spoke today in front of a backdrop of "Jobs...Jobs...Jobs...Jobs..."

    I guess they expected something much better.  I want to see that picture.

  •  Bush Plan (4.00)
    The initial reaction from the Bush Administration to the jobs report was a renewed call for Congress to enact Bush's "job creation program," a.k.a. more tax cuts for the wealthy--make the tax rate reductions and the abotition of the estate tax permanent.  Maybe this will create a job or two at Tiffany's and Jaguar, but not much for the rest of the country.  

    It was comical to see Admin cheerleaders like Larry Kudlow on CNBC (who had been expecting something more like 300,000 new jobs) to try to spin this.  A slowing of the recovery means lower interest rates which is BULLISH for the stock market!  But then we get back to the basic question--with jobs and incomes falling, who is going to buy all the stuff that keeps the economy going?  (China and India?)  We can't just keep corporate profits rising due to outsourcing and working existing workers harder and inomes falling, and expect the country to hum along nicely and quietly.

    This Administration is a one-trick pony, and some day folks are going to wake up and realize that there must be something more to do than tax cuts for the rich.  But only if we vote and get them to vote will things be any different.

    Whatever you can do or dream, begin it, for boldness has power, and genius, and magic in it. -Goethe

    by Mimikatz on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:34:35 PM PST

    •  In line with this, (none)
      didn`t you find it interesting that the boom in holiday sales was all at the luxury end?  The low-end retailers lost money this holiday season, but not the high-end.  The only people who have money are the ones who got the huge Bush tax cut.

      Bush is Hoover. Dean is FDR.

      by Katydid on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:39:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bullish? Not according to today's numbers. (none)
      DJIA 10527.85 -64.59
      at 12:30 ET

      So much for the news being bullish for Wall St.

    •  Firing the Customers (4.00)
      Take a 4.

      This is the meme we need to be propagating. Levis closed its last US factoties today putting another 800 of their custonmers out of work

      Back in the "new economy" days, the menial/ manual job losses were no sweat because people could move in to the millions of new jobs that were being created as website programmers and IPO shills.

      But this news is a serious problem wehther Wall st admits it or not. If December produced essentially zero job growth, then the post retailing season will see the usual layoffs and when those 300,000 people who gave up looking for work to spend some time hanging with the family decide that they really do need some cashflow come looking for a job, boom.

      The US economy is building up a whole raft of suppressed effects that are being disguised by the ability of the goivernment to manipulate the system. But that manipulation has its limits. You say that a slowing recovery means lower interest rates. But there are any "lowers" to have. The Fed can't cut again because there ain't no meat left., let alone fat.

      Worse, somewhere there is a little green demon sitting on Greenspan's shoulder saying
      "How far does the $ have to fall and capital inflows with it, before you are forced to raise the interest rate to attract that capital?
      And how long can you let it go before you are forced to offer a significant risk premium for those funds?
      And what will that do to all the consumers who are now leveraged to hell and back in a market where they have no pricing power and can't increase their incomes to cover the higher mortgages?
      And what does that do to the consumer lead recovery fueled by debt?
      And where did you put that cyanide capsule again?

      And still the qwuestion Mimikatz asks is right on, who is going to buy that stuff?

      Well, having shifted all their production capacity, skills, machinery, designs etc to China, and created millions of, admittedly low paying, jobs there. What do YOU think is going to happen when all those companies in the US find they don't have any customers there any more?

      The outsourced producers in China will buy up the hardware at 10c on the $, or less, steal the designs, change the label, cut their margins and start selling the goodies to their own workers.

  •  You know (4.00)
    When the economy was booming, I remember reading stories all the time about how the military was having trouble filling their quotas for recruitment. Too many people had jobs..why join the military when you can make a decent living and not get your ass shot up in some god forsaken desert.

    I find it somewhat odd that we've shed so many jobs in the last 3 years, right when we get NeoCons and old Cold-war/Oil hawks into office.

    But then, what do I know. I'm just a laid off Bikini Inspector.

    "If any question why we died, tell them, because our fathers lied." - Rudyard Kipling

    by Marius on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:35:00 PM PST

  •  Yeah, Wal-Mart opened up a couple of new stores (none)
    If you didn't go to the grand opening, it didn't open in your state... sorry.

    Better luck with job hunting next year, maybe.  

  •  diary touting (none)
    i posted earlier today about  are the  unemployment numbers broken?
    as i said in my posting the unemployment number is not based on unemployment insurance but rather a home survey so even if unemployment insuranceended for a person theoretically they would still be unemployed if they are still looking for a job..(republican) logic would dictate that if your benefits ended you would be even more actively looking for work so unemployment numbers should be going UP.

    yet they are going down..
    something is definitely wrong with the number
    and democrats need to find alternative number (like the misery index of the late 70s) to show how bad this economy  is

  •  ditto spin (3.50)
    The unemployment rate, however, fell to 5.7 percent from 5.9 percent in November.

    This is all you will hear, "the rate is down, the rate is down"!!!!

    By the way, I have gone from a nice 6 figure comp package to picking up whatever I can to get along.... God, I remember the good old days WHEN I HAD TO PAY A BUNCH OF TAXES! The alternative to paying taxes 'aint that great.

    •  Ditto, ditto spin (none)
      Back when we were really kicking it our accountant used to say that paying taxes was always our second worse nightmare. Now I'm paying a fraction in taxes compared to what I used to pay. I really miss the old days when I could whine about my tax bill.

      If Al Gore had won and done every single thing exactly as Bush had done it, he'd have already been impeached.

      by Thumb on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:39:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos says.... (none)
    But it sure ain't the American worker.

    Amen, brother.

    Jim Savage

    "If you aren't completely appalled, then you haven't been paying attention."

    by Savage on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:39:28 PM PST

  •  Record homelessness in NYC (none)
    Combine the poor growth in jobs, the number of new jobs that are only part time, decreasing per hour wages, increasing helath care costs, skyrocketing rents...

    +

    all against a background of 10 years of Giuliani and Bloomberg not building public housing, and Clinton ending 'welfare as we know it' - meaning thousands were dumped on the streets in July...

    =

    the highest homeless population in NYC since the DEPRESSION.

    Thank you Clinton, Giuliani, Bloomberg and Bush, Jr. (in chronolgical order)

  •  The Positive (none)
    And 16 of those jobs were from "The Apprentice..."

    The positive thing from this report is that it will be illustrative to even the Joe Blows out there that the jobs data is politically rigged.  Even the lesser brainy types can handle the math that a "puny" increase of 1,000 jobs should not translate to a large, two-tenths drop in the unemployment rate.

  •  Well...what did you expect? (4.00)
    IF

    Healthy Forests Act= Clear Cutting
    Clear Skies Act = More Pollution
    Clean Water Act = Ditto
    No Child Left Behind Act = Education Cuts

    etc etc etc

    THEN

    Jobs & Growth Act = ??????

    Pie or bullet...it makes little difference.

    by theoria on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:41:09 PM PST

    •  Job Growth for China and India? (none)
      Growth for the Euro?
      Growth for bond yields?
      Growth for the wealthy?

      Stop me when I get close...

      "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - Because every good circus needs a Sideshow! (Gep has Deanis Envy)

      by RichM on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:58:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Job growth promises (3.66)
    A few months ago, the Treasury Secretary promised that approximately 1 million jobs would be created by November 2004. That translated at the time into 100,000 jobs a month. Clearly we are not on track to reach that goal, but we have to trumpet it, throw it back in Bush's face. After all, he's been praised for trying to run the White House in a more business-like fashion. In business, you set a goal and then you are evaluated by your ability to meet or exceed that goal.  At this rate, Bush is going to need some help from Andy Fastow in meeting his goals.

    By the way, our economy needs to add approximately 300,000 jobs a month to lower unemployment and keep up with population growth.

  •  Kos, always looking at the negative... (none)
    But the Terror threat has been dropped to Yellow from Orange!!  
    Pay attention to what is important, Kos.  CNN does.
    </sarcasm>
    •  Kos, always looking at the negative (none)
      A focus group has found that the current color names are not really attractive.

      code orange shall now be....peach
      code yellow shall now be....buttercup

      Whew!  Now I feel safer.

  •  KBR is hiring (4.00)
    There are hundreds of jobs available with Halliburton's subsidiary KBR. Take your pick between Iraq, Afghanistan, or if you get lucky Kuwait or Kosovo.

    Drive an ammo truck, deliver gasoline from Kuwait to Baghdad, lot's of great stuff.

    The pay? $20K AND UP!
    Education? high school required
    Experience? U.S. veterans preferred, but they are becoming harder to get for some reason.

    http://www.kbr.com/

  •  Payroll vs. Employment (none)
    If unemployment went down .2%, a hell of a lot more than 1000 people found jobs.  The Labor Dept.'s payroll survey only counts large, old firms-- not new ones.  The Unemployment survey's the one to look at; we've known for months that most of the jobs on the payroll survey were never coming back.
    •  Please clarify.... (none)
      The reason why the rate went down is because 422,000 people gave up looking for a job.  I don't understand your point.

      "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - Because every good circus needs a Sideshow! (Gep has Deanis Envy)

      by RichM on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:56:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um (none)
      Actually, it's people dropping out of the job market.
    •  The rate went down.... (none)
      John: the rate went down because people quit looking for work.  End.  Of.  Story.
      •  Nuh-uh (1.00)
        Glad to see you all have your Krugman talking points, but it ain't so.  The rate of "Discouraged workers" is almost exactly the same as a year ago.
        •  I'm Out (none)
          Well my unemployment insurance just ended two weeks ago. I've been out of work for 13 months now. There is not much out there. Am I  now considered unemployed, no longer looking, or non-existent?  
          •  Depends (none)
            It actually has nothing to do with employment insurance.  If you haven't been looking for a work in the past four weeks, and you're not expecting recall after being laid off, you're not counted.  Otherwise, you are.

            The survey shows 1.5 million "marginally attached to the job market," including 433,000 "discouraged workers," who "were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them" and 1.1 million who "had not searched for work for other reasons such as school or family responsibilities."  Both these numbers are "about the same as in December 2002."

            I don't know-- maybe this is cross tabulated somewhere, but I haven't found it with a brief search-- how much the discouraged worker number overlaps with the amount that the labor force shrunk by from November to December (about 309,000).  My guess is it's not a lot, but I'm speculating.  Whatever the answer, my point remains that quoting the payroll survey isn't really fair.

            I'm getting all of this from the BLS website.

        •  Discouraged Workers? (none)
          Link please.
        •  Here's a clue... (none)
          Here

          And if you are too lazy to read the link, I'll deliver the punch line:


          The unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, the lowest in over a year and down from 5.9 percent in November. But this was mainly because 309,000 people dropped out of the work force.

          So I guess I was a little off in my number, but the employment rate went down because people lost hope in finding a job.

          "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - Because every good circus needs a Sideshow! (Gep has Deanis Envy)

          by RichM on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:49:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If (4.00)
    I get really tired of the "If Clinton were still president. . ."  line
    of complaint, but it is almost impossible to avoid here.  If Clinton were
    president, instead of saying, "Jobless Rate Falls to 5.7,"  the headlines
    would read:  "Job Growth Falls 299,000 Short in One Month Alone, Republicans
    Cry National Disaster."
    But then, the newspapers can't report that Democratic leaders in Congress are screaming "national disaster," if they're not actually out there doing that.  Come on, Tom.  Come on, team.  Get out there and make a loud, passionate, logical case for how bad it is and how much change we need.
    •  Yeah, but... (none)
      I'm not a big Daschle fan, but he could be holding a hunger strike and it wouldn't be reported by the major media.  Or if it was, it would be cited as another example of his treasonous Saddam support.
  •  ok let me explain (none)
    so who does one quit looking for work?
     i have friends who have been out of work and lost unemployment benefits and they still are looking for work-- they are desperate for work.. i just can't understand how someone without a job  would stop looking for work .. doesn't make any sense.

    i wonder how they ask the question

    do they ask? about "are you actively looking for work"
    or do they pose the question like "in the last two weeks have you applied for a job?"

    because many people i know go weeks without any response from a possible employer.. so technically they are "not looking for work" because there are no  jobs out there.

    •  "not looking for work" (none)
      i think if you run out of unemployment benefits w/o finding a new job, you're dropped from the rolls.  

      It doesn't really mean you've stopped looking for work, just that the gov't has stopped counting you.

    •  They don't ask the questions directly. (4.00)
      The surveyors do not specifically ask if someone is employed, unemployed or out of the labor force or a discouraged worker.

      From the DOL document on How the government measures unemployment: (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

      A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include: 1. Do you currently want a job, either full or part time? 2. What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS? 3. Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months? 4. LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?

      These questions form the basis for estimating the number of persons who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be "marginally attached" to it. These are persons without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as "marginally attached," individuals must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. "Discouraged workers" are a subset of the marginally attached. "Discouraged workers" report they are not currently looking for work for at least one of 4 reasons: 1) they believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area, 2) they had previously been unable to find work, 3) they lack the necessary schooling, training, skills or experience, or 4) employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination.

      A computer figures out their status based on their answers to these questions.  I don't know if they could fiddle the questions but from my knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, I doubt it. However, they did change the weighting and seasonal adjustment factors at the beginning of 2003.

      You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".--The Sicilian

      by yellowdog on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 04:22:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  HELLO KOS! (none)
        A computer figures out their status based on their answers to these questions.  I don't know if they could fiddle the questions but from my knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, I doubt it. However, they did change the weighting and seasonal adjustment factors at the beginning of 2003.

        ****

        There is a story here... hint, hint.

    •  How to quit looking for work (none)
      Before I got married and bought a house, I could have leeched off my parents as long as needed.

      I imagine other people have similar arraingements.

  •  jobs is a four-letter word (4.00)
    As a freelance project manager who works with many companies large and small, I can tell you that NONE of them are hiring. Only critical projects are proceeding, and virtually all of it is done on a contract basis. Which is good for me, but bad for people who need a job.

    Still, I'm not as busy as I could be. I may apply at the Buddy Squirrel Nut Shop near my house, that is the only company that is advertising openings.

  •  On CNN (none)
    Lou Dobbs should have fun with his roundtable tonight.

    Also, bush has been very sneaky with his jobs growth comments for months. He specifically says that he won't rest (heh) until any/all American 'looking' for work finds a job(s). So what of all these folks that just give up?

    •  economics (none)
      I think the Democratic candidate for President ought to hammer hard on the disconnect between the numbers generated by Wall St. and the everyday economic realities experienced by the rest of us.  Those bullshit macroeconomic numbers have little relevance for the average Joe, and we ought to stop accepting them as legitimate indicators of our economic health.
    •  The Great Searches (none)
      1. OJ for the real killers, on every golf course in Florida
      2. Bush for Iraqi WMD and jobs
      What noble sacrifices our leaders make.
  •  high end retailers (none)

    This year's holiday sales show exactly who is benefiting from Bush's economy.

    According to The New York Times:

    "The nation's high-rolling shoppers, full of pent-up desire to spend, propelled luxury stores like Neiman Marcus, Tiffany and Saks Fifth Avenue to hearty increases last month, but over all, many merchants were disappointed by the holiday season. Store sales for last month, measured against the same stores open in December 2002, rose 3.7 percent, according to the Bloomberg composite same-store sales index. Last year, called one of the worst in decades by analysts, holiday sales rose 2.2 percent."

    Yep, those high rollers are doing just fine. Too bad that everyone else was left out of Bush's economic growth.

  •  unemployment rate (4.00)
    The unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, the lowest in over a year and down from 5.9 percent in November. But this was mainly because people dropped out of the work force.
    AP

    Our unemployment rate is a lie if it doesn't count discouraged workers.

    It's beginning to resemble official pronouncements from Pravda.

  •  Lou Dobbs (none)
    Dobbs is a retrograde, but I do hearing him talking about lost American jobs, and the manufacturing industry - more than any of the other evening news shows. Albeit , from a nationalistic , America-first stance.
    •  At least Dobbs looks like a Republican (none)
      while he drips acid on Bush's record on jobs, immigration etc.

      I have a hard time watching him but he is likely to have some cred with the older set.  If he keeps dumping on Bush it can only help.

      at least he beats Larry the Supply Side Whore Kudlow all to hell.  He'd spin a nuclear attack on NY as an opportunity for construction jobs brought to us by GWB and the Republican party.

  •  Center for American Progress ... (4.00)
    on the export of American jobs overseas:

    CORPORATE APATHY: With more and more white-collar jobs being exported, the San
    Francisco Chronicle
    reports that corporate executives have stepped up their threats to send even more jobs to India and China. "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," said Carly Fiorina, chairman of Palo Alto information technology giant Hewlett Packard.

    The threats come just weeks after Reuters reported,
    "U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash." While executives have bragged that their cost-saving
    measures are good for the economy, offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S. prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating better living standards for America."

  •  And to put it in perspective... (none)
    -
    -
    -

    From THE GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

    Crunching the numbers we see that the predictions were .6 percent correct.  

    That's Point-Six of one percent.

    In most lines of work, that kind of performance would get someone fired...

    -
    -
    -

  •  when was last time numbers were this bad (none)
    Did anyone see any reference in any of the articles on when was the last time so few jobs were created? Those appear almost to be 20's 30's types of numbers.

    Rob is the founder of the progressive news site robwire.com

    by Rob on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:43:02 PM PST

  •  Carville Strikes again! (none)
    Let's all chant together:

    It's not the Moon,
    It's not Mars
    It's not Saddam,
    It's not world domination,
    It's the economy, Stupid!

    "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people" - Oscar Wilde xxxxxxxx"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - GB Shaw

    by RationalMan on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:51:46 PM PST

  •  Diary whoring - part II (none)
    Can be found here.

    "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - Because every good circus needs a Sideshow! (Gep has Deanis Envy)

    by RichM on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:51:58 PM PST

  •  Wow, that's pathetic (none)
    Don't forget that somewhere around 130,000-150,000 jobs had to be created per month to keep employment at the same pathetic fraction of the population. I don't think we've ever created that many jobs under Bush. The last person to have a net loss of jobs before the current adminstration was Hoover. Bush's dad managed to create some tiny number of jobs.

    We need new leadership now.

  •  Drip-Drop of Prosperity (4.00)
    Courtesty of today's Daily Mislead from MoveOn.org:

    "While the rapid growth of the recovery has so far failed to benefit workers, corporate profits have increased at a rate far beyond those of previous recoveries. According to the EPI study, previous recoveries provided an average of 61% of total income growth - and never less than 55% -- to workers.  In this recovery, however, only 29% of the total income growth has gone to workers' wages and benefits. Meanwhile, corporate profits have claimed an average share of 46% of total income growth in this recovery, compared to an historic average of 26%."

    Surprise, surprise, the benefits of economic growth are going mainly to the corporations. But, of course, it will trickle down, right? Right?

    Can't wait to catch my drops of prosperity.

  •  According to NPR (none)
    the manufacturing sector actually lost about 26,000 jobs which were made up for in other sectors.  This is the 41st consecutive month of manufacturing job declines.
  •  ghastly (4.00)
    Ghastly is the word for it, all right. And the ghastliest thing about it is that this administration doesn't particularlly want to create jobs. They have in fact worked to prvent job creation.

    By targeting the tax cuts to the top tiers, the Bush administration has done nothing to increase the amount of disposable income in the economy. Or more to the point, the number of people with disposable income. Increasing disposable income would spur demand which would provide an incentive to hire to meet that demand.

    Rising health care costs, increased property taxes to make up for a drop in federal help to the states and the increased costs from unfunded mandates such as NCLB have actually cut the amount of money most people have left over at the end of the month.

    And most ghastly of all, the administration has worked actively to reduce the demand for new hires. Scrapping repetitive stress regulations ahs meant that businesses can push existing workers to work harder and longer without risk to the company. Same for the proposed changes in overtime protection. Policies like these are incentives to not create jobs. and apparently they have worked.

    All of this is bad news for the long-term performance of the economy. Capitalism depends on consumption - if no one is buying then there is no reason to produce. And without reason to produce, there is no reason to hire workers to produce. And the downward spiral continues.

    Of course, high unemployment does have an upside - at least for the owner class. More people competing for fewer jobs provides pressure to keep down wages and reduce dissent on company policy. And wage discrepancy between the have and have-nots provides for the continuing power of the haves. As cynical about this president as I am, I still can't believe that is what wants. Lord help us if I'm wrong.

    There is a solution. First and foremost change the tax structure to reward hiring. Give more money to those who will spend it. Give incentives to businesses that provide well for their employees and punishments for those who don't. Plug your ears to avoid the cries of "Class warfare!" from those who practice it best and remind them that the rising tide lifting the smallest boats will, in time, lift their yachts as well.

    Something must be done. Losing jobs while trying to create them is sad. To lose jobs while doing nothing is shameful. To lose jobs while creating incentives to lose still more is unconscionable. And yet, that is what we're doing. We must change direction. To continue on our present course is inexcusable.

    In fact it's downright ghastly.

  •  So Dean is respinsible for 10% of that? (4.00)
    George Bush created 1,000 new jobs in the entire month of December. The Dean campaign has hired over 100 people this month. Does that mean that Howard Dean alone is responsible for over 10% of the current job growth?

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    No one will change America for you. You must work to make it happen.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 07:02:32 PM PST

  •  this is why we need a strong vp candidate (none)
    job numbers, governmental issues, etc. are one reason we need a strong vp candidate for whomever wins our nomination.

    for your consideration:  Chicago's own Richard Daley.  best mayor in north america and has the skills to get things done.  

    daley for vp!  daley for vp!

    •  Re: this is why we need a strong vp candidate (none)
      You do realize that he's the "mayor for life" of Chicago?  As far as I can tell, "life" doesn't include taking a few years off to do VP work in DC.  Besides, his brother Bill has more experience at the Federal level.  If you really need a Daley, why not take Bill?
  •  When does it end! (none)
    I can't beleive this shit! 1,000 jobs for the entire nation were created for the month of December. You know where the biggest fuck up is? Sending jobs over to countries such as India, China, Tawain etc.. Your not just talking about blue collar jobs but white collar as well, especially in India. Those motherfuckers work for shit pay but are highly trained and smart. What the Bush adminstration ought to do is bar any company sending jobs out to overseas. Tax the living shit out of them if they do til this shitbox economy gets back on track. The Bush bucks tax savings whatever is just a bandaid (maybe) before relection. Here's another thing that's frosting my ass! The new space program that Bush wants to implement. What the Fuck! We are going to spend 800 million to send someone back to the fucking moon when it's been done 30+ years ago!
  •  what jobs? (none)
    I'm always been stumped as to what exactly will be the new source of jobs.

    When one person can do the work of 100 because of new technology, what do the other 99 do?

    Is there a limit to how much we can consume to run a consumer economy?

    What is the alternative to a consumer economy and how do we fairly distribute wealth under such conditions, or when we don't need so many people to work?

    I imagine a time when the week end is for work and the week is for play.

    •  Unfortunately... (none)
      That's how it should go, like a 3 day work week and the rest of the time off.

      Unfortunately what will really happen is half the people will be unemployed and the rest will still be working 40 hours.  

      This is what capitalism does, it works people against each other.  Even if everybody could be happy working 20 hours a week, it doesn't matter, some people will want more.  So they'll get it, at the expense of someone else.

      Capitalism is a big festering piece of shit.  Proponents claim it takes advantage of people's inherent greed.  The truth is it really panders to it and magnifies it out of control.  

  •  Depression? (none)
    So what is the definition of a depression? Can an economist out there tell me if we are in one yet? What is the economic term for what we are facing.
  •  economy & new jobs (none)
    Well from my neck of the woods, yesterday's headlines said "Medtronic to layoff 600+ people" to outsource (dumb word) to India, etc.  Today's headline in the Press Democrat says "Economy on Rebound" or some such, but my ? is where is the rebound, India, China?  Considering myself to be in the middle class I feel like an endangered species.  And just who is going to keep this economy going w/o American workers here earning a salary?  Dollars in other countries do not help local tax bases.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site