Unemployment tops 10 pct for 1st time since '83

[peejay 327]

Unemployment tops 10 pct for 1st time since '83

Economy sheds larger-than-expected 190,000 jobs in October

WASHINGTON - 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.

The jobless rate rose from 9.8 percent in September.

Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring, raising worries of a jobless recovery.

In addition, many economists worry that persistently high unemployment could undermine the recovery by restraining consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy.

One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They comprise 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the legislation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33713864/ns/bu...cks_and_economy

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

O........ba........ma O...........ba..........ma Change you can beleive in! :dance: :dance: Extend unemployment :thumbs:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

The higher it goes the more we need him!

[_Simpson_ 250]

Where is the "well considering what Bush left him..." crowd?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some absurd spin on these numbers from a post on a blog I read. It's funny, so thought I'd share.

10% unemployment is not so bad considering the % of people laid off who are dual income. The extra income was just icing on the cake, little mad money baby. Married Single Income Households with Children and a stay at home spouse out of work is only number that matters. Those people will scrub toilets and be mop boy in times square if they have too. If they are unemployed it is a depression. My female friends with young kids who are laid off are banking unemployment and saving on childcare. They are looking not so much. Mr. O keeps giving them more weeks to collect money for nothing so why not.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Some absurd spin on these numbers from a post on a blog I read. It's funny, so thought I'd share.

10% unemployment is not so bad considering the % of people laid off who are dual income. The extra income was just icing on the cake, little mad money baby. Married Single Income Households with Children and a stay at home spouse out of work is only number that matters. Those people will scrub toilets and be mop boy in times square if they have too. If they are unemployed it is a depression. My female friends with young kids who are laid off are banking unemployment and saving on childcare. They are looking not so much. Mr. O keeps giving them more weeks to collect money for nothing so why not.

Well good the woman will be back in the kitchens were they belong.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some absurd spin on these numbers from a post on a blog I read. It's funny, so thought I'd share.

10% unemployment is not so bad considering the % of people laid off who are dual income. The extra income was just icing on the cake, little mad money baby. Married Single Income Households with Children and a stay at home spouse out of work is only number that matters. Those people will scrub toilets and be mop boy in times square if they have too. If they are unemployed it is a depression. My female friends with young kids who are laid off are banking unemployment and saving on childcare. They are looking not so much. Mr. O keeps giving them more weeks to collect money for nothing so why not.

Well good the woman will be back in the kitchens were they belong.

Yes, finally a return to traditional values

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some absurd spin on these numbers from a post on a blog I read. It's funny, so thought I'd share.

10% unemployment is not so bad considering the % of people laid off who are dual income. The extra income was just icing on the cake, little mad money baby. Married Single Income Households with Children and a stay at home spouse out of work is only number that matters. Those people will scrub toilets and be mop boy in times square if they have too. If they are unemployed it is a depression. My female friends with young kids who are laid off are banking unemployment and saving on childcare. They are looking not so much. Mr. O keeps giving them more weeks to collect money for nothing so why not.

Well good the woman will be back in the kitchens were they belong.

That poster got some blowback and came up with this genius response. I love it!

There is an old German saying “the baby brings the bread”. I have found that sometimes the 32-35 year old Dad who was a bit of a goof off in his career cause he had a wife pulling in a good buck finds religion when the wife stays home and vacations, new cars, dinners out etc. are all gone and a big night out is a pizza bought with a pennysaver coupon.

That guy all at once starts working OT, asking for more responsibilities, joining networking groups and starts bulking up his resume. After a five year struggle he usually gets enough gains where he replaces 100% of his wife’s income.

The guy who wife keeps working who is a slacker becomes an even bigger slacker, I have to leave early to pick up kids at child care, can’t go on business trip, parent teacher night, a whole new bunch of excuses.

Many people can juggle dual incomes. However, I noticed the 1970s/1980’s era male has a large % of slacker who moved from Mommy taking care on them to their wife taking care of them in their prolonged adolescence. They need to man up at some point. I think the recession is great. Let the slacker male either lose his job and stay home and unhandcuff his wife so she can excel or do it himself. The dual income household with a slacker husband who can never support more than 50% of his family on his sole income must be stopped. Who wants these guys as son-in-laws or even sons.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

Indeed...

Real GDP Growth Forecast for 2010 - Q4/Q4

[_Simpson_ 250]

Some absurd spin on these numbers from a post on a blog I read. It's funny, so thought I'd share.

10% unemployment is not so bad considering the % of people laid off who are dual income. The extra income was just icing on the cake, little mad money baby. Married Single Income Households with Children and a stay at home spouse out of work is only number that matters. Those people will scrub toilets and be mop boy in times square if they have too. If they are unemployed it is a depression. My female friends with young kids who are laid off are banking unemployment and saving on childcare. They are looking not so much. Mr. O keeps giving them more weeks to collect money for nothing so why not.

Well good the woman will be back in the kitchens were they belong.

That poster got some blowback and came up with this genius response. I love it!

There is an old German saying “the baby brings the bread”. I have found that sometimes the 32-35 year old Dad who was a bit of a goof off in his career cause he had a wife pulling in a good buck finds religion when the wife stays home and vacations, new cars, dinners out etc. are all gone and a big night out is a pizza bought with a pennysaver coupon.

That guy all at once starts working OT, asking for more responsibilities, joining networking groups and starts bulking up his resume. After a five year struggle he usually gets enough gains where he replaces 100% of his wife’s income.

The guy who wife keeps working who is a slacker becomes an even bigger slacker, I have to leave early to pick up kids at child care, can’t go on business trip, parent teacher night, a whole new bunch of excuses.

Many people can juggle dual incomes. However, I noticed the 1970s/1980’s era male has a large % of slacker who moved from Mommy taking care on them to their wife taking care of them in their prolonged adolescence. They need to man up at some point. I think the recession is great. Let the slacker male either lose his job and stay home and unhandcuff his wife so she can excel or do it himself. The dual income household with a slacker husband who can never support more than 50% of his family on his sole income must be stopped. Who wants these guys as son-in-laws or even sons.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

Indeed...

Real GDP Growth Forecast for 2010 - Q4/Q4

From the website that produced your chart:

Some 73 percent of firms believe real GDP will expand between 1 percent and 3 percent in 2010

http://www.nabe.com/publib/indsum.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

Indeed...

Real GDP Growth Forecast for 2010 - Q4/Q4

From the website that produced your chart:

Some 73 percent of firms believe real GDP will expand between 1 percent and 3 percent in 2010

http://www.nabe.com/publib/indsum.html

Yes, and any one of these numbers would beat the -1.9% we had for 2008 or the -0.5% for 2009. It's an upward trend that the economy is on rather than the steep downward trend that is has been on when this administration took office. Unemployment numbers have always lagged following a recession so there's really nothing new in the continued high unemployment numbers. You know that, of course, but you just elect to pretend that this is somehow unique to the economic recovery we're now embarking on.

[Dan J 277]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

Rates reaching the double digits had been predicted months ago if not a year ago. Due to the investment it takes for a company to create jobs, its going to be some time before the trend reverses. Its likely going to be cheaper to find ways to increase productivity instead of hiring on more people, which will probably push a jobs recovery out even further.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now, that's change I can believe in!

Rates reaching the double digits had been predicted months ago if not a year ago. Due to the investment it takes for a company to create jobs, its going to be some time before the trend reverses. Its likely going to be cheaper to find ways to increase productivity instead of hiring on more people, which will probably push a jobs recovery out even further.

Big Dog made an argument the other day that makes sense: Continuing the unemployment extensions is artificially keeping the numbers high.

Of course, the opponents to extending benefits agree, not because of what the extensions do to the the numbers, but rather, some folks would be working if they couldn't get additional benefits.

I imagine there is a bit of a mix of both in there somewhere.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Lone Ranger