There are 15.7 million Americans who can’t find jobs.
The Labor Department said Friday that jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September, but more than economists expected.
Economists say it could go as high as 10.5% next year if employers are reluctant to hire.
Because every single time we talk about this you only have problems with those who need a safety net.
I feel firmly that government intervention in corporations contribute to those folks waiting in line. But for the life of me, I don’t see how one government program [minimum wage] that contributes to unemployment can be fixed by another government program [unemployment].
These people, politicians–both right and left, create situations that only keep them in power.
“Every single time we talk about this you make implications in my arguments that I somehow favor State intervention on behalf of corporations. That simply isn’t true and reflects poorly on you.”
…………………..
Because every single time we talk about this you only have problems with those who need a safety net.
I hope never to return to the poverty shacks of the South or Appalachia, or the lines of desperate people waiting in line, competing with children hoping for a chance at a job that will likely cost their limbs as they did in the thirties.
Very few people want to do nothing and collect unemployment, and welfare is only for 2 years, and no more than 5.
the nanny state should be there to benefit KBR, Goldman, Titan, CaCi International, and WalMart, only
Let’s make a deal. YOU agree that welfare is bad for individuals and I will agree [continue to agree by the way] that welfare is bad for corporations.
Every single time we talk about this you make implications in my arguments that I somehow favor State intervention on behalf of corporations. That simply isn’t true and reflects poorly on you.
I agree; the nanny state should be there to benefit KBR, Goldman, Titan, CaCi International, and WalMart, only.
If you can’t shell out the gold, why should you get to make the rules?
unemployment is high because it’s so easy to make a lot of money in UE benefits.
20 years ago I was unemployed; I was cashing the unemployment check and looking for a job. I can validate that I stayed out of work for a couple weeks because I had that benefit check coming. Finally, it just got to me; I had to go to work and earn the money rather than just sit on the couch.
Ahh, even then, young johnny was able to see through the nastiness that is the nanny state.
Only registered user allowed |
Since the government can’t solve the problem, it’s time the people start facing unemployment with their own ingenuity:
http://bit.ly/ozqT6
(satire)
November 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Yup. It’s hard out there. I lost my job in July, got a new one in September. I have to work 6 days a week,make $1200 less a month, commute 1 hour each way, and am too tired at night to listen to Alan from 10pm-1am (although I do leave the radio on and let his strong, deep, handsome voice caress in my sleep… I wake up a little when he starts shrieking at the hard-headed conservatives that call).
Anyway, I’m very very thankful that I have a job. And it’s a job in my profession, which is cool.
flap Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“and let his strong, deep, handsome voice caress in my sleep”
Wow, I thought I was the only one… ;)
November 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The unemployed: “let them eat cake”.
But, the good news is that even though [U3] unemployment crossed the 10% line, hours worked for those still employed is hitting new lows. So, it could be worse. Low wage, part time work is better than no work!!!
As you would expect: Unemployment up, stock market rallies. LOL. Save the bankers!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I have a solution for the high unemployment rate. Howabout we change the name of the nursing profession from nurse to health therapist? That way, more men will enter the profession as the feminine connotation and stigma of being a “nurse” is gone. I’m trying to share this idea with as many people as possible because I find it weird that there is a nursing shortage amid a high national unemloyment rate.
If more men become “health therapists” then the salary and wages of today’s current “nurses” will rise. Unemployment will go down. Men will have found a fulfilling career. Besides, women are becoming doctors today anyway (which is good). My state board of nursing ignored my idea so I’m sharing with anybody. The baby-boomers are retiring and getting older, so we need people to take care of them in the future.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I have a solution for high unemployment.
Death panels.
Problem solved. It’s all ’bout the economics.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Heckuva good job Barry.
I would love to see everyone’s reaction if McCain was occupying the Oval Office. “It was all Bush’s fault, give him more time.” I think not.
TDro319 Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“I would love to see everyone’s reaction if McCain was occupying the Oval Office.”
If that were the case, I’m guessing we’d be in another unnecessary war and the unemployment rate would be over 30% right now.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
When they say “worst unemployment in 26 years” conservative commentators never do the math and tell the glassy-eyed zombies that it was Reaganomics which failed to deliver the balanced budget and booming economy as promised.
Instead, Reagan ended up signing the largest tax increase in history in terms of % of GDP.
Since Limpbaugh and Manatee don’t cover these facts, the glassy-eyed zombies always duck them when brought up. Just watch….
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Economists say it could go as high as 10.5% next year if employers are reluctant to hire.”
That is still less than the 10.8% mark set by Reaganomics.
“The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September, but more than economists expected.”
Remember 3 things:
1) When President Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.
2) When President Obama took office, all the economists of the time said the recovery would take 3-5 years.
3) Unemployment nearly always lags behind other stats when recoveries take place. Isolating one stat from all the others presents a false picture many times; and cuts at the credibility of the person doing it.
One hopes President Obama is able to generate the kind or recovery President Clinton was able to do in spite of conservatives who not only handed off crappy economies, but stood in the way of measures to bring about recovery….
November 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
The right: “High unemployment in Reagan’s day was … Jimmy Carter’s fault – high unemployment today is all Barry’s fault”.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Of course Carter inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5% and averaged 6.5% unemployment during his presidency.
Reagan inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate and averaged 7.5% unemployment during his presidency.
Bush41 inherited a 5.4% unemployment rate and averaged 6.3% unemployment during his presidency.
Clinton inherited a 7.4% unemployment rate and averaged 5.2% unemployment during his presidency.
I don’t have the stat for Bush43, but he inherited a 4.1 or 4.2% unemployment rate and never got it back during his 8 years in office.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“The Labor Department said Friday that jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983,”
Word of the day: “Reaganesque”
November 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
If the Dems don’t stand up and take control of the economic helm, this will only get worse over the coming months and they can kiss their arses good-bye for 2010/2012. A jobless recovery is no recovery at all.
The Dems are trying to share the economic helm (bi-partisanship) with the Reps and their combined efforts are only steering us toward the rocks and a hard grounding. It’s time to throw the Reps over the side and steer the vessel into deeper waters.
The Reps will be alright in the water. They can swim … probably.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Since the recovery just started, it will be quite a while before it can be called a “jobless recovery.”
Ever take a look at when the Great Depression ended?
1933, as I recall.
But the hole dug was so deep, the climb out took a long time.
If you look at the GDP figures during the recovery in the 30s, you see some astounding stats. From 1933 through 1941 you see something like 12 or 13 quarters where GDP increased over 10% and 9 more where it increased 20-30% or more.
But the hole was so deep, things remained tough in spite of economic growth.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Some guy on FOX News just explained that unemployment is high because it’s so easy to make a lot of money in UE benefits. That if unemployment was harder on people, fewer would go into that cushy line of non-work and they’d go out and get real jobs again instead.
This is why I listen to FOX. For the comedy.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
though it’s not an accurate view of life. I recently started a job, and some of the other guys I trained with were complaining that they were making more on unemployment than they were during training for this job. (during training we were paid less than our normal wages were to be)
there’s some sort of wrongness there when you can be working and be worse off than if you weren’t.
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
unemployment is high because it’s so easy to make a lot of money in UE benefits.
20 years ago I was unemployed; I was cashing the unemployment check and looking for a job. I can validate that I stayed out of work for a couple weeks because I had that benefit check coming. Finally, it just got to me; I had to go to work and earn the money rather than just sit on the couch.
Ahh, even then, young johnny was able to see through the nastiness that is the nanny state.
OldLefty Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I agree; the nanny state should be there to benefit KBR, Goldman, Titan, CaCi International, and WalMart, only.
If you can’t shell out the gold, why should you get to make the rules?
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
the nanny state should be there to benefit KBR, Goldman, Titan, CaCi International, and WalMart, only
Let’s make a deal. YOU agree that welfare is bad for individuals and I will agree [continue to agree by the way] that welfare is bad for corporations.
Every single time we talk about this you make implications in my arguments that I somehow favor State intervention on behalf of corporations. That simply isn’t true and reflects poorly on you.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:15 am
“Every single time we talk about this you make implications in my arguments that I somehow favor State intervention on behalf of corporations. That simply isn’t true and reflects poorly on you.”
…………………..
Because every single time we talk about this you only have problems with those who need a safety net.
I hope never to return to the poverty shacks of the South or Appalachia, or the lines of desperate people waiting in line, competing with children hoping for a chance at a job that will likely cost their limbs as they did in the thirties.
Very few people want to do nothing and collect unemployment, and welfare is only for 2 years, and no more than 5.
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Because every single time we talk about this you only have problems with those who need a safety net.
I feel firmly that government intervention in corporations contribute to those folks waiting in line. But for the life of me, I don’t see how one government program [minimum wage] that contributes to unemployment can be fixed by another government program [unemployment].
These people, politicians–both right and left, create situations that only keep them in power.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm