Posted: 3/6/2009 9:00:14 AM EDT
|
Link
The US jobless rate jumped in February to 8.1%, according to official figures from the Labor Department. The number of people out of work rose by 651,000 during the month. Both figures were bigger than expected. The number of job cuts in January was revised up to 655,000 while December's losses were pushed up to 681,000. December's figure was the biggest job loss in a single month since October 1949. The unemployment rate was the highest since December 1983. Rising unemployment has meant greater demand for free meals President Obama said that the number of jobs lost so far in the recession was "astounding". Speaking in Ohio, he added: "I don't need to tell the people of this state what statistics like this mean," saying that he had signed his economic stimulus package in order to save jobs. The extra 161,000 jobs added to December and January's figures mean that almost two million jobs have been lost in the past three months. A total of 12.5 million people are now unemployed in the US. "It just continues to show the grim state of the labour market, which suggests a deepening US recession," said Joe Manimbo, currency trader at Ruesch International in Washington. Across sectors There were further signs of companies cutting back on their spending with the news that the number of people who wanted to work full-time but were forced to work part-time for economic reasons rising 787,000 to 8.6 million. FEBRUARY'S BIG JOB CUTS Queue at a jobs fair in California Goodyear: 5,000 Macy's: 7,000 General Motors: 3,400 Estee Lauder: 2,000 Lincoln Electric: 900 Send us your comments The average working week stood at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December. Jobs were cut in most sectors, with only government, education and health services adding staff. In the manufacturing sector 168,000 jobs were cut in the month while 104,000 jobs went in construction and 375,000 were cut in the service sector. "The payroll numbers are very weak. With the revisions, we've had significant job losses in the past four months," said Gary Thayer, senior economist at Wachovia Securities in St Louis. "Companies are reducing workers and output in order to bring inventories into line with weak sales." Among the companies that announced big job cuts in February were Goodyear, Estee Lauder, Macy's and General Motors. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier in the week that economic indicators "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labour market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks". 
So when will it end? |
|
No idea... I come on here and read about people losing their jobs left and right.
Yet every time I go shopping the parking lots are full. I'm not getting a job because who wants to hire a stay-at-home mom with a B.A. in English? Yet every time I go out there's some new incompetent POS I have to deal with who does NOT deserve the job he or she is doing. In short, unless we experience a crash, I think we're a long way from the end. |
|
No idea... I come on here and read about people losing their jobs left and right.
Yet every time I go shopping the parking lots are full. This...I go anywhere and its jammed packed at all hours. Stores, resturants, casinos, roads. Sure doesnt mesh with whats coming out of the media... |
|
Quoted:
It will end when we have the 2nd American Revolution. If I thought violent revolution would result in anything other than heavier chains, I would be first in line. But I look around me at the majority of the population who don't see, don't know, and don't want to know, and I remember the words of Ambrose Bierce: "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Some believe that violent revolution will result in the restoration of the Constitution. No, it won't. Antonin Scalia explained: To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards.
Unless and until the population returns to an abiding belief in that document, it's going to remain so much toilet paper. And if they do return to an abiding belief in it, it won't be because of violent revolution. For that matter, if they did, violent revolution would be completely unnecessary. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will end when we have the 2nd American Revolution. If I thought violent revolution would result in anything other than heavier chains, I would be first in line. But I look around me at the majority of the population who don't see, don't know, and don't want to know, and I remember the words of Ambrose Bierce: "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Some believe that violent revolution will result in the restoration of the Constitution. No, it won't. Antonin Scalia explained: To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards.
Unless and until the population returns to an abiding belief in that document, it's going to remain so much toilet paper. And if they do return to an abiding belief in it, it won't be because of violent revolution. For that matter, if they did, violent revolution would be completely unnecessary. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." |