Portions of this story have been edited by the submitter or staff since it was originally submitted.
Unemployment Rate Rises To 10.2%, Economy Lost 190,000 Jobs In October »
Posted By TimALoftis 2 weeks, 3 days ago in Business & FinanceWASHINGTON - U.S. employers cut a deeper-than-expected 190,000 jobs in October, government data showed on Friday, driving the unemployment rate to 10.2 percent, the highest in 26-1/2 years.
The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was the highest since April 1983 and October's non-farm payrolls loss was the smallest since August last year. It revised job losses for August and September to show 91,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported.
Analysts polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to drop by 175,000 and the jobless rate to edge up to 9.9 percent from 9.8 percent in September.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
201 Views Share Story 88 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
A Proud And Dedicated Member Of The Propeller Community. If You Like Social News, Join Us For A Mature And Intelligent Discussion On The Latest ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 87 of 88 Comments (view all)
-
100%
TimALoftis2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
43%
Hhussk2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
10.2% - A very tough number to swallow even though we all knew it was around the corner.
Reply
When did you know it was around the corner?
According the the Obama administration, we would not reach 8% unemployment if we passed his Stimulus package.
And likewise, they did not expect 10% unemployment until Summer, 2010. -
-
-
54%
bigurn2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm glad we spent $787Billion on a supposed stimulus. We've done nothing to support manufacturing and industry, except for union handouts and government takeover programs. GM and Chrysler continue to be unprofitable, even though they're welfare babies.
Reply
Jobs will continue to be shed until there is confidence in the economy.
The average recession lasts 11 months. This one is currently at 11 months, with very few signs of abating.-
82%
TimALoftis2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
91%
Beau78902 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bigurn, I hope you got to see TimALoftis's links (below) that show the recession is officially over, at least by the standards the government uses to define what a recession is.
Reply
Meanwhile, while we're still seeing job losses and even this month's stats show they're greater than expected, we're losing them at a far slower rate than we were prior to February 2009 when the stimulus package was signed into law.
Here's a month-by-month chart showing job losses from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle... -
-
-
100%
TimALoftis2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
see if I can get by this SPAM filter...
Reply
here is one link...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/reces...-
100%
TimALoftis2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
now here is the second link...
Reply
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-declares... -
-
40%
bigurn2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, no, no!!!!!!!
Reply
This is the ONLY definition of a recession. "Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth." Source: economics.about.com
That's it. I continue to be frustrated with the exceptionally low level of economic knowledge on this site. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle in free market economies and are considered to have a cleansing effect, even though thought of in only negative terms.
The NBER determination of a December 07 beginning to the recession does not include this definition because of GDP growth in 1Q 08 (it would be impossible). Further, no one has offically stated an end to the recession, though NBER suggested July 09 as the end date. However, we have not had two quarters of economic expansion yet, and GDP continues to door poorly so we may not see the end for some time. Until we see two consecutive quarters of GDP growth, the recession is still here.
Anyone who speaks in terms other than GDP rise or fall, is trying to cloud the conversation.
-
-
73%
MeanMrMustard2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wait just a minute.
Reply
The unemployment rate hasn't been this high since 1983.Who was at the helm in 1983?Does this mean we should rethink our position that the Reagan years were morning in America.Why would republicans want to return to the Reagan era when it appears we are already there?-
29%
Hhussk2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The unemployment rate hasn't been this high since 1983.Who was at the helm in 1983?Does this mean we should rethink our position that the Reagan years were morning in America.Why would republicans want to return to the Reagan era when it appears we are already there?
Reply
When unemployment hit 10.2% under Reagan, it was declining. Perhaps that is why you fail to understand. I should also add that there was no stimulus package then.
Jan - 10.4
Feb - 10.4
Mar - 10.3
Apr - 10.2
May - 10.1
Jun - 10.1
July - 9.4
Aug - 9.5
Sep - 9.2
Oct - 8.8
Nov - 8.5
Dev - 8.3
-
-
-
58%
mesodude2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tangy, why do right wingers continue to harp on this bogus line about reading the bill--when you know you people didn't care about reading bills until the Democrats took over? Besides everyone knows that we're all paying underlings to read the bills and digest them for our elected officials. If our elected officials had time to read thousand-pages long bills, we would have even more gridlock than we already do. And, while we're on the subject, please stop pretending you aren't aware of all the war funding and tax cut legislation that was "rushed" through under the last administration. It's one thing to point out the problem but quite another to point out a problem in a way that suggests that it never existed until Democrats took control of Congress.
Reply
-
-
-
50%
Hhussk2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But, Imagine where we would be with the Bush fat-cat capitalists instead of President Obama saving jobs.
Reply
If you're asking me to speculate, I'd guess we would not be in a "jobless" recovery, like we are right now.
"Saving jobs"? There is no known way to measure that a job has been saved. -
-
-
-
-
-
50%
bigG2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read this commodore - took two years after Reagan's stimulus to get unemployment going down.
Reply
Doesn't your ilk think Reagan was the savior?
What, do you now believe that Obama should be able to do better than Reagan. Is he your Messiah now?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/143507-even-under-...
-
-
-
-
100%
TimALoftis2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not want to come across in this thread that I am somehow defending these unemployment numbers as being acceptable...they are not and the Obama administration including the Democrats will pay a severe price if they do not drop significantly by next fall which is looking somewhat unlikely.
Reply
While I am not a economist, I can read trends and as it stands right now it looks as if we may not see job growth until sometime very early next year. A round table of economists this morning on CNBC was predicting that the unemployment would peak at around 10.5% by February or March of next year and then start to fall slowly to around 9.5 to by the end of 2010. Even going beyond 2010, many economists are predicting unemployment of between 7 and 8% even as late as fall of 2012. -
-
83%
bigG2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In all fairness, read this before you write.
Reply
http://seekingalpha.com/article/143507-even-under-...
I didn't vote for Obama, but for your ilk to expect the stimulus to clean up the mess faster than Reagan's stimulus did is tacitly absurd. -
-
-
maidi202Comment removed: Spam
-
Neutral
jcorn12 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for posting this. In the Midwest, we are being told that these figures do not fully take into effect full unemployment or count part-time jobs. Some families had 3 or 4 part-time jobs and getting fired from them could skew the figures, especially if they counted on part time jobs to survive. Opinions?
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.