Some lost jobs may never return

[WillyT]

Study by New York Fed says this ‘recovery’ really is different

<snip>

SINCE PRESIDENT Bush took office, three million jobs have been lost in the United States, 2.5 million of those in the manufacturing sector. Now, a newly-released study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York talks about the structural nature of many of those job losses.

The latest turn in the business cycle has been an economic paradox. Though the recession technically ended in November, 2001, payroll numbers continued to fall. Now, economists at the New York Fed say there is something different about this latest recession and recovery: Many of those jobs are not coming back.

“Unlike previous recessions, almost all of the increase in unemployment has been due to permanent layoffs — not temporary layoffs,” said Erica Groshen, and economist with the New York Fed.

Traditionally, a factory or business will lay off workers in slow periods and rehire them when demand picks back up. But in economic jargon, many of the job losses this time around seem to be structural, not cyclical.

According to the New York Fed’s study, entire industries continued to lose jobs during the first 17 months of the recovery. Among them: Airlines, communications, electronics manufacturers, industrial machinery manufacturers and makers of transportation equipment. While health services and mortgage brokers saw job gains, that’s little consolation if you lost a job in one of the contracting industries.

<snip>

Link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/960489.asp?0cv=CB2

Translation: 'Economists at the New York Fed say there is something different about this latest recession and recovery' = Oh Shit, we have no idea of what's goin on out there. Or worse, they do...

:argh:

[kodi]

1. thus making official what the average turnip brain would have recognized

anyone with congitive ability could have said this. and we need to the fed to tell us?

it is the profound insulation of these economists and politcians to the real world that people live in which is so astounding.

even an idiot knows that job losses are not "lay-offs" when the whole factory shuts down.

the same products are still being made in factories, but they are overseas now.

when one does not want to admit cause, they dwell on symptoms.

cheap labor conservatives and multinational companies that use the resources of nations like parasites use the blood of a host.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PATRICK]

3. they do of course

Despair from the GOP, familiar old feeling, familiar hopeless dead end conservatism, familiar desertion of America.

[Unregistered]

4. You guys are a bit myopic

and are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. The 'loss' of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector has been going on for quite a while. When did you last see a steel mill operating? We no longer make Oldsmobiles or Plymouths.

What seems to be happening now is the 'service' sector is losing jobs, an example being tech support is being shipped to 3rd world countries where the pay is lower.

To link this to Bush admin policies is nearsighted, i.e, I suppose Gore would have not had this happen.

I suppose Bush is also responsible for the deficits in 48 of the 50 sttes, too? Wow.

:crazy:

[kodi]

6. & U seem witless, data show manufacturing has lost the majority of jobs

and that these are due predominantly to imports. imports mainly from companies that have relocated off-shore, esp. textiles, plastics, chemicals, electronics and heavy equipment, and from places which used US foreign aid and american based bank loans, which are garuanteed from default by the american tax payer.

these are jobs lost that averaged over $40K and are now "supposedly" going to be replaced by low-wage service industry jobs.

obviously you are unfamiliar with what happened just this past week with bush signing the trade agreement with singapore and the one ready for him to sign with chile.

the singapore trade agreement as well as the one passed in the House two weeks ago for chile ended tariffs, allow 5,000 skilled workers from each country to enter into the US on a permenant resident status EACH AND EVERY YEAR, with the result that supplies of skilled workers in the US increases and wages decrease, and the agreements made by the trade negotiators under bush did not even require from these nations the same environmental, fair labor practices to allow union organizaton and child labor restriction requirements from these nations used in the trade agreement forged with jordan a few years earlier.......

that is the difference between bush and gore. bush directed his negotiators not to give a damn about the US workers who would be losing their jobs and instead helped out US based companies and banks that are making money from american job loss.

as to the tech sector lossing jobs, i assume from the attitude of your attack on al gote you think it is just peachy-keen that the republican national party office has engaged a firm to phone solicit US citizens to ask for donations while employing hundreds of people located in India instead of using the money to employ some of the americans who have lost their jobs due to bush's policies.

as to the state budget deficits, where now is that vaunted federalism evoked by bush that returns to the states federal tax dollars?

federal mandates to the states of medicaid/medicare, the patriot act, and other federal laws are not being funded at the required levels at the federal government under federal law and the states now have to step in to replace the money no longer coming from washington.

that is what is helpng drive up state budgetary deficits. so, yes, it is bush's fault.

[Beetwasher]

9. Yes, Bush is responsible for the states deficits

Ever hear of homeland security? In most states, the Fed Gov't has not provided enough funding and states have to make up the difference. Federal funding for states has been slashed severely for all kinds of programs and states have to make up the difference. It's federal policy that is responsible for the states fiscal problems and the idiotic Bush tax cuts and illegal war are responsible for draining the treasury. If our rightful President (GORE) was in charge, we would have had that surplus to be used for all these problems, instead, it was squandered...

[Bridget Burke]

11. I'm wearing my glasses--open your eyes!

Here's the first sentence in the clip:

"SINCE PRESIDENT Bush took office, three million jobs have been lost in the United States, 2.5 million of those in the manufacturing sector."

So it's not just "service jobs".

And federal policies (i.e., unfunded mandates) DO contribute to state deficits. Some of those problems come from the State politicians--mostly with insane tax cuts benefiting corporations.

Since my state is Texas & You-know-who was our recent governor, I can safely say that OUR deficits (really bad) can definitely be linked to Bush.

[Fovea]

13. I suppose Bush is also responsible for the deficits in 48 of the 50 sttes,

Yes, he is.

Bush himself would tell you himself (if drugged with pentothal) that all he really wanted to do was squeeze California, so his buddies could blackmail it for electricity (the raw resource an internet economy requires), but wound up taking down the whole economy because he could not restore confidence in American business practices once he let his and Cheney's buddies make Federal energy policy around looting.

Karl also asured him that California would flip to red if he punished them enough because ... I don't know why Karl would think that. Perhaps he is taking steroids with Ahnold or something.

What they all could not see is that if you give California Anthrax, the rest of the country does not just catch the sniffles.

The other goal of the Bush administration, oil monopoly, has launched us down the road of huge deficits and international economic opposition-- just for the profits of a few punks so vile that I would not piss on if they were on fire.


Yes, Dems did support NAFTA, somehow ignorant of its 'race to the bottom' effect on wages, and by extension the consumer economy.

This is one reason why I support Kucinich. We have to grab the WTO snake and break its neck, or it will poison the whole world.

Bush not only torpedoed the whole economy, driving states into tax crisis, but specifically he sandbagged them with unfunded mandates.
Where have you been the last two years?

[Rebellious Republican]

14. You may have a point, unregistered...........

We should not LAY all the blame on Dumbya, as in Ken Lay. We can also dump some of the blame on Ken Lay and Bernie Ebers for swindling thousands out jobs and retirements. Those are just the headliners to. No, Bush was not alone in this, he did have help with his profiteering buddies.

:argh:

[w4rma]

5. NAFTA, WTO, worker Visas, "free" trade, cheap labor conservatives

manufacturing, accounting, engineering, telephone marketing/customer service

These jobs are leaving America because it is impossible for a buisness keep these jobs in America and compete against other buisnesses as long as free trade agreements exist.

It's that simple.

And it won't stop there, because big buisness is training our overseas competitors.

[Melsky]

7. Can you believe

that the republicans are having fund raising calls made from India. It boggles my mind!

[Catshrink]

I've heard this

Does anyone have a link to a story about this? This is just too delicious to let go.

[treepig]

12. you can start here

http://www.ibew.org/stories/03daily/0308/030805_Bush.htm

[Beetwasher]

8. Redefining failure as success

That's what this admin. does in a nutshell. If you're a failure by set standards, then change the standards! If what you want to do is wrong and illegal, then change the law so it's now legal! Etc...

[toopers]

15. Not to change the subject, but . . .

that sounds like our government education system.

[WillyT]

10. Kick !!!

:kick: