No more jobs for Americans

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers stopped adding jobs in August, an alarming setback for an economy that has struggled to grow and might be at risk of another recession.

The government also reported that the unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent. It was the weakest jobs report since September 2010."

No more jobs. Blunt and to the point. Inflation and rising living costs. And the "analysts" say there is a RISK of ANOTHER recession?

The previous recession never left! We are, and have been, wallowing in the same economic sinkhole that started three years ago. It didn't end. It still recedes. And now, with no more jobs, things can and will get worse. Frightening, but yes, things can and will get worse.

Even those lucky enough to be holding jobs are suffering. Wages are DOWN, inflation is UP. The working folks' income simply is not growing at the same pace, which means their salaries are buying less and less, day after day.

Part of the rising costs appears to be a desparate last-ditch effort by State and Fed tax collectors. Higher costs means higher tax revenue which is a percentage of the selling cost, ergo it is in their best interest to allow inflation and rising costs. A short sighted and foolish economic choice.

January jobs report: Payrolls up, unemployment fell to 9.0%

January jobs report: Payrolls up, unemployment fell to 9.0% - Feb. 4, 2011:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Winter weather kept job seekers home and offices closed in January, getting the year off to a disappointing start, while the unemployment rate took a surprising tumble.
The economy added just 36,000 jobs in January, falling far short of expectations. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate unexpectedly sunk to 9%, down from 9.4% the month before."

Here is a real conundrum. How can less jobs being added give us a lower unemployment rate? Oh, here is how Uncle Sam does some fuzzy math.

"About 504,000 adults dropped out of the labor force in January for various reasons, bringing the unemployment rate down because they were no longer counted as unemployed.
Adding to economists' confusion, the Labor Department readjusted their calculations in January to reflect the latest Census data. So some of January's drop in the unemployment rate was due to "annual tweaking of the population data," Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist with High Frequency Economics, said in a research note."

Thats convenient. Just stop counting the half million people who stop looking for jobs, each month. Soon, the unemployment numbers will drop to zero, maybe even into negative percentages. Then "tweak" the numbers a wee bit this way and that, and viola. The people nod and ooh and ahh and vote for the same clowns for another term.

Yeah, that sounds like something to expect from D.C.

Job market looks stronger, maybe

ADP, Challenger data: Signs of strength in January - Feb. 2, 2011:
"Job market looks stronger ahead of Friday report
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The job market started 2011 on solid footing, according to two separate reports released Wednesday.

Payrolls among private employers rose by 187,000 in January, payroll processor ADP said. Analysts polled by Briefing.com were predicting 145,000 jobs added for the month."

A whisper of good news after a year in the economic doldrums and a hideous winter season for the northern States.

On the other side of the coin (which, in this economy, can best be described as haypenny), the article goes on to drop the disclaimer:

"Economists are also cautious about completely trusting the ADP and Challenger reports. For the last six months, the ADP figure has missed the government's reading on private payrolls by an average of 96,000 jobs, said Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.


Ahead of the Friday jobs report, economists surveyed by CNNMoney are predicting the economy added 149,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.5% in January."

So we wait for the "report" (drum-roll) due out on Friday. That is, if we don't get hit by an iceberg till then.

Were there 445,000 layoffs around Christmas 2010?

Initial claims jump 35,000 to 445,000 in latest week - Jan. 13, 2011:
"Jobless claims climb by 35,000
By Blake Ellis
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The number of Americans filing for their first week of unemployment benefits jumped sharply last week, two weeks after hitting a 2-1/2 year low below 400,000.
There were 445,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Jan. 8, the Labor Department said in a weekly report Thursday.
That's up 35,000 from a revised 410,000 the previous week -- when jobless claims climbed back above 400,000 after falling below that mark for the first time in more than two years."

Misleading title on the original article. If I'm reading this correctly, in the first week of January '11, nearly a half million workers filed their INITIAL (as in, just fired) jobless claims. A half million pink slips over the Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza season? Corporate grinches, with bells on!

This is just more terrible news, not the ideal way to ring in the New Year. Apparently some didn't have much of a problem over the holidays ...

Wealthy treated themselves during the holidays

"By MAE ANDERSON and ANNE D'INNOCENZIO

NEW YORK (AP) -- The rich treated themselves like royalty this holiday season. That spun the holidays into gold for Tiffany & Co. and other high-end retailers.
Wealthier shoppers traded up to more expensive gold and diamond jewelry from silver charms. Designer clothing and purses were back.


The splurges are good news for the economy, because the richest 5 percent of Americans, those making at least $207,000 annually, account for about 14 percent of all spending. And consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the economy." 

Does that mean the top 5% wealthiest individuals or is that a joint or family income qualifier? Because $207K a year for a well educated and professionally employed Mr & Mrs is pretty common these days, and still falls into "middle class" status (ain't much left after taxes). If such a low income makes up the richest 5% of our economy, I'm terrified. It just means things are worse than I imagined (and if you've read these postings, I have imagined pretty bad numbers).

California Gov. Brown’s spending plan seeks to close $25.4 billion deficit

California budget to leave many displeased - MarketWatch:
"By Russ Britt, MarketWatch LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — With California teetering on the brink of financial ruin, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday offered a state spending plan that he said is sure to be painful, and that is almost certain to please no one, especially not voters.

Brown is proposing spending cuts of $12.5 billion, including an 8% to 10% cut in take-home pay for most state employees, and what he called a “vast and historic” restructuring of California’s government.
...
He also would eliminate tax relief for those businesses in “enterprise zones,” or depressed areas.
...
Already, Brown said he has cut $7 million, or 25%, from operations of his own offices, including the elimination of the state First Lady staff."

It was only a matter of time before State Governments began the layoffs and pay cuts. But what about those "depressed" areas? Does it make any sense to tax small businesses struggling to survive in these areas out of business? Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage businesses to prosper, hire more locals and raise the area out of poverty, and collect more sales and payroll taxes from the increased profits?

We should require IQ tests before a politician is allowed to run for office. Basic math skills would help too, testing them at an eighth grader level might do wonders for our country!

December 2010 jobs report: Payrolls up, unemployment rates falls

December jobs report: Payrolls up, unemployment rates falls - Jan. 7, 2011:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- High hopes for December's employment numbers were dashed Friday, when the Labor Department reported disappointing job gains for the month. But the unemployment rate took a surprising dive.

The economy added 103,000 jobs in December -- falling short of most expectations. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate sunk to 9.4%, its lowest level since May 2009, confusing some economists. While a sharply lower unemployment rate was a welcome surprise, some experts said that drop was mostly due to a shrinking workforce."

and

"About 260,000 adults dropped out of the labor force for various reasons, and were no longer counted as unemployed by the government. The overall participation rate in the U.S. labor force fell to a new recession low of 64.3%. "Incredibly, the U.S. labor force is now smaller than it was before the recession started, though it should have grown by over 4 million workers to keep up with working-age population growth over this period," said economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute."

The news just gets worse and worse. As small businesses collapse, with literally hundreds shutting down daily, the job market is rapidly shrinking. The last 2 years have taken a toll on the backbone of our economy, the small business, with the Federal, State and City Governments taxing or regulating most out of business in such a short time.

With a new Congress seated in D.C. to greet a New Year, one can only hope this new batch has a better understanding of what is wrong with our economy, and that taxing businesses out of business results in collection of NO tax once they shut down.

Structural unemployment? What nonsense.

Why structural unemployment isn't the job market's problem - Oct. 11, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An increasingly fierce debate is raging over the reason why unemployment is still so stubbornly high.
While most people think businesses simply aren't hiring enough to absorb the millions of unemployed workers, a rising tide of prominent economists dispute that. They claim that there are jobs out there, just not the right candidates to fill them."

I guess its a slow news day for this Columbus Day holiday, but for any media outlet to publish such a nonsense story is atrocious. Of course there are "jobs" out there, but would you really expect an engineer, say, to flip burgers at the local fast-food joint ... or would he/she look for a job as, say, an engineer perhaps?

"With more than 3 million job openings reported by the Labor Department, the unemployment rate should be close to 6.5%, said Kocherlatokta, not the 9.6% where it stands now.

He said that one of the reasons for the worsening imbalance is that so many underwater homeowners who can't sell their houses are unable to move in search of job opportunities."

Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Perhaps his Presidentshipness would like to fill one of the job openings in his own agency, say, as a janitor? And this clown is in charge of a Federal Reserve Bank, no wonder we are wallowing in the fiscal doldrums.


Its quite simple. Employers employ employees. Duh. Less employers, less openings for employees, ergo higher unemployment. The current tax and regulatory environment coupled with the lack of any available funding from banks is killing our small businesses, whose owners are packing it up and looking for jobs themselves. Bailing out banks, car makers and health insurance companies is NOT creating jobs - because it is NOT helping small businesses to survive, forget about growth. Small businesses form the bulk of "employers", not mega-corporations, who are gleefully slicing and dicing at their employee salaries and benefits while the current Congress is blindly stumbling around throwing wads of taxpayer money into every trough they can find.
 
The trillions that have been wasted on these foolish bailouts should have been routed to small business as tax credits. It would not cost as much, since no taxpayer money would be paid out up front. As businesses prosper, they will increase tax revenues in the long run by increasing hiring and thus consumer spending from the happily employed, who will no doubt run out and buy High Definition 3D televisions with every paycheck. And if any business fails, it didn't cost the government a dime - since the failed business is not going to be taking that tax credit. I'm no economist, but this is straightforward common sense. In the immortal words of Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), "Common sense is not so common". Especially in Congress.

Why the new healthcare law will cost us jobs

CNN.com - September 3rd, 2010
Obama calls for improving small business climate
"President Obama cited small businesses as 'the primary drivers of job creation' and called on Congress, especially the GOP, to tackle a bill aimed at improving the climate for such enterprises.
...
There are signs the economy is improving, though. He said August saw 67,000 new private sector jobs created, while official July numbers indicated 107,000 jobs were created. In contrast, the latest unemployment numbers show joblessness rose from 9.5 percent to 9.6 percent last month."

Oh please, what utter twaddle. Things are NOT improving, a drop of 40,000 new jobs in a month is the opposite of improvement. And a 9.5 or 9.6 percent unemployment rate is definitely not a sign of improvement.

However, let us give credit to President Obama for recognizing that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Recognizing the obvious, that is indeed high praise for a politician. Solving the problem however, appears to be beyond the capabilities of the current leadership in Washington.

First, this Congress gave us the bank bailout. Billions and billions of tax dollars were doled out to the banks. Objective: spread the money as loans and funding to encourage small business growth and thus improve the economy and create jobs.
Implementation: zero checks and balances.
Result: top bank executives give themselves obscenely large bonuses, small businesses got absolutely nothing.

Congress claims victory and goes on to throw even more money at car manufacturers, who so far, have not quite been able to produce a car that they can sell in a country that has more cars per household than most other nations on this planet. Outstanding performance from Washington thus far.

And now we have a new healthcare bill. Yet another misguided legislative blunder. With a pricetag of nearly one TRILLION dollars. We don't do things on a small scale, why stop at wasting a Billion dollars when we can just as easy throw away a Trillion dollars.

Based on a noble sentiment, this law is absolutely misguided and lacks commonsense. Yes, this country has far too many medically uninsured individuals and families. However the quality of healthcare in the US is among the best in the world. What is the problem then? In a nutshell, we have the best medical care that money can buy, that unfortunately costs too much. The concept of health insurance is two-fold; first, the financial risk is spread out across a group, and second, the insurance company is able to negotiate volume discounts for their members. Without legislative control over what the health insurance companies can do, what we have ended up with is this; doctors receive a mere pittance for preventive and routine medical care for the insured patients, which forces them to charge cash customers up to ten times the fee just to break even. Doctors are essentially running a business, between salaries to nurses/assistants/office staff, rents, supplies, and most of all malpractice insurance - what a typical General Practitioner earns each year is laughable given the amount of time and education they have to invest into their work.

Now we have this new healthcare bill, a law that forces all employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance to their workers, or pay a $2,000 a year fine per employee. Yet it puts no restrictions on the health insurance companies whatsoever. I happen to be in one of the first lucky (not!) small businesses that are now discovering the true nature of this absurd law. My company's health insurance policy renews each year and we just received the new rates. Our health insurance premium has a 79% increase, yes, it has almost DOUBLED in just this first year of the new healthcare law!

What are employers to do if their insurance premiums are going to shoot up each year, without any limits?

And this is WHY this new healthcare law will affect YOUR job.

First option for the small business, layoff staff to get below the 50 employee cap. Lost jobs, lost taxes, increased public assistance, no medical insurance for any workers.

Second option, refuse to buy health insurance and pay the tax of $2,000 a year per employee. This will of course reduce the company revenue, thus preventing any additional hiring or growth. And it does not provide health insurance for anyone.

The third option is most likely what most small businesses will end up doing - shut down, go out of business. Lost jobs, lost taxes, no health insurance.

Given the current limitless increases that health insurance providers are levying, it is almost inconceivable that ANY small business will be able to obey this law and remain solvent. It is just not possible.

We are effectively shutting down or downsizing small businesses. Instead of increasing hiring, we are encouraging layoffs. Instead of increasing tax revenue through increased payrolls, we are not only losing taxes but also increasing unemployment and its associated costs. Instead of providing hard working Americans with health insurance, we are laying them off and driving them into social medical programs that encourage dependence on public assistance.

So in closing, if you currently have medical insurance, be very afraid for you may not be able to afford it for long. If you do NOT have medical insurance, don't expect to get it any time soon. If you have a job, you may not have one tomorrow. If you are looking for a job, it does not bode well for you. The only jobs left will be at large corporations, not even government jobs will be safe once the tax revenue dries up due to reduced payrolls. Large corporations, of course, prefer to "outsource" work to cheaper continents. Perhaps now is a good time to learn some new languages, the day is fast appearing when one will have to leave the US in order to find a job. Or afford to see a doctor.

Job losses return for first time in 2010 (the first time???)

Job losses return for first time in 2010 - Jul. 2, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy lost jobs in June, for the first time this year, as modest hiring by businesses only partly offset the end of census jobs.
The Labor Department on Friday reported a net loss of 125,000 jobs in the month. That was due primarily to the loss of 225,000 census jobs that had swelled payrolls by 433,000 net jobs in May. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 100,000 jobs in June."

And there goes the "census jobs bubble", a clever hyperbole to skew the true (and sad) state of the economy and the job market. We didn't lose jobs for "the first time" this year, the bogus census jobs don't count, we've been steadily losing jobs for a while now.

If only the Feds put in as much effort in helping small businesses to CREATE jobs, rather than waste time juggling numbers to protect their OWN jobs.

Unemployment claims (supposedly) fall in latest week

Unemployment claims fall in latest week - Jun. 24, 2010: "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance fell last week, according to a government report released Thursday.
There were 457,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended June 19, down 19,000 from a revised 476,000 in the previous week, the Labor Department said."

And yet more dismal news, but presented as always with a positive spin, "claims fall". When one actually reads the article, it says "initial jobless claims" - these are 457 THOUSAND newly unemployed that are filing their INITIAL benefits claims. 19,000 less out of 476,000 the previous period is barely, what, a 3% drop? Hardly a "fall", a drop in the bucket, more likely.

And the article further clarifies the scope of the economic disaster we are wallowing in:
"Continuing claims: The government said 4,548,000 people filed continuing claims in the week ended June 12, the most recent data available. That's down 45,000 from the previous week.

...
The figures do not include those who have moved to state or federal extensions, or people who have exhausted their benefits."

So there we have it, over 4.5 MILLION workers are still out of work filing "continuing claims", not including those who have gone onto extensions, or run out of benefits altogether, and are therefore not considered "unemployed"? The Labor Dept. dare not mention the "real" unemployment numbers, lest the populace grasp the scope of the fiscal hole they have dropped us into and demand that, heaven forbid, the Labor Dept. fulfill its mandate and Congress actually does something about the jobs situation.