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.

Prez Obama says uncertainty over the debt ceiling has hindered hiring

PressDemocrat.com The Press-Democrat Santa Rosa, CA:
"Obama: Still differences on debt, new talks Sunday
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Beset by a weak jobs report, President Barack Obama on Friday called for swift action by Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit, saying the uncertainty over the debt ceiling has hindered hiring in the private sector."

So now the blame for a failed economy and loss of jobs is ... because we are not in more debt???

Here's a tip for Congress and the Prez, add it to the book Letters to President Obama: Americans Share Their Hopes and Dreams with the First African-American President

Borrowing money does NOT create jobs. There is no such thing as an "entitlement", every American is "entitled" to work to earn what they want/deserve. Expecting the Government to hand you everything, from food to mortgage subsidies to medical care is as un-American as things can get. This country was built on hard work - blood, sweat and tears; to wax philosophically.

Instead of increasing the benefits to encourage unemployment - a more useful approach would be to help small businesses survive. The bulk of hiring is done by small business - not the mega corporations or government agencies. This is a fact, look it up. Small businesses should receive INCENTIVES to hire, not receive PENALTIES when they create jobs. Currently, the byzantine tax laws make it extremely difficult to manage a large payroll without having to hire an outside (expensive) accounting firm. Beside the direct tax LIABILITY of EVERY employee in a company, the new penalties include mandatory medical insurance when 50 or more employees are hired. It makes no sense for a small firm that has just under 50 employees to even consider expanding and hiring more workers - since they will be severely penalized if they try to create more jobs.

Providing SMALL businesses with tax breaks IF THEY CREATE NEW JOBS will solve most, if not all, the current problems. Stop: read that again. SMALL business, not mega WAL-corporations. Tax breaks = sensible taxation; currently small companies are taxed TWICE, the business entity pays income tax and the owners pay tax again when they draw any income from their own company, where many owners put in upto 80 work-hours a week. A disincentive to even operate a business, yet many do, and even after being hammered with ridiculous regulations and absurd taxes; some small businesses may even prosper. The current logic originating from the White House is to tax small business out of business. Putting them out of business will REDUCE tax revenue, the killing of the proverbial golden goose. Reducing the tax burden of small companies will NOT reduce any tax income for Uncle Sam - they are HIRING workers, workers who will get paychecks and generate payroll taxes. The newly hired will stop draining the social programs, thereby REDUCING the deficit. Yes, reducing taxes WILL reduce the deficit. It is as simple as that.

Put America to work, don't worry so much about the loss of entitlements. Social programs may take a hit today, but putting the effort and tax breaks into CREATING JOBS will bring those benefits back tomorrow, and we won't even have to borrow $14 Trillion to pay for them.

And for those who have not already read it, Animal Farm is a must read:

Analysis: Jobs matter, unemployment rate doesn't

Analysis: Jobs matter, unemployment rate doesn't – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs:
"Ignore the unemployment rate, and ignore anything you read that highlights the fact that it increased from 8.8% in March to 9% in April. It doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant number. There are so many long-term unemployed in this country, that the unemployment rate would actually be much higher if all of them were counted– more like 16% or 17%."

Hear, hear! Finally an article that makes some sense and has at least a modicum of reality.

The number juggling that comes out of Washington is really useless. The fact of the matter is - there are not enough GOOD jobs out there! Yes, "x" hundreds of thousands of jobs were added, but the figures dodge the issue of WHAT jobs were created. Engineering jobs that pay $50K vs janitorial jobs that pay $25K - big difference.

Senior Democrat Conyers criticizes Obama

Senior Democrat Conyers criticizes Obama - CNN.com:
"Washington (CNN) -- Senior Democrat John Conyers of Michigan criticized Barack Obama Monday, hoping, Conyers said, to 'make him a better president.'
Citing the troubled job market, rising energy costs, and turmoil in the Middle East, Conyers told reporters at the National Press Club: 'We keep getting a longer and longer list of things he wanted to do, wished he could do more about, and is of course having a big problem.'"

How's that socialism experiment working out for ya, Conyers?

3M CEO: Obama is "anti-business"

3M CEO: Obama is "anti-business" - Feb. 28, 2011:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The head of industrial conglomerate 3M (MMM, Fortune 500) blasted the president as being 'anti-business,' claiming Obama has not done anything to improve the White House's relationship with Corporate America.
3M CEO George Buckley called Obama's policies 'Robin Hood-esque' and told the Financial Times that manufacturers like 3M may have to shift production to other countries in order to stay competitive. 'We know what his instincts are ... he is anti business,' Buckley said in an interview that ran late Sunday."

Its about time someone called out the current administration. Destroying businesses is NOT the way to create jobs. The big boys will simply move their factories and offices overseas, where labor is cheap and governments actually, ahem, help businesses to succeed. Smaller businesses don't stand a chance, and since small businesses are (were) the largest employers - say goodbye to whatever hopes are left of an economic recovery.

But our government does everything in its power, from over-regulation to over-taxation, to shut down any and every kind of business within the US. What kind of fiscal genius would even think of taxing a company out of business? Isn't it commonsense to realize that shutting down a business also shuts down the tax revenue stream? Commonsense, apparently, is uncommon in D.C.

Small business lending slashed by $43 billion last year

Small business lending slashed by $43 billion last year - Feb. 11, 2011:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The numbers back up what small business owners have been saying for two years: Main Street suffered a brutal credit crunch.
The total value of outstanding loans to small businesses plunged by $43 billion, or 6.2%, between June 2009 and June 2010, according to a report released this week by the Small Business Administration. That's a drop of $59 billion, or 8.3%, from June 2008."

Oh look, the SBA took just two years to recognize the obvious. The banks have contributed to (if not been totally responsible for) the current "economy". By throttling small businesses by withholding loans, they have squashed tens of thousands of businesses and cost millions of jobs. And all this in spite of the generous "bailouts" that the Obama administration has showered on them, which of course was squandered on generous bonuses and raises to the banks' top management. As small businesses crash and burn, the big corporations quietly swoop in and corner their market. Of course they have no problem getting loans from the banks, in addition to sitting on hundreds of billions in cash.

"The Small Business Jobs Act, passed in September, authorized the creation of a $30 billion fund run by the Treasury Department that offers ultra-cheap capital to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. The idea is that pumping capital into small banks will get money in the hands of Main Street businesses."


And the Obama administration's solution to this? Oh great, yet another bailout. Thirty billion was a nice New Year bonus, don'tcha think? The cash never made it beyond the banks payroll. Thirty big-big ones for American taxpayers to cough up, again.

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.

Survey of business economists shows improved jobs outlook

Survey of business economists shows improved jobs outlook - Jan. 24, 2011:
"Economists see more hiring on the way
By Charles Riley, staff reporter
January 24, 2011: 11:16 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- In another sign of a strengthening economy, U.S. companies say they are planning to hire more workers, and expect economic growth to pick up in the first months of 2011, according to a survey released Monday.
The National Association for Business Economics said the hiring outlook for the next six months is at a 12-year high."

How about that! Will the sun peep out over the job market horizon, at long last? With a new Congress in D.C. and the promises of supporting small businesses in the coming year(s), is this really a turning point for the jobs market in the US?

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.

Companies hire at slow pace for 3rd straight month

"The Associated Press: Companies hire at slow pace for 3rd straight month:
Companies showed a lack of confidence about hiring for a third straight month in July, making it likely the economy will grow more slowly the rest of the year. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent.
Private employers added a net total of only 71,000 jobs in July, far below the 200,000 or more jobs needed each month to reduce the unemployment rate.
The modest gains were even weaker when considering a loss of government jobs at the local, state and federal levels in July that weren't temporary census positions. Factoring those in, the net gains were only 12,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department's July report Friday."

Month after month, the Labor Dept. takes us on this rollercoaster of 'jobs' 'no jobs'. The good news, the unemployment rate did not go up. The bad news, the unemployment rate did not go down. Now even the Government seems to be getting in on the action of "losing jobs", granted that most States are nearly bankrupt, but its still an atrocious bit of news. What kind of an example is Uncle Sam setting by laying off its own employees? Jobs = taxes; NO jobs = NO taxes; a simple enough formula that no one in DC seems to have a grasp on.

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.

May jobs report: statistical skulldugery

May jobs report: Unemployment lower - Jun. 4, 2010:
"May jobs report: Census boosts payrolls
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A flood of temporary Census workers in May led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years, the government reported Friday.
Employers added 431,000 jobs in the month, up from 290,000 jobs added in April. It was the biggest gain in jobs since March 2000.
Census hiring was responsible for 411,000 of May's increase in employment, but private sector employers also added 41,000 jobs in the period. Government payrolls other than Census declined by 21,000 jobs in May."


More statistical juggling from Washington. Census "jobs" are NOT jobs. They are extremely temporary situations. Real "jobs" are full-time, long term, paying at least the industry average, and offer benefits.

The last sentence it that article says it all:
"But the problem of long-term unemployment continued to worsen as those out of work more than six months rose to a record 6.8 million, or nearly half of all unemployed workers."

And even those jobs that qualify as "jobs" have problems:

Say goodbye to full-time jobs with benefits
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Jobs may be coming back, but they aren't the same ones workers were used to.
Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.
In 2005, the government estimated that 31% of U.S. workers were already so-called contingent workers. Experts say that number could increase to 40% or more in the next 10 years."

The situation is obviously bad, unfortunately the one Government agency that is supposed to understand the issue, the Dept. of Labor, obviously does not.

glimmers-of-hope-for-grads: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

"Glimmers-of-hope-for-grads: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance:
This spring's college graduates face better job prospects than the dismal environment encountered by last year's grads. But that doesn't mean the job market is thriving.

Average starting salaries are down, and employers plan to make only 5 percent more job offers to new graduates this spring compared to last spring, when job offers were down 20 percent from 2008 levels, according to a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks recruitment data."

It's hard for newcomers into the workforce to compete with the long line of currently unemployed, especially since those out of work will already have years of experience padding their resumes.

Why a $14/hour employee costs $20

Why a $14/hour employee costs $20 - Mar. 26, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You probably cost your boss a lot more than you think you do.

For Jim Garland, who owns a corporate aircraft cleaning and support services company, a $14 per hour worker has a true cost of $19.63 per hour, or about 40% more than base pay. This so-called 'loaded rate' includes fixed expenses -- federal and state taxes, health insurance, workman's compensation, uniforms, and paid time off -- along with soft costs like the time spent training a new hire.


Washington's lawmakers are throwing a lot of ammo at reducing the jobless rate, including a new tax break for hiring the unemployed. But no matter what incentives the government offers, it's hard to convince business owners to hire until they're absolutely certain they need to. Employees are often the most expensive investment a business makes."

The article only partially exposes the hidden employer costs per employee. Depending on the number of employees and the State, the "overhead" can almost equal the salary amount taken home. Taxes are only part of the cost. Ridiculous unemployment and disability insurance premiums (such as in New York City/State) can often force small employers to NOT hire more workers, since these cost would exceed any increase in revenue due to up-sizing their workforce. And now with the mandatory health insurance requirements, many small firms are probably looking to get below the cap of 50 full-time workers which may further increase unemployment in the US and hamper economic recovery.

Financial Times article on unemployment

"American monumental job losses
By Clive Crook
Published: May 24 2010 03:00
Last updated: May 24 2010 03:00
Unemployment in the US is high not just by its own past standards but by international standards, too, which is doubly strange. Figures also show a startling rise in long-term unemployment, to levels previously associated with Europe's broken labour markets.


In April the number of Americans looking for work for more than six months rose to 6.7m, roughly half of all those unemployed. Such a high proportion is unprecedented: the long-term share has previously reached a quarter at most. Terms for the stickiness of high unemployment such as hysteresis and sclerosis have preoccupied students of Europe's economies. They have not come up so much in discussions of US joblessness, but this may change.

Are these just signs that this recession has been exceptionally severe, or is something even worse going on? Can the US expect the rapid recovery in employment it has experienced coming out of previous recessions? On closer examination, US labour-market exceptionalism has not disappeared - but it is not what it used to be."

Comparing ourselves to Europe is hardly a valid yardstick to measure results by. Europeans don't buy overpriced SUVs and truck-like vehicles - US consumers do. The economy in the US is largely driven by the consumer, producing the product keeps the money "in the family". Importing Chinese made junk and Mexican automobiles is contrary to common sense, since you're paying someone else to do it - and they are NOT buying your products.