Here's "The Rush," Mika: 600,000 Jobs Lost In January

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:02:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Devastating jobs numbers:

The country moved into its second year of uninterrupted job losses last month, with companies shedding another 598,000 jobs and the unemployment rate moving up to 7.6 percent, the Labor Department reported on Friday. . . . Employers in the United States have shed jobs every month since January 2008, for an aggregate decline in payroll employment of 3.1 million.

While the Beltway "bipartisan" BSers fiddle, anyone sentient and living in this world knows we need bold and substantial government intervention:

Ian Shepherdson, chief North American economist for High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y., said the government had become the only source of energy left to break the cycle of slumping demand for goods and falling production. “The public sector needs to act,” Mr. Shepherdson wrote in a note to clients. “It needs to prevent an endless spiral of attempts to increase saving, leading to reduced spending, leading to reduced incomes, leading to further attempts to raise savings, and so on.”

Will the Beltway "bipartisan" BSers stop fiddling now?

Speaking for me only

< "What's The Rush?" | Leading Beltway "Bipartisan" BSer Ignatius Gives Up On Post Partisan Unity Schtick >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Here's "The Rush," Mika: 600,000 Jobs Lost In January | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Trim the stimulus? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:18:54 AM EST

I read in the NYT about a bipartisan effort underway to trim the stimulus package. I expect opposition from the Republican's. Unlike Obama. they don't think the opposition has "a lot of good ideas". What I can't accept are the Democrat's that are joining them.

Where were all these voices when they gave a lame duck president, with a 20% approval rating, a trillion with no strings to the banking industry? Where were they when Bush repeatedly came back for billions of dollars for Iraq. Why are they now becoming these great fiscal comservatives? At a time when we need government spending the most, suddenly they want to play games.

mod GOPers (none / 0) (#10)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:33:04 AM EST

thei brilliant plan is to cut the education money, you know those pesky children wanting to LEARN shame on them! they shoulod just shoulder our share of the enormous debt and dig ditches !

shortsighted of the GOP IMO, these kids will be paying off the debt, they need educaiton more han evah!

my family employment is ok where we are b/c out voters did a bond override for capital investments so the kids would have computers in the schools, but the states are gutting everything they can, without this stimulus fed education money we are in trouble all over public schools in America,.,,

and the ONLY two jobs that increased in this horrendous jobs report were in health care and education...dont kill the only growing jobs GOP!!


: the republicans in the senate (none / 0) (#27)
by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:32:27 AM EST

have specifically targeted the aid to the states: They have said they don't want the states being in charge of the spending.

mo mods are comign! housing with a nifty title! (none / 0) (#1)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:09:18 AM EST

oh thank GOD:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062009/business/home_loan_assist_153811.htm

SOMETHING for HOUSING!!!!!

In a nod to Main Street over Wall Street, sources familiar with the plan say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner plans to allocate almost half of the remaining $350 billion in funds from the Trouble Asset Relief Program to the so-called "Mo Mod," or mortgage modification, platform.
"Mo Mod" is an algorithmic mortgage processing program that can rewrite up to 500,000 loans a month, and will be a major part of Treasury's plan to help repair tattered bank balance sheets.
The 21-day "Mo Mod" program works by structuring a new mortgage that more accurately reflects a home's worth so that a troubled borrower no longer owes more on their home than the property is worth.
The process then enables a lender to pool these new mortgages together into securities that reflect more accurately a home's value, which makes them less risky for investors.

Unemployement and foreclosures (none / 0) (#2)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:11:10 AM EST

to tie to our thread :0)

the floor better get under housing right quick, as the unemployment pushes more homeowners over the edge into default so it is related to the stimulus

boost employment
fix housing
then CONFIDENCE for consumer demand

dont kill number three to pass number one which is I think what we are in danger of doing now

just tell the people why we need it calmly without sky falling analogies please team obama!

when CEOs are scared they lay more of us off!


: The CEOs (none / 0) (#24)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:25:09 AM EST

when CEOs are scared they lay more of us off!
They do that to protect their own bonuses. The board will be generous if the CEO kept the profits high by cutting the staff.

Since January 2008 (none / 0) (#4)
by ding7777 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:23:16 AM EST

over 4 million boomers reached the age of 62, with 10,000 more reaching that milestone on a daily basis.

These 62 plus boomers are not going to be looking to re-enter the job market as a full time worker.

They are also taking their 401(k) with them. (probably depositing it in the neighborhood bank with CD rates)

Really? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:27:46 AM EST

I think you'd be surprised to find out how many people are looking to remain in the job market, after what's happened to their retirement savings.

I'm not even clear on what you're trying to argue here. We shouldn't be worried about unemployment numbers, because they include 4 million people who are going to retire anyway?


GEN X (none / 0) (#9)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:30:28 AM EST

My gen is about to be told we have to work even longer before we can retire too, SS reform..

we cant retire, people who thought they could retire opened their 401k ira stmts in the past year and see their retirement account is for many wiped out

we may all be working much longer than we thought...


: Broadly speaking, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:49:45 AM EST

"retirement" was a concept that applied to Americans born between the 1890s and the mid-1940s. The rest of us will be working for a very long time. That cohort includes the unfairly maligned baby boomers.

What 401k? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:45:29 AM EST

A 65 yr old in our office tried to retire - we had his cake and everything - the week before the market crash in September. He was back to work, unretired, the next week.

Sorry, most boomers are not leaving their jobs anytime soon.


Gosh, ding (none / 0) (#26)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:31:03 AM EST

you must not be in that generation. The 401k retirement funds are in the stock market. The stock market hasn't been doing so well. The number of boomers who retired the day they turned 62...you know that number?

Boomers are not retiring when they had planned, and hoped. They are still a few years away from 65 when most will start to retire. Word on the news now is that most will be working into their 70's.


Saving bad? (none / 0) (#5)
by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:25:39 AM EST

Saving isn't the problem.

Perhaps saving too much could be a problem, but I doubt our national savings rate is in the top ten even now. Americans have historically saved less and acquired more debt than other countries. What's keeping us from spending isn't a surplus of saving, it's an overload of debt.

(Why do I hear echoes of Bush? "Go shopping, Americans! Go forth and consume!".)

: The Thrift Paradox (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:29:17 AM EST

Krugman describes it.

el erian (none / 0) (#7)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:28:56 AM EST

of PIMCO says we need Shock and Awe !!!

: Shock and Awe (none / 0) (#11)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:43:23 AM EST

HERE IS THE VIDEO
CNBC: "The big loss of jobs will push the Obama administration to do more, says Mohamed El-Erian, Pimco co-chief investment officer co/CEO"

Susan Collins Cuts to the Stimulus/// (none / 0) (#13)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:53:49 AM EST

here is where they are cutting!!! sounds like Obama s broadband and education are getting slammed...via politico

WHERE THINGS STAND: Moderates look like they're on the verge of a breakthrough if Harry Reid can contain appropriators. As David Herszenhorn reports in The New York Times: "By early evening, aides said the group had drafted a list of nearly $90 billion in cuts, including $40 billion in aid for states, more than $14 billion for various education programs, $4.1 billion to make federal buildings energy efficient and $1.5 billion for broadband Internet service in rural areas. But they remained short of a deal, and talks were expected to resume Friday morning."

Obama needs to reject this out of hand (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:54:44 AM EST

: We'll See (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:28:07 PM EST

Reid said Obama "instructed" him to work with the bipartisan group of senators [which unfortunately includes Nelson], but he rejected calls from some senators to overhaul the bill. "If they think they're going to rewrite the bill, Barack Obama is going to walk away," he said.
we'll see. he is acting tougher than usual.
via digby

If they could only remove the 60 odd (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:01:54 AM EST

billion in infrastructure spending and get the money for a dog park (if it was ever taken out) back in there, we'll be golden.


: I think you've got it! (none / 0) (#18)
by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:52:33 AM EST

Will no one think of the poor dogs?

Where does the government get the 900 billion? (none / 0) (#16)
by Saul on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:29:16 AM EST

Do they have it on hand or do they have to borrow it to get it.? If they have to borrow it who will lend it to them? How quick could they get that amount loaned to them.

Borrowed. (none / 0) (#17)
by lobary on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:45:49 AM EST

Every cent of it. As bad as the economy is, the U.S. government still has strong credit.


From whom is it borrowed (none / 0) (#19)
by Saul on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:25:59 AM EST

Other nations (none / 0) (#20)
by lobary on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:48:52 AM EST

China, Russia, Japan, etc.


: This is just assumed out of hand (none / 0) (#22)
by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:07:02 AM EST

We've been borrowing against our good name for decades and yes the money is there now but if this doesn't work then what?
Nobody seems to be wanting to even discuss this. If it doesn't work we'll be paying it off untial...as Keyenes is found of saying...we're all dead.

: with $380 billion in interest - it boggles the (none / 0) (#25)
by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:30:26 AM EST

mind!

Warning about borrowing... (none / 0) (#23)
by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:10:36 AM EST

By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the value of all that Americans have saved and acquired. For now the inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and significantly higher inflation.

Food for thought


Sad to say, but having to eat at my capital (none / 0) (#28)
by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:32:59 AM EST

because of the 1% in revenue that I'm getting on my investments - it's going to be extra slim pickings for 2009, I'm looking forward to a little inflation!


I'd like to see (none / 0) (#29)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:33:51 AM EST

the Bush and Cheney financial portfolio's.


No doubt (none / 0) (#31)
by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:47:42 AM EST

the Bush/Cheney money is appropriately parked to avoid all this chaos.


: hardly (none / 0) (#33)
by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:35:45 PM EST

They are admittedly doing better then most but there is now where to hide your money in this market unless you buy gold bars and put them in your basement.
I am an investor and I know no one who isn't down 1/3 to 40% in this market. It's simply impossible to make money right now. The only thing you can do is lose as little as possible which in this market is making money... :-(
Capatilism is a wonderful thing but with gains come the inevitable losses. We are paying a high price now for inflated gains.
Let the markets work and this will be over quicker then if we try to borrow our way out of it.
If you where about to loose your house because you couldn't pay your mortagage would you call a loan shark to pay it off? That's what the government is planning to do.

When all is said and done (none / 0) (#30)
by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:56 AM EST

the taxpayers are the bag holders. The "Gubbermint" borrows the "money" and makes us the ultimate guarantors while they get off scott free from any risk and liability.

Quite a scam when you really think about it.
