home

651K Jobs Lost In Feb; Unemployment Rate Hits 8.1%, Highest In 25 Years

It was just announced that the US economy lost 651,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate hit 8.1%, the highest rate in 25 years. But the Media and the Beltway Gasbags still have time for the silliness of Limbaugh and $1.7 million to study pig odors. The disconnect is stunning.

Speaking for me only

< Still Dithering | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:02:15 AM EST
    Just saw that my home state of Michigan has an unemployment rate of 11.6% and lost 53,000 manufacturing jobs in January.

    This is not a recession - it's nearing a depression.  At least - this makes me depressed.

    In The Great Depression (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:21:28 AM EST
    the Okies fled the Dust Bowl for California.

    Now parts of the west coast are suffering water shortages...so where's the land of plenty destination this go-around?

    I can't offer Ohio - we've got water and housing is cheap but jobs are scarce.  Mexico is out unless you want a job with the cartels.  I suppose there's always a job for someone willing to become a migrant agriculture worker - at least the weather would be warm.

    Parent

    CA unemployment rate is currently (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:22:55 AM EST
    over 10%  

    Parent
    Wow. Really? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    Construction?  Silicon jobs?

    Parent
    We aren't spending enough on (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    clothes, cars, eating out, etc. per LAT:

    Los Angeles Times

    Parent

    Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    The entertainment industry (as in the manufacturing end of it) is cutting back.  Whatever happened to people going to the movies?  Of course, back in TGD(thegreatdepression) they didn't have as many entertainment options that we do now.

    Most of those sectors of the economy haven't seen much money from me in ages.  It must be those other folks! ;-)

    I never did understand why the Adult Entertainment Industry didn't make a ton of money for California.  I've always been under the impression that they had a domestic monopoly.

    Parent

    A lot of movies are being (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    filmed in Canada, Eastern Europe, and other places, purportedly because CA tax hit it higher.  Also cutbacks in projects that might have been a go a year or two ago.  

    Parent
    Not just other countries, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    also places like NM, NC, etc. I hear some big now-empty ex-auto plants, or somesuch, are being converted to sound stages in MI.

    CA just passed a production tax credit that is supposed to offset the tax credits other states/countries have been offering for years.

    Hopefully that'll help bring back some of the runaway production.

    Parent

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    which usually releases the final numbers for each month late in the following month has put off releasing the finalized "January" numbers until March 11th.

    With the miserable preliminary February numbers already released, the "almost miserable" official January numbers might not look so bad when they get around to publishing them.

    Putting off releasing numbers (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:26:17 AM EST
    is so Bushish, and if we are in a crisis situation it would seem that people need to wake up?  Putting off releasing numbers allows us all to sleep in while the snooze keeps going off.

    Parent
    I think the irony here is that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    the only people who don't seem to be aware of how bad it really is out in the real world are those ensconsed in government and in the financial world.  For me the numbers offer nothing by way of surprise - only validation of what I have been seeing and hearing from family and friends.

    Just last month I went to a local photo store that I've patronized for nearly 20 years and realized that the manager of the store had probably been there more than ten years - sort of surprising at these sorts of stores.  Last week I noticed that the store was gone.  Poof.  Totally gone.  That's five or six jobs gone.  Now we'll see how many months it takes for that storefront to be rented.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    I don't know if this may be a regular occurrence with January numbers. In late February they released the final annual state and regional figures for 2008 when they would normally release previous month figures. The website statement just gave the date for the January release as March 11 without stating why they are later than normal.

    Parent
    If they were going to look (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    less miserable by any standard, they would have released them. They are probably at least as bad as Feb.

    Parent
    I am graduating with an MA in (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    Public History in a few months and am really worried about getting a job. I'm considering applying to PhD programs, just so I'll have somewhere to go.

    this is definitely a trend, as job markets tank, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    for those who can to stay in school.

    Others are opting for things like the Peace Corps or the military.

    Parent

    Peace Corps (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    is my plan for when I graduate next Spring- I had planned on working for a year or two to pay off the non-Subsidized Federal Loans, but right now with the job market I'll make far more progress taking the $10,000 loan pay off after two years (rumored to be on track to double as part of Obama's public service push- either outright by giving 20,000- or by allowing the service to be applied to the 2500 a semester grants for public service).  Honestly, even in the mid-90s you'd make probably more loan progress with Peace Corps service than through private sector employment in all but a very few 4 year degress (engineering and CS are basically the only two that would offer high-paying non-career jobs- I specify non-career because you can't exactly take a teaching postion, quit in two or three years and expect to get a similar job in that field post-Grad).  

    The sad thing is with the market the way it is I may end up going Law School over International Relations post-grad anyway, it could just be too volatile to pursue a foriegn service job in the next decade.

    Parent

    Imagine (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    if you had a family to support and no extended family with the resources to help.

    Parent
    Check out Teach America. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    Do the Peace Corps (none / 0) (#44)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    Its my plan atm and if you can think about it after Bush we need the international version of the CCC just to return our nation to the post-Clinton equilibrium.

    Parent
    The Dow is down 281 points (none / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:10:51 AM EST
    and the stock market just opened.  This might be the worst day ever.

    The market opens at 9:30. Those (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:13:08 AM EST
    are yesterday's numbers. For what it's worth (not much) futures are actually up right now.

    Parent
    Which stock market are you following? (none / 0) (#4)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:14:45 AM EST
    It is not 9:30 yet.

    Parent
    C'mon bro.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    worse than the morning of Sept. 11th?  worse then the shock and awe invasion of Iraq?  

    It's just gamblers losing money and a few making money...keep it in persepective.  It's real, but it is not REAL...ya know?

    Parent

    "Put is all on red" that's gambling. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:43:21 AM EST
    Buying shares of the largest companies in the world and holding them for decades isn't the same thing.  I'm not going to look down on someone who bought GE in 1993 as some kind of irresponsible speculator.

    Parent
    It is the same thing... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    the only differenece is roulette isn't rigged.

    Parent
    Kdog... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    I think you are confusing investing with trading....two very different animals.

    Parent
    I don't think so.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:41:53 AM EST
    investing in GE is akin to investing in a spin of the wheel in my eyes...you're gambling that it will be worth more than you paid when you need the money and go to sell.  

    iow, It's like a roulette spin that takes 20-30 years to complete....but it is still a spin.

    And just because GE was a good gamble in the past doesn't mean its a lock...there are no locks.  Not even govt. bonds are a lock.

    Parent

    If you put all your money into (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    one company then I would agree with you. That's why you diversify and the older you are (closer to retirement) the more conservative your portfolio should be. For most people who aren't making fat paychecks they need the little bit of money they are saving to grow so they can have a comfortable retirement.

    Parent
    I hear you... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    there are smarter gambles than others, but even a diversified portfolio is gambling vml.

    I know what people were led to believe...that the market would make money out of money for you, a diversified 401k is better than a pension, we can all be in the ownership society with the help of a financial adviser.  I just don't buy it, I never bought it.  What I believe is gambling is gambling and you don't bet what you can't afford to lose.  And you don't bet on games you don't understand....unless its just for fun.

    Parent

    Life is a gamble, kdog..... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    Crossing the street, eating something slightly past it's expiration date, flying, etc., but we do it 'cos the odds are in our favor....ditto re investing.
    there are smarter gambles than others, but even a diversified portfolio is gambling vml.


    Parent
    Life is a gamble... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:47:09 AM EST
    an absolute truth if there ever was one...thats what I'm saying kid:)

    It sucks to lose...but when you lose don't act like you weren't gambling.  Don't try and tell me a diversified portfolio of blue chips is any different fundamentally than putting it all on red....the proof is in the financial section of today's paper.

    Parent

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:19:01 AM EST
    I saw that on Yahoo news which keeps a running tab on the Dow.  I thought the market opened at 9.00 am ET

    I think you're right when the market does open (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:21:25 AM EST
    we will all probably wish that it hadn't today.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:22:21 AM EST
    the market looks to be opening a little higher than yesterday's close.

    Parent
    Will it hold with the unemployment news? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    Aren't these probably heldover orders?

    Parent
    The market went up on the last (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    report which was worse than expected.  The economic punditry explained that Wall Street was happy to see the cuts in businesses because it meant that they were adjusting.

    There are a multitude of reasons why taking one's cues from this stock market based solely on their ups or downs on a given day is not a good idea and this is just one of them.  Some people say that the financial markets are "rational", I think they're crazy.  The traders think in terms of minutes and hours and quarterly reports.  They are in it to make their money that day and don't care what that might mean to their prospects for tomorrow.  There is nothing rational about looking exclusively at the short-term while completely ignoring the long-term.

    Parent

    I don't know if the DOW will end up (none / 0) (#13)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    for the day but for now the futures are still positive even with the unemployment news.

    Parent
    I wonder if part of the (none / 0) (#20)
    by dk on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    media nonesense is a result of Obama's media darling status.  As BTD has pointed out in post after post this morning, the Obama administration's efforts on the economy so far are best dithering and inadequate, and at worst is headed down the road to epic failure.  Yet the media fails to discuss this.  Perhaps they worry that writing anything critical of Obama's policies will be unpopular?  Or perhaps they are blinded by their own admiration of him and are unable to think critically?

    He is getting tons of criticism at (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    the moment.  The problem is that the majority of people who are criticizing him have an agenda which is not in line with actually solving the problem - their agenda is to destroy his credibility - I can't say he isn't helping them by being so timid - but the real issue is that the media is not provoking an honest debate about what to do about banks or any other problem - they are engaging in the ideological debate about "socialism" and the "national debt".  It is really scary given the high stakes we face as a nation.

    Parent
    I agree that he (none / 0) (#24)
    by dk on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    is not getting much reasoned criticism by people who have a large bullhorn.  But, I disagree with you that he is getting tons of criticism.  At least certainly not from the mainstream media.  They are still gaga over him and unwilling/unable to perform their duties as the fourth estate.  

    Parent
    Always have to pay attention to who is (none / 0) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.
    Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

    criticizing whom. The Republicans may well be seeing positives for themselves in all this.


    Parent

    Of course, but the fact (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dk on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    that Republicans may criticize the Obama administration's economic policies from destructive and self-interested motives is not an excuse for the media's inability/unwillingness to critize Obama's dithering and explain to the American people why it is woefully inadequate and could lead to epic failure.

    This country has suffered under teflon presidents before.  Look at Reagan.

    Parent

    Well, you're sort of asking for (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    a media we all wish we had - one that was capable of independent thought/analysis and unbiased reporting without the aid of talking points from either side of the aisle.  We do not have that in this country anymore.  Our media is profit-driven and therefore much more of a stakeholder in possible outcomes than they might have been in the days when outfits like the television news groups were shielded from concerns about profits and ratings.  Not that it has ever been perfect, but it has been better than it is now.

    I've seen plenty of griping about Obama.  What I haven't seen is reporting on the situation.  That would be constructive though and mostly the agenda held by a lot of these media outlets is to destroy Obama and they really don't care about what it does to the rest of us.  

    Some people thought that the power struggle ended last November, but I contend that we haven't begun to see what we are up against.  There are numerous things that I think that the Obama Administration could be doing better, but we are still stuck in a public debate about whether or not he should be doing anything at all which feeds his and Geithner's instincts to be timid on this front.  I am surprised (and at the same time not) that team Obama are this easily manipulated.

    Now the Budget bill is stalled - it is being perjoratively called a "spending" bill by the networks - people are up in arms about earmarks - the government will shut down if the Congress does not manage to pass the bill - and that stimulus that everyone is talking about - that's dead too if there is no government to administer the funding - all in all I think the GOP is doing a bang up job of setting Obama up to fail.  

    Meanwhile, I have not seen a single media report on the stalled budget that details what the stakes are if the bill doesn't pass and the government has to shut down.  I know Social Security checks go out next week - or they don't if the government is closed for business.  All they want to do is talk breathlessly about the earmarks and what a hypocrite Obama is for wanting the bill to just get through Congress so he can sign it.  No mention of the fact that a shutdown could do even more dammage to the economy or that an earmark to have twenty dollar bills dropped from a plane over some congresscritter's district would actually not be the worst thing that ever happened under the present economic conditions we are dealing with.  Nope it is all twisted, hypocritical and ideological nonsense set out in talking points that are designed to bring on more failure and more collapse because the powerful want to hold onto their power.

    Parent

    What media would criticize him (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    We have no left media with the exception of guys like Krugman, the vast majority of the media think Obama is too far to the left and too extreme- see Newsweek's "We're all socialists now?" cover. The shift in the Overton window is striking- Obama is by almost any rational analysis a centrist, and yet because of the national shift- he's also the most left-wing president since Carter (Clinton was great on the economy but no truthful accounting of his admin pegs him to the left- he was pushed just like Obama by more left wing congressmen, and buffered to the right by more right-leaning Dems).

    Heck if we're going to be truly honest LBJ was the last FDR-style Liberal Dem- Even Carter as liberal as he was, was a Post-1964 Southern Dem. The truly amazing thing is that Nixon tried more New Dealish recession recovery stuff than Clinton or Obama could even dare to do (despite being a right-winger who I believe examined SS privitization at one point); I mean price controls- my god if Bill or Barack had tried/ try to push something like that even Broadcast news will play the Soviet anthem to introduce the clips.

    Parent

    The Republicans are trying to (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dk on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    brand Obama as a socialist, sure, but the mainstream media, for the most part, is doing no such thing.  They praise him for his bi-partisanship.  They praise him for his statements that he does not want to nationalize the banks because it isn't part of "our culture".

    He is still a media darling, and inasmuch as that prevents good journalists from doing their job of showing why Obama's current centrist proposals are leading us down the road to ruin, that is a problem.

    Parent

    If there's a bright spot in the numbers (none / 0) (#27)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    It's that for the second month in a row the rate of new unemployment filings has gone down. Slightly, but down. Previously it had been going up 50-100% each report.

    And, the number of unemployed who have gone (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    beyond their benefits are going up.

    Parent
    The Rush thing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    Is the "11-dimensional chess" stuff people were complaining team Obama supposedly had no touch for- if they can frame Limbaugh as the literal voice of the GOP then they can marginalize the Repubs and push through things like Health Care reform- Obama learned the lessons of the Clinton Admin's one great failure- they're setting the stage ahead of time in order to push it through.