New Jobless Claims Jump To 474K


The number of people applying for unemployment benefits surged last week to the highest level in eight months, a sign that the job market continues to struggle to gain any momentum.

The Labor Department said Thursday that applications rose by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ended April 30, the third increase in four weeks. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose for the fourth consecutive week to 431,250.

< The Killing Of bin Laden, Torture And The Laws Of War | CNN Poll: Trump Replaces Palin As The Obama Team's Dream Opponent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Another (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    example of supply side economics not working. Obama should fire his economic advisors. They've proven worthless beyond a shadow of a doubt but I don't know if even doing that work because Obama is a supply sider himself.

    Yup, ZERO LOWER BOUND (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    As Krugman said today, he's the one trying to apply conventional macroeconomics. But the Serious People are all running around with crazy ideas like "cut and grow!"

    All the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    "serious people" need to be run out of town IMO.

    pruning his economic (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    staff could lead to more growth.

    Like I (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    prune the spireas in early spring.

    A HARD prune


    I can't remember where I saw this (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    but I read  fascinating article on how innumerate even quants people can be when it comes to thinking about long term growth.
    You don't have to be a genius to know that 4.5% growth over a long number of years leads to astronomical increase--in fact, literally so.
    Nevertheless, quants people in finance were asked the following question and were wildly off:
    Suppose a 1 cubic meter block grows by 4.5% /yr.
    How big would it be after 3000 years?
    Answers ranged from several cubit miles, to the size of the US, to the size of the earth and moon's orbit.
    The correct answer, IIRC, (I worked it out in my head approximately, later) is about 1 cubit light year---definitely orders of magnitude larger than the solar system.
    The point is that the kind of growth which capitalism requires is impossible to sustain.

    How does anyone now Obama is trying to grow jobs? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jawbone on Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:56:46 PM EST
    Serious question. He seems to be doing what the banksters, austerians, ConservaDems, even Repubs want.  I don't see him doing anything about jobs.

    His "stimulus" started out too small and ended up using most of the money for assuage Repubs.

    People need real help. Jobs, NOW.


    While the MSM and the blogs were all (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    about bin Laden, not one person in any of the groups I'm in talked about it at all. Two people (one mid 50s and one in 60s) were discussing that they were about to lose their job or had just lost their job. Others in the groups were rightfully (IMO) talking non stop about how bad the job situation is in this country. The price of gas and food were also big topics.

    Kitchen table economics are IMO going to play the major role in the 2012 elections. As someone once said,

    It's the economy, stupid.

    Seems like that expression has been (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    co-opted and perverted by the savvy elite and the politicians who make it possible for their superior lifestyles to continue; now it's more like:

    This is our economy, stupid; quit whining or we'll give you something to really whine about.

    Very close to "let them eat cake," I think.

    Truly disgusting.


    Obama is going to get dinged for his (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    pandering populism on oil prices, IMO.

    I'm (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    not surprised to hear this since Obama's approval rating only went up 11 pts after finding Bin Laden. I guess the economic numbers are really holding it down.

    As they should. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    No one I know is talking about bin Laden, not at the office, not among my friends, not out and about in the community.

    The media is, of course, all over it, in their own obsessive way; it's as if they've just been soooo bored by the travails of ordinary people, and are thrilled to be part of something that could have come right out of a season of "24."

    It's coming in handy, too, for the scam artists - I mean, the members of Congress - who would prefer that we be distracted from what they're up to.

    Osama's dead: tell me how that will help get people back to work, secure the safety net and bring the banksters to account, and I'll be happy to obsess over him til the cows come home.  Otherwise, the media need to STFU about it and put the spotlight where it can do the most good: the economy, jobs, and the folly of austerity.



    Actually we may be somewhat better off (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    with the media obsessing with bin Laden rather than focusing on the economy. The majority of the media has jumped on the austerity bandwagon and are selling the need to cut or is that gut the entitlement and domestic programs so that the government can give out more tax cuts to corporations and the top 2%.

    Actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    everybody here is talking about OBL but it will only last so long. I imagine by next week or the week after we'll be back to talking about the economy.

    You have to realize too that down here in GA we've been having double digit unemployment for quite a few years so talking about OBL give us something else to talk about besides the economy for once.


    It sucks to exprience so much (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2011 at 06:26:03 PM EST
    success alongside so much failure.  Maybe he needs new economic leadership :)  Sometimes moving the guys into leadership who really know what the battles are and what the real war is about makes all the difference :)

    Indeed indeed you are so right. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    I've been saying this for two days (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    It was my own personal sociology experiment to see when it would finally rise to the surface.  That experiment is over.  It is clearly never going to become water cooler or lunch time conversation.

    Moreover, I take public transportation and I finally heard OBL's name mentioned this morning.  Two young teenage men were talking.  One of them referred to OBL and the other one looked confused.  I don't think he knew who or what OBL was.  That was pretty much the start and end of the conversations.


    Food and gas are killing us (none / 0) (#45)
    by BrassTacks on Fri May 06, 2011 at 02:01:11 AM EST
    We HAVE to eat and we have to have gas but it's getting ridiculous.  No wonder so many people are on food stamps.  How can anyone continue to buy food and gas?  Why are democrats in Congress doing something, or at least talking about it?!! Are they totally unaware of what's happening out here?

    Food shopping last night... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:06:45 AM EST
    back on ground chuck and london broil here, no ground sirloin or flank...even london broil is getting outta my league unless it's on ready to spoil "manager's special".  Forget about chicken breasts...didn't chicken used to be a less expensive meat option to beef?  Luckily I make a mean chicken soup using thighs.

    Food prices are getting really crazy, I hear ya.  

    And when I last checked in on my great-uncle, he said the food pantry at the VA is really hurting.  Then I yelled at him for raiding the VA food pantry, when he's got me to help him out...save that sh8t for the homeless vets!  

    Those depression era cats and their hoarding:)


    We just planted the largest garden (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:32:27 PM EST
    we've ever had: about 20 feet by 150 feet.

    Corn, potatoes, beets, onions, radishes, lettuce, celery, carrots, peas, beans, peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, yellow squash, zucchini, watermelon, cantaloupes, cabbage, broccoli.  Plus herbs, but they're going in the earth boxes on the deck outside the kitchen.  At the back of the house, we've got blueberry bushes, strawberries and raspberries.

    I spend an insane amount of money in the produce section every week, so in addition to being able to eat fresh-picked veggies, we'll also be able to freeze and can for the fall and winter, and make pickles.

    I'm excited, especially to see what kind of yield we get.  The more we can do for ourselves, the better!


    Just curious, (none / 0) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 07, 2011 at 05:33:31 AM EST
    what was the biggest garden you had before this one?

    The reason I'm asking is because when my mother was still alive, she was a gardening nut, and, naturally I had to help out, and man-o-man, was that work!

    I think the hardest chore of all was tending the strawberry patch. We all loved strawberries and in the last years the strawberry section of the garden was the size of an olympic swimming pool. As you probably know, the hardest thing about stawberries is keeping the patch weeded. wow, by the end of the season my hands looked like Popeye's!


    The biggest garden I think we had (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:02:38 AM EST
    before was probably 10 x 20 or so, and that was a few years ago.  And the reason it was smaller had to do with both water and sun - and slope: while we have plenty of ground, the areas that are in full sun and relatively flat are some distance from the house.

    However, my daughter and her boyfriend are living with us now, and he grew up on a farm; he loves to grow things.  So, we scouted out the best spot, one thing led to another, and before you know it, we had 150 feet staked out; and with another 125 feet of hose, we think we'll be able to water.  Or get close enough that the bucket brigade won't be like an Olympic event.

    Go big or go to the grocery store, I guess, lol.

    This is the first year we've grown strawberries, and so far, my husband has been tending to them: so far, so good!


    well, I gotta tell ya (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 07, 2011 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    you don't have a garden, you're in the agri-business, lady.' but, back to the strawberries. I don't remember the exact dimensions of our strawberry patch. All I remember is that it yielded 2 quarts a day during the prime days.

    So, when the weeds start blasting through, like the hair on the legs of an east german women's bench press team (before the fall:)) tell me again how your son-in-law "loves to grow things."



    Well, the strawberry patch is (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Anne on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    not that big - I think it'll be quite manageable; my husband has been getting the weeds with his new Garden Weasel and says it made pretty quick work - but - the berries also haven't started to creep much yet, and that, I imagine, is when it gets challenging, when the only "tools" that get the weeds are at the end of one's wrist!

    And, believe it or not, daughter's boyfriend actually likes to weed.  I don't quite get that, but I'm not going to argue with him!


    Do you have any (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Sat May 07, 2011 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    fruit trees, Anne?  We have several different types of cherries, apples, and peaches.  It's wonderful to have fresh tree fruit.  I can peaches and peach nectar, make cherry jelly and peach jam, freeze cherries, can applesauce, and make quince jelly and quince preserves.  The apples keep well in our root cellar for quite awhile.  With dwarf trees, they really don't take up much room.  I'd love to grow pears, but we have had no success- blight really kills them off around here.  

    No fruit trees, Zorba... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    other than the wild cherries, which are more annoying than anything else, as they hang over the driveway and make a mess when their fruit drops!

    Agree on that one (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    Mr. Zorba cuts them down (the annoying ones) and dries the wood- cherry wood makes excellent fuel for our grill and smoker.

    I see what you mean here (none / 0) (#56)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:21:03 AM EST
    in CA, the cost of prime rib has gone from 5.99/lb to 9.99/lb, and many stores are offering discounts based on buying in bulk quantities.

    Fortunately we've been growing snow peas this year and they've cut our bill for veggies by at least 10-20$ a week, which adds up after a while.

    We've also started baking our own bread, and that saves money as well.


    Times are changing back.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    only Rockefellers will be rockin' prime rib.

    And fruit...Pathmark wanted a dollar per orange...I coulda swore just yesterday it was 3 for a dollar.  Needless to say no oranges in the cart.


    Costco card in your future? (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    Believe me, if you like to eat, and like to have friends over to eat, it is worth the annual fee for the card. You can get a 24-pack of boneless, skinless chicken breasts for less than $40.(At least at the Seattle store you can.) Two to a package, tear off what you need this week, and freeze the rest!

    Sorry about the oranges. :-(


    I woke up this AM to news (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by nycstray on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:33:48 PM EST
    somewhere in the Area we are getting a new Target store and how it would bring much needed jobs. I then realized, I'd heard this a few times in the past yr since I've been here. Aside from Silicon V jobs/tech/gaming/etc*, seems a lot of job growth here has been in new retailers opening. Yay! for cash registers that ring up products manufactured elsewhere! Too bad it's kinda hard to live on the wages . . . .

    Do we know the number that 99ed out during this same time frame?

    *Oh, and theme parks/tourist attractions are seasonal hiring.

    40% of the jobs lost were in (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    high wage jobs. 49% of the new jobs created are in low wage jobs.

    New incentive for children in this day and age. Work hard and you might be able to beat out a million other people to get a job at McDonalds or Target.

    A lot more Wal-marts will have to be built to provide "greeter" jobs for people in the 50s through 70s.


    Americans have not fully grasped (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    what has, and is happening to the economy.  We are going to "live" with a high unemployment rate; many jobs, especially, the better paying jobs are not coming back (savvy businessman have found that those employed will just have to work harder and longer), newly created jobs are lower paying, seasonal or temporary.  Elimination of collective bargaining /unions is among final steps needed to finish off the middle class.  The result: working poor, rich and very, very rich.  

    These changes are happening (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    at the same time that we are heading into a time of scarcity.
    The impact will be brutal. We've had 30 years to plan for a future with diminished natural resources (especially oil) and haven't done a damn thing.

    We don't have a crude oil (1.50 / 2) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    shortage. We have a drilling shortage.



    Please (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    that's not a factual piece. That's an opinion piece from the senator from Alaska.

    Here are some facts (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    not fiction, on "Drill, Baby, Drill":

    US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade.

    As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

    Domestic oil production is soaring, but so are global prices.  It should be obvious that yet more drilling can't have any significant impact on oil prices -- particularly since the U.S. Energy Information Administration has been making that precise point for years now (see EIA: Full offshore drilling will not lower gasoline prices at all in 2020 and only 3 cents in 2030!).

    Climate Progress Link


    An anti oil blog doesn't strike me as (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    a place I would go for information.

    But you think an OpEd by an Alaskan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    Senator would be an objective source of information.


    BTW, they quoted from the Financial Times article, which the last time I checked, isn't an "anti-oil" anything:

    US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of "unconventional" extraction techniques .

    As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

    The rise would still not be enough to end America's dependence on imported oil, which accounted for roughly half of US demand in 2010.

    But it would reduce the country's vulnerability to supply shocks and its trade deficit.

    According to the US government's Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day - its highest level since 2002.

    Financial Times Link

    Fancy that, higher than year 2 of the GWB administration.

    Now, we can face the facts that drilling will cushion shocks and help the BOT, but it doesn't bring down the price of oil or relieve our dependency on it in the slightest.


    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Fri May 06, 2011 at 06:45:30 AM EST
    You prefer Fox News or an opinion piece by an Alaskan Senator, while ignoring the numerous studies and actual experts that show that drilling would decrease gas prices by a few cents in 10-20 years.

    Futures contracts are not based (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    on actual facts. They are based on what the speculators "think" the facts are. Bringing new oil sources on line sets the tone that there are no shortages and there will be no shortages.

    That helps keep prices down.


    Riiiiiiight ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    Because investors are not smart enough to read all of the reports that demonstrate that oil prices are being driven by a huge increase in worldwide demand that will only increase in the next couple of decades, and that increased domestic drilling will have zero/negligible impact on price.  They'll all be scared into submission by the "tone" created when threatened with a miniscule addition to the oil supply in 10-20 years.



    Re:Speculators (none / 0) (#52)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:58:36 AM EST

    Speculators' influence on spot oil prices is dubious at best. Ultimately, on any given day, the supply and demand for oil determine the market price. The large sunk costs incurred by previous capital investment in vehicles, power plants, machines, and equipment that require petroleum for fuel results in highly inelastic demand for oil (i.e. a relatively low impact on demand with changes in price). While oil prices have risen well over 100% in the past year, recent reports suggest that fuel consumption in California has only dropped 4% year over year.

    With the inelasticity of demand established, consumers plead for additional supply. The large capital investments required to locate oil reserves, build oil wells, and construct pipelines for delivery necessitates long lead times before new production can be brought online. A strong opposition to domestic drilling has further exacerbated this growing problem over the past 5 to 10 years. Currently, supply and demand are in such fragile balance that small shocks can send oil prices soaring (or plummeting).

    Speculators, characterized as investors with no intent on taking delivery, have little impact on the market price of oil. If the futures contract expiration date nears and futures are trading rich to the spot price, a speculator could buy oil in the spot market and sell oil futures. When the contract comes due, the speculator would deliver oil to the counterparty of the futures contract, which would be an actual oil consumer. This arbitrage will occur until spot prices and futures prices converge, effectively clearing the market based on supply and demand. Conversely, if spot prices are rich to futures, oil producers would want to sell oil in the spot market at higher prices. That increase in supply will drive spot oil prices down forcing convergence with futures prices.

    Beyond the Margin Link

    Bringing new oil sources on line sets the tone that there are no shortages and there will be no shortages.

    It should be pointed out AGAIN that domestic production has increased since 2008, and we have seen little or no relief in gas prices despite that uptick in production.


    Well, she gave some information that you may not (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    agree with but that doesn't make it wrong or right.

    This makes a great deal of sense.

    Consider this: While our nation's oil "reserves" have never reached 40 billion barrels, we've managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels since 1900. Between 2008 and 2009, America's oil reserves rose more than 8 percent, even as roughly 2 billion barrels were produced. That was made possible by our substantial resource base. Reserves alone have never provided the full picture.

    Water shortages are a huge issue too: (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    already big worldwide, and likely to be acute in the US before long.

    We have an over abundance (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    of speculation by our friends on Wall Street.

    After four months of surging higher, oil prices plummeted by almost 9 percent on Thursday as traders worried that American drivers were beginning to balk at paying nearly $4 a gallon of gasoline.

    The word "speculation" never appears in the article. The closest they get is calling it a "price correction." And a separate analyst says, "The fundamentals have not been strong enough to justify these levels." So I think we can surmise. The oil bubble was getting too big to be sustainable, affecting the broader economy in a variety of ways. So the speculators ran for cover. link

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 06, 2011 at 12:37:00 AM EST
    for the link.

    GOP battles against regulatory measures (actual implementation) again bring misery for the most and fortunes for the few.


    Actually it was Bush who tried to (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    get Fannie and Freddie under control.

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul....since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    ... a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Now, what did the Democrats do? Barney said:

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Link to NYT of 9/11/03


    Yep, a member of the minority party in (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    the House was able to block the Bush Administrations' only chance to get the housing market under control:

    In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.


    n 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told me. "Barney, to some extent, is misunderstood -- with this image of him as a fierce partisan. He is an institutionalist. He believes in the House and in the process. He eschews the grandstanding style that so many members use and prefers to work behind the scenes and get something done."


    In fact, as economist Dean Baker noted: "Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded."

    Media Matter Link

    Yep, they caused the Housing crisis AND lost market share at the same time.

    This is your brain on Fox News.

    Any questions?


    Harry Saxon (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    you are a star.

    "We are entitled to our own (none / 0) (#72)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:18:57 AM EST
    opinion, but not our own facts."

    Daniel P Moynihan

    PPJ thinks that should read:

    "You are entitled to my opinion, supported by my own facts."


    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 10, 2011 at 12:41:11 AM EST
    a conservative would be 'factual' if he/she were to say:

    'You are entitled to my opinion, supported by my own FANTASIES."


    Let me see.... 9% would be around 35 cents (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 05, 2011 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    on the price of gasoline.

    Anybody wanna bet me it will take less than a month to see the drop?


    Tell that to Saudi Arabia (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    yup. that's kinda what I was thinking (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    this AM. depressing.

    This time of year we are supposed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    to be in full new jobs swing.  This is very disturbing.

    The Effect of State Budget Cuts (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by john horse on Thu May 05, 2011 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    What we might be witnessing is the effect of state budget cuts.  As this excellent article from the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities illustrates, 31 states have cut public health programs, 29 states have cut programs for the elderly/disabled, 34 states have cut K-12 education,43 states have cut higher education programs, and 44 states have cut their state workforce.  For those of us who believe in Keynesian economics, these cuts make the economy worse, by decreasing demand.  One of the reasons that Krugman wanted a much stronger federal economic stimulus was to counter what state governments were doing (and in many cases are required to do by their state constitutions).

    I hope history does not repeat itself.  FDR's New Deal programs were starting to get us out of the Great Depression until the government changed course in the late 1930's and became more concerned with balancing the budget.  We then slid back into the economic depression.

    Got all sorts of momentum (none / 0) (#1)
    by TJBuff on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:45:02 AM EST

    Explanation (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    Explanation for this high rate:  All the intelligence analysts who were laid off once they found Bin Laden.

    <Bad joke>.

    I see in my state that Amazon is opening a new fulfillment center, for 300 new jobs... Of course, those jobs are purported to pay about $12/hr -- but with benefits! Unfortunately, it would be better probably if they cut the benefits and paid a living wage instead.  You can't eat health insurance...

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    look at it this way: The jobs that we are getting in GA are $8.00 an hour and NO benefits. So, yeah, while you might be better of salary-wise with benefits, it doesn't mean the companies aren't just going to give up that money.

    And dopey Mayor Bloomberg.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    gives the "taxi of the future" contract to Nissan, when a Turkish carmaker agreed to manufacture the "taxi of the future" right here in Brooklyn as part of their bid.  What big shot at Nissan is tight with Bloomy I wonder?

    I guess Bloomberg's "NYC of the Future" will only have three kinds of jobs...white collar grifting, private sector service, or public sector grifting and/or service...who needs quality blue collar manufacturing jobs anyway?  

    Well, those Japanese vehicles (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    are, of late, particularly energy efficient.  They just keep running and the glow makes them easy to see at night--the only problem is trying to turn them off;)

    Ba dum dum... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    Well played sir.

    Woulda been cool to make cars in NY though...make something...anything.

    Related Bloomberg the Buffoon...trying to emminent domain all the blue collar jobs around what was formerly known as Shea Stadium to turn 'em into hotel porter, retail clerk, and burger flipper jobs.  And in fairness, some construction jobs building the shopping/hotel/whatever complex he wants...till it's built, then just sh*t jobs left to replace the decent ones and the small business entrepenuers emminent domained outta there.

    He's the poster mayor for the Two Americas.


    Disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 06, 2011 at 12:52:49 AM EST
    Why not go to American manufacturers.

    The new taxis look like modified mini-vans in the photos I saw.

    I really boil over Bloomberg type liberals.  

    Disgusting.  A demonstration of the low regard that some types of liberals have for industrial workers.


    I believe the term... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:49:44 AM EST
    is "limosuine liberal"...and I agree, give me a working class conservative anyday.  I may vehemently disagree but at least I can relate.

    Funny that (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    My sister, who also lives here in DC and works in politics, always gets on her friends who work for Democratic members of Congress and who all drive Japanese cars. They blubber around and say things like "but...but..." and the tired and disproven lines like "They have better quality!" (No, they really don't).

    Only certain classes of Democrats and their issues are worthy of putting their money where their mouths are.


    Full disclosure... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    I rock a japanese car...not proud of it, but best price on a used jalopy I found at the time.

    Yes I'm part of the problem...I'll try harder to buy American when it finally kicks the bucket...but that old Toyota has been a beast, I must say...knock on wood.


    hold on though (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    aren't a lot of "Japanese" cars made in the US these days anyway?

    Some Toyotas are made in Ohio (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    and Kentucky and some Fords are made in Mexico.

    Getting more difficult to adhere to buy "American made."


    True (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri May 06, 2011 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    But if peopel bought American brands - where the profits and such stay in America, those plants would be producing American cars.

    I'd rather the profits go to Detroit than Tokyo personally.

    Those Japanese plants are not unionized either, so for a Democratic member of Congress or their staff not to support a key constituency, then that says a lot about what they think of working people (as if we didn't know).


    Another thing I find remarkable (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rupe on Thu May 05, 2011 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    Is the rise in kiosks and online retailers, which I think is a trend that will continue.  We have shifted from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, and we seem to be phasing out the service side of things as well.  Cell phone kiosks w/o staff, Redbox instead of Blockbuster, now defunct.  Amazon instead of bookstores (or now anything really).  For the sake of convenience we're removing one of the last place where jobs exist in America.  God save us when they figure out automatically dispensing fast-food at an affordable rate.

    Here in Dallas/Fort Worth (none / 0) (#40)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 09:48:55 PM EST
    we are having a small surge in employment. I have been in the staffing industry since 1996.  And right now we are seeing a nice uptick in business.  My cousin works at a service where they are looking for 100+ people to work.  I've been able to secure 11 appointments with prospects and old clients in the past two weeks.  I've been able to land some nice job orders.  The only drawback to these orders is that the majority of their pay is low.  I try every way possible to get the most compensation for our contractors. It's tough but we're making some headway.

    Engineers are still getting hired (none / 0) (#46)
    by BrassTacks on Fri May 06, 2011 at 02:06:39 AM EST
    They seem to be doing pretty well now, especially computer engineers.  Maybe we should be telling our kids to take more math classes and become engineers.  Teachers also seem to be getting hired here and their pay is up at least a little bit.  

    [Cracking knuckles] (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 06, 2011 at 04:24:54 PM EST

    1. Gas Prices.  Obama has no effect on them.  They effect jobs and prices.

    2. Third straight month of job creation. Job numbers were above estimates.

    3. When the market improves. People who who stopped looking for jobs begin looking for them again.  

    "It's unclear whether the unemployment rate will go up in the coming months. Theoretically it should as the job market improves and more of the millions of people who had dropped out of the job market during the recession return to looking for jobs as their prospects improve. The Labor Department doesn't count jobless people who aren't looking for work as unemployed."


    Given you would like to see the unemployment number come down, but referencing that figure without referencing the jobs number is ridiculous.

    Objectivity fail.

    "Objectivity fail"??? From ABG?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Fri May 06, 2011 at 04:54:35 PM EST
      When the market improves. People who who stopped looking for jobs begin looking for them again....

    Given you would like to see the unemployment number come down, but referencing that figure without referencing the jobs number is ridiculous.

    Objectivity fail.

    The same guy shouting about the drop in unemployment a few weeks ago - without pointing out the fact that it was due to an increase in people who stopped looking for work - now wants any mention of increased in unemployment to include jobs numbers?  Then complains of an "objectivity fail"?!?!  From ABG?!?!

    Funny stuff.

    BTW - "Cracking knuckles"?  Gotta love those keyboard warriors ...


    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 06, 2011 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    Why don't we choose one direction and stick with it.  From my perspective, the fact that the unemployment rate dropped was a non-event.

    Pick a standard and let's go with it.

    Anyway, I had a number of other points in that post.  Given the surge in gas prices, any criticism of economic policy based on current numbers has to factor that in.  

    Obama doesn't control that and that has more to do with the slight uptick in the unemployment number than anything else.


    How about YOU "pick a direction". (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    On April 1st (coincidence?), you were arguing the labor report/unemployment numbers were the accepted standard, and lecturing people for using the unemployment numbers when they "look bad for Obama" and criticizing their use when they improved is "pretty weak".  Now, you're doing the same thing ... in reverse.  With the added wrinkle of assigning blame to "gas prices" (with no evidence, as usual), yet another thing over which Obama has no control.

    BTW - I have no idea who you were addressing in your original post, but listening to you lecture others about "objectivity fail" is seriously funny.

    Like sitting through a panel with Orly Taitz admonishing others to steer clear of conspiracy theories ...


    You were the one (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:28:46 PM EST
    posting all the numbers and projections on unemployment the other day. You were projecting that unemployment was going to continue to decline every month. It hasn't.

    Look the problem is that supply side economics DO NOT work and the other problem is that Obama is a supply side apostle. Nothing is going to change I'm willing to bet as long as supply side econ is the policy we are following.


    I liked consistancy (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:54:10 AM EST
    I talked real unemployment last month. How about we talk real unemployment this month too.

    Summary of U.S. Real Unemployment - April 2011
    May 6, 2011 in Homepage, Recent News by Joyce Bond

    by Leo Hindery, Jr., Chairman of the Economic Growth/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation

    Our Summary of U.S. Real Unemployment makes these three adjustments.  It also identifies average weeks unemployed, job openings, and the "Jobs Gap" that needs to be filled in order to be at full employment in real terms.  With the three adjustments made, in April:

        * The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories - official BLS, part-time-of-necessity, marginally attached, and discouraged - increased by 604,000 workers to 28.8 million , which remains more than twice BLS's official figure of 13.7 million.  The private services sector increased by 224,000 jobs, swamping the critical manufacturing sector which grew by only 29,000 jobs; construction employment was again flat; and government employment, mostly state and local, declined by 24,000 jobs.
        * The real unemployment rate is 18.0% , which compares to last month's real unemployment rate of 17.7%, and it is exactly twice BLS's `official' rate for April of 9.0%. link

    It may have escaped your notice, but (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Fri May 06, 2011 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    nominal unemployment is back up to 9%; real unemployment is in excess of 15%.

    Paul Krugman:

    Employment has risen from its low point, but it has grown no faster than the adult population. And the plight of the unemployed continues to worsen: more than six million Americans have been out of work for six months or longer, and more than four million have been jobless for more than a year.

    It would be nice if someone in Washington actually cared.

    It's not as if our political class is feeling complacent. On the contrary, D.C. economic discourse is saturated with fear: fear of a debt crisis, of runaway inflation, of a disastrous plunge in the dollar. Scare stories are very much on politicians' minds.

    Yet none of these scare stories reflect anything that is actually happening, or is likely to happen. And while the threats are imaginary, fear of these imaginary threats has real consequences: an absence of any action to deal with the real crisis, the suffering now being experienced by millions of jobless Americans and their families.

    Heather Boushey from the Center for American Progress:

    The upshot: Today's job growth is an improvement, but there is a large backlog of workers waiting in the unemployment queue as well as millions who have given up searching, but still want to work.

    We need to see job growth break above 300,000 a month and stay at that level for many months before the unemployment rate will begin to come back down. Today's report provides a number of data points that point toward caution in interpreting the data positively in anticipation of that level of jobs growth returning anytime soon.

    The average hours worked for production and nonsupervisory employees was 33.6 hours per week in April, the same as in March. This remains below the 2000s recovery peak of 33.9 hours per week, and far below the late 1990s peak of 34.6 hours per week. At the same time, employers shed 2,300 temporary workers, which either means they are hiring permanent employees or they are no longer seeing an increase in demand.

    Another concern is that state and local cutbacks continue to drag down the labor market. Government employers shed 24,000 jobs in April, with 14,000 of those lost at the local level. These cut-backs are hitting women especially hard: Women have lost nearly two-thirds of all the 404,000 jobs lost in government over the past year.

    The coming austerity program is not going to drive demand, ABG; it's just not.  But more government spending would, and that's something that Obama has had the ability to promote for over two years - instead, he's been leading the debt and deficit hysteria; he's done absolutely nothing about things that could raise demand and lead to the creation of jobs.  Good jobs - not the minimum wage, part-time jobs.  

    That's on him.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:23:31 PM EST
    When the market improves. People who who stopped looking for jobs begin looking for them again.  

    Do you really think people look at the market and say oh, it's down I don't think I'll look for work this week? Or gee, I can't feed my family because the market is down? No, people continue to look for work despite what the market is doing. People give up looking for work because they are frustrated depressed or a myriad of other reasons but I'm pretty sure what the market is doing doesn't come into play here.


    I think he was referring to the job (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:31:38 AM EST
    market and not the stock market.

    Oh (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2011 at 06:26:44 AM EST