Unemployment Rate Jumps!
November 2, 2001 6:58 AM Subscribe
Unemployment Rate Jumps! The unemployment rate had its largest jump in 21 years as fallout from the WTC continues to sweep through the economy. Service, Hotel, Travel and Retail jobs most affected by layoffs.
Is history repeating itself? - Much like his daddy, bush jr was handed a faltering economy and got involved in a (sometimes questionable) war. Opinion polls that were high then plummeted, and the economy never took off. Enter Bill Clinton, a cyclical economic upswing, and dotcom cashmoney. give it time I guess.
posted by panopticon at 7:35 AM on November 2, 2001
posted by panopticon at 7:35 AM on November 2, 2001
I wonder if Bush's tax cut kept this from being worse... probably not.
posted by tranquileye at 7:46 AM on November 2, 2001
posted by tranquileye at 7:46 AM on November 2, 2001
Enter Bill Clinton, a cyclical economic upswing, and dotcom cashmoney. give it time I guess.
Your facts are out of order. The economic upswing predated Clinton.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:10 AM on November 2, 2001
Your facts are out of order. The economic upswing predated Clinton.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:10 AM on November 2, 2001
The downturn in the world economy started before 9/11 if you believe the financial analysts. That's why interest rates have been cut so many times recently, to get us all out spending money on credit again.
9/11 won't have helped any but it certainly wasn't the cause.
posted by Markb at 9:08 AM on November 2, 2001
9/11 won't have helped any but it certainly wasn't the cause.
posted by Markb at 9:08 AM on November 2, 2001
The events of 9/11/01 might have been a "blow upon a bruise" but the layoffs would have probably happened anyway.
posted by paddbear at 9:09 AM on November 2, 2001
posted by paddbear at 9:09 AM on November 2, 2001
The reason debt is cheap right now is because holding debt into the future is becoming increasingly riskier. At some point this babys gonna blow and anyone left holding debt is the musical chair looser. Uncle Allen is operating under the assumption that we will have a "soft landing" and tides will rise again and all the folks who are going into debt right now with these cheap interest rates will be saved and the saviour both. However no one mentions that its cheap because its risky if we dont have a soft landing. Its a big confidence scam. There is no free lunch.
posted by stbalbach at 9:52 AM on November 2, 2001
posted by stbalbach at 9:52 AM on November 2, 2001
stbalbach:
Interest rates RISE when debt is risky. This is why junk bonds are often called "high-yeild bonds". This is not a big confidence scam.
posted by phatboy at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2001
Interest rates RISE when debt is risky. This is why junk bonds are often called "high-yeild bonds". This is not a big confidence scam.
posted by phatboy at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2001
I wonder if Bush's tax cut kept this from being worse... probably not.
The only part of the Bush tax cut that's taken effect is the tax rebate that the democrats insisted on. In general, the tax cut is so heavily backloaded that it won't affect the economy for many years to come. If anything, it will delay any recovery, as people will delay new investment until the cuts take effect.
posted by electro at 10:58 AM on November 2, 2001
Unemployment is rising... ? Quick, somebody cut AMT taxes retroactively to 1986! And cut the estate tax in 10 years! That'll do the trick...
On a more serious note- as one of the near-chronically unemployed myself- I'd like to hear from the economists at this point: I think I've heard that when the unemployment rate is at, say, 5%, that the "real" unemployment is much higher because the tools to determine unemployment are dated or skewed. This is supposedly because the jobless rate doesn't take into account people who only have managed to get a part time job, or people who work multiple jobs to get by thus making it seem there are more employed people out there than there really are (i.e., a wife working a f/t and then a p/t job to cover for her husband having been laid off from the factory, making it look like you have a two-income household but really you have only 1.5 incomes and a 50% unemployment rate in that home). Please correct/confirm this if you know for sure...
posted by hincandenza at 2:15 PM on November 2, 2001
Well it's comforting to know, after things have not gone my way with the "Patriot" Bill, the Microsoft settlement, the war in Afghanistan and a few other things, that I can still affect the stats and have my voice heard!
Bathrobed-coffee-drinking-unemplyed-slobs-of-the-world, UNITE!
posted by fooljay at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2001
Bathrobed-coffee-drinking-unemplyed-slobs-of-the-world, UNITE!
posted by fooljay at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2001
hincandenza:
Yes, what you say is entirely true. The biggest skew is that "discouraged" workers do not count as unemployed. All the rest of the things you say about p/t jobs is also correct. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of a large number of employment figures, so one could get a more complete picture by looking at a larger set of their data.
Analysis is complex, however. In 2000, 67.2% of the 16-years-and-older population had a job, the highest percent since the start of the data gathering in 1947. But is a high employment rate a good thing? How many of those workers would rather stay home and care for children? How many are college kids who aren't focussing enough on studies because of having to work simultaneously?
(I was certainly in that last category, but Gauntlet II was also to blame. And demon rum.)
posted by marknau at 2:50 PM on November 2, 2001
Yes, what you say is entirely true. The biggest skew is that "discouraged" workers do not count as unemployed. All the rest of the things you say about p/t jobs is also correct. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of a large number of employment figures, so one could get a more complete picture by looking at a larger set of their data.
Analysis is complex, however. In 2000, 67.2% of the 16-years-and-older population had a job, the highest percent since the start of the data gathering in 1947. But is a high employment rate a good thing? How many of those workers would rather stay home and care for children? How many are college kids who aren't focussing enough on studies because of having to work simultaneously?
(I was certainly in that last category, but Gauntlet II was also to blame. And demon rum.)
posted by marknau at 2:50 PM on November 2, 2001
Interest rates RISE when debt is risky.
That is true on a certain level. But in the big scheme look at it like this. Each time the economy looks like its faltering the Feds lower the rates. Because they want you to take on debt. Because the economy is not looking so good. So the riskier the economies future, the lower the rates go. Your right at some point it will swing the other way and debt will have no choice but be costly because of inflation if we continue down this path without a recovery, you can only print money for so long.
posted by stbalbach at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2001
That is true on a certain level. But in the big scheme look at it like this. Each time the economy looks like its faltering the Feds lower the rates. Because they want you to take on debt. Because the economy is not looking so good. So the riskier the economies future, the lower the rates go. Your right at some point it will swing the other way and debt will have no choice but be costly because of inflation if we continue down this path without a recovery, you can only print money for so long.
posted by stbalbach at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2001
I haven't been working since July. I'm wearing a bit more than just underwear.. but not by much.
ljromanoff is wrong to correct panopticon. When Reagan was in office, my Dad lost his job and we had to move. I never saw the trickle-down economics trickle down to anyone but people who already had money. Times were tough in our family, growing up under the rule of people who favored the Have's while barely giving lipservice to the Have-Not's.
Then many years later Clinton got into office, and as much of a creep as he was, I was able to keep a steady job and put food on the table. Then as Shrub gets in office and settles down, someone pokes one too many holes in the economy. Maybe presidents have nothing to do with anything, but the coincidence is more than I can ignore. When democrats or liberals are in office, jobs and opportunity are easier to come by. When republicans or conservatives are in office, people start dropping like flies in the world of employment.
So quit trying to make Clinton look like a loser when it's painfully obvious that the egg and mud are only on the faces of conservatives.
Hey, TiggleTaggleTiger! Pass me a beer, willya?
posted by ZachsMind at 2:04 PM on November 3, 2001
ljromanoff is wrong to correct panopticon. When Reagan was in office, my Dad lost his job and we had to move. I never saw the trickle-down economics trickle down to anyone but people who already had money. Times were tough in our family, growing up under the rule of people who favored the Have's while barely giving lipservice to the Have-Not's.
Then many years later Clinton got into office, and as much of a creep as he was, I was able to keep a steady job and put food on the table. Then as Shrub gets in office and settles down, someone pokes one too many holes in the economy. Maybe presidents have nothing to do with anything, but the coincidence is more than I can ignore. When democrats or liberals are in office, jobs and opportunity are easier to come by. When republicans or conservatives are in office, people start dropping like flies in the world of employment.
So quit trying to make Clinton look like a loser when it's painfully obvious that the egg and mud are only on the faces of conservatives.
Hey, TiggleTaggleTiger! Pass me a beer, willya?
posted by ZachsMind at 2:04 PM on November 3, 2001
ljromanoff is wrong to correct panopticon.
Despite whatever personal stories you may have, facts are facts. The economy was in recovery long before the presidental election of 1992.
Some stats for you:
Real GDP Percentage Growth over previous period
1990 Qu I: 5.7
1990 Qu II: 0.9
1990 Qu III: -0.7
1990 Qu IV: -3.2
1991 Qu I: -2.0
1991 Qu II: 2.3
1991 Qu III: 1.0
1991 Qu IV: 2.2
1992 Qu I: 3.8
1992 Qu II: 3.8
1992 Qu III: 3.1
1992 Qu IV: 5.4
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
The recession had come and gone before most people in America even knew who Bill Clinton was.
Shrub ... pokes one too many holes in the economy.
The economy was slowing down before Bush was elected. It was a campaign issue for a reason.
When democrats or liberals are in office, jobs and opportunity are easier to come by.
Perhaps you should investigate the economic history of the Carter presidency versus the Reagan presidency before making statements like this.
So quit trying to make Clinton look like a loser
Clinton did a fine job on his own, he doesn't need my help.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:44 PM on November 3, 2001
Despite whatever personal stories you may have, facts are facts. The economy was in recovery long before the presidental election of 1992.
Some stats for you:
Real GDP Percentage Growth over previous period
1990 Qu I: 5.7
1990 Qu II: 0.9
1990 Qu III: -0.7
1990 Qu IV: -3.2
1991 Qu I: -2.0
1991 Qu II: 2.3
1991 Qu III: 1.0
1991 Qu IV: 2.2
1992 Qu I: 3.8
1992 Qu II: 3.8
1992 Qu III: 3.1
1992 Qu IV: 5.4
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
The recession had come and gone before most people in America even knew who Bill Clinton was.
Shrub ... pokes one too many holes in the economy.
The economy was slowing down before Bush was elected. It was a campaign issue for a reason.
When democrats or liberals are in office, jobs and opportunity are easier to come by.
Perhaps you should investigate the economic history of the Carter presidency versus the Reagan presidency before making statements like this.
So quit trying to make Clinton look like a loser
Clinton did a fine job on his own, he doesn't need my help.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:44 PM on November 3, 2001
Keep in mind, historically the economy over all has performed better under Democratic presidential administrations than Republican presidential administrations. That American business men seem to predominantly favor Republicans in politics provides me with continual amusement.
posted by NortonDC at 5:09 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 5:09 PM on November 3, 2001
Keep in mind, historically the economy over all has performed better under Democratic presidential administrations than Republican presidential administrations.
I question whether or not that is actually true. In any event, historically more colossal international wars have broken out during Democrat presidential adminstrations, yet peaceniks still seem to favor Democrats. Go figure.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:39 PM on November 3, 2001
I question whether or not that is actually true. In any event, historically more colossal international wars have broken out during Democrat presidential adminstrations, yet peaceniks still seem to favor Democrats. Go figure.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:39 PM on November 3, 2001
Don't forget that Republican administrations can lay claim to 100% of the US's colossal intranational wars.
posted by NortonDC at 1:32 PM on November 4, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 1:32 PM on November 4, 2001
InTRAnational?
Civil War. War Between the States. 1861-1865. Republican president Lincoln.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:37 AM on November 5, 2001
Civil War. War Between the States. 1861-1865. Republican president Lincoln.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:37 AM on November 5, 2001
« Older Two nights in a row! | Bush Makes a Pitch for Teaching Patriotism Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Seriously though, anyone care to guess when companies are going to start lifting their hiring freezes? Free time is nice but too much of it rots your brain.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 7:26 AM on November 2, 2001