This is a recovery?
We keep hearing that unemployment is easing, but that doesn't stem the tide of layoff announcements. Last week Portland had AT&T Mobility and Capital One, for a total of 165 jobs gone between them.
| Posted at 10:40 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 7, 2012 10:40 AM.
The previous post in this blog was For wonky eyes only.
The next post in this blog is "Urban renewal" skim for PDC economic development payroll.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (9)
The movement won't care for those are evil corporations....
Now if it was 165 "medicinal" marijuana growers laid off....
Then they would be upset
Posted by tankfixer | May 7, 2012 12:53 PM
It's easy to reduce unemployment when the denominator is reduced.
Administration is counting on the increasing number of people who are math impaired or lacking in critical thinking skills.
Heck, looking just below the surface, one can wonder how employment situation is improving when more jobs are lost than gained in a month.
Elsewhere, you'll find many graphs and stats which slice and dice the numbers.
Population has increased year over year, so you'd think that the number of potential workers would have increased over that same period. Instead, our labor force is now counted as the smallest since 1981.
Can there really be that many trust fund offspring? Can there really be that many people working "off the books"? Are so many now retired and living comfortably on SS, 401Ks, and pensions?
Close to home, Oregon sure is in a sorry state, with fewer employed. These fewer will be the ones whose income is taxed to pay the ever increasing costs of PERS, schools, and our local and state public employees.
Posted by Mike (one of the many) | May 7, 2012 1:00 PM
"that unemployment is easing"
You didn't read the fine print - More people are falling off unemployment, so the claimant (not actual unemployed) number is dropping.
Now if we could pro-rate politician employement to match actual unemployment, that would be an advance.
Posted by Steve | May 7, 2012 1:09 PM
Why don't we add 435 to the unemployed rolls..
I can't see how that would hurt.
Posted by tankfixer | May 7, 2012 2:52 PM
The drop in labor force participation doesn't appear to be old folks retiring. To the contrary, it's young people dropping out of or not entering the labor force. See...
http://www.qando.net/?p=12967#comments
And there's evidence pointing to something like half of college graduates not getting first jobs. See....
http://www.qando.net/?p=12979#comments
In the old days (most dramatically after the 80-81 recessions) a rip roaring economic recovery cleared labor market overhangs. Ain't happening today.
Posted by Newleaf | May 7, 2012 3:04 PM
I was reading a bit earlier that the actual unemployment rate is on the order of 14.5%.
Posted by Max | May 7, 2012 3:29 PM
"Why don't we add 435 to the unemployed rolls.." Make it 436 if you get my drift.
Posted by Gil Slater | May 7, 2012 4:33 PM
Mon Dieu! Occupy France wins. (Sorry, off subject.)
Posted by RickN | May 7, 2012 4:42 PM
Add in the number of US Senators up for reelection too...
Posted by tankfixer | May 7, 2012 6:21 PM