PDA

View Full Version : jobs being cut at early 2002 rates




zimv20
Dec 7, 2004, 07:40 PM
link (http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/07/news/economy/jobless_challenger/index.htm?cnn=yes)


Job cut plans accelerate

Survey: Firms set 104,530 November cuts, ending first 3-month stretch at that level since '02.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Hit by rising health care and energy costs, employers announced more than 100,000 job cuts in November, capping the first three-month stretch above that level since early 2002, an outplacement firm said Tuesday.

Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said companies announced 104,530 job cuts in November, up 5.1 percent from a year earlier and 2.6 percent from October.

The September through November totals mark the first time that announced job cuts have topped 100,000 for three or more straight months since January to April of 2002, the firm said.

"Higher health care and energy costs for employers and employees are definitely taking a toll. Companies are being forced to enact more cost-containment measures to protect profits," the firm's CEO John Challenger said in a statement.


The telecommunications and auto industries were among the industries with the heaviest job cut announcements over the last three months, Challenger said in its report.

U.S. employers have announced 930,690 job cuts this year, down 19 percent from the same period a year earlier.

But if December cuts reach 69,310, it will mark the fourth straight year with 1 million cuts announced by U. S. employers, Challenger added.

The report also noted that a new Business Roundtable survey of CEOs at major companies found that 20 percent expect employment to fall in the coming months, up from 12 percent in the previous survey.


"We've fallen far short of prior economic expansions," said JPMorgan Fleming's Chan. "We're about 5-1/2 million (jobs) short of where would be today if this were a typical expansion."

i know what we need -- more cowbell! errrr... tax cuts!



Desertrat
Dec 8, 2004, 09:44 PM
Two things I've mentioned before in threads about the economy: Corporate profitability as percentage return on either sales or investment is continuing its decline; and (seat of the pants opinion) new jobs, generally, aren't paying as much as lost jobs.

Can't lower interest rates. Can't cut taxes further, or certainly not at the federal level. Not enough money in the public coffers for "pump priming" ala FDR.

To me, a real clue is found in such things as WalMart's projections for sales: When they are lower than expected, the times ain't good.

'Rat

Xtremehkr
Dec 8, 2004, 10:39 PM
Wal Mart admitted that they did not offer the low prices that they normally do. They miscalculated in their own words.

Can a country declare bankruptcy? Or just not pay cause we have the biggest toys?

Desertrat
Dec 9, 2004, 10:23 AM
"Can a country declare bankruptcy? Or just not pay cause we have the biggest toys?"

I'd expect that foreign debts would be honored to the greatest extent possible, although possibly stretching out the time for payments. This is the usual practice around the world.

Short run, what's already beginning is the repudiation of internal debts and obligations promised by Congress in the past. The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, began redefining one promise in a speech last week in DC. "Let me state clearly that there are no free lunches here. The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current law are not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue."

If sumpn ain't sustainable, doesn't it stop? Or get changed, usually made smaller, if you're talking about money?

'Rat

skunk
Dec 9, 2004, 10:29 AM
The Federal Reserve's got all your money. According to some, you've been bankrupt since 1933:
Nevertheless, on December 23, 1913, taking advantage of the absence of congressmen opposed to the creation of a fiat monetary system during the Christmas break, the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

Years later, during the great depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden (who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency) asked for congressional investigations of criminal conspiracy to establish the privately owned 'Federal Reserve System'. He requested impeachment of Federal officers who had violated oaths of office both in establishing and directing the Federal Reserve -- imploring Congress to investigate an incredible scope of overt criminal acts by the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Banks. McFadden even suggested that the Federal Reserve deliberately triggered the great stock market crash of 1929, in order to eventually force the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, which suspended the gold standard.

In describing the FED, McFadden remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the misadministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/doodoo.html
I wouldn't vouch for its reliability, but it's an interesting take.

Desertrat
Dec 9, 2004, 07:58 PM
Well, the buying power of the dollar is about 5% of what it was before the FRB was created.

If you read the Constitution in the parts about money, consider the reason the ideas are included: This country was broke, had been trying to survive with "Continental Dollars" and not even those soldiers who defeated King George III had been paid. The phrase "Not worth a Continental!" was as strong a pejorative as a good church-going Christian needed. He didn't need participular forms of our favorite copulative verb. The Founding Fathers believed in sound money--gold and silver. With little of that around, folks did one helluva lot of bartering.

"May you live in interesting times."

"Oh, we do, we do..."

'Rat

skunk
Dec 9, 2004, 08:02 PM
Participular copulation, eh? Welcome to the obscurer end of the lexical spectrum! :D

Desertrat
Dec 9, 2004, 08:28 PM
Aw, well, skunk, gotta keep it clean for a family publication...

:), 'Rat

skunk
Dec 10, 2004, 01:56 AM
Too copulating right!

zimv20
Dec 10, 2004, 02:22 AM
Too copulating right!
at first i read that as a toast, thinking you'd misspelled the first word.

and... i'll drink to that.

skunk
Dec 10, 2004, 02:53 AM
:D
To(o) would have been better, I agree.