PDA

View Full Version : Jobless Claims for Benefits Reach a High Set in 1983


zimv20
Jul 12, 2003, 02:29 AM
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/business/11JOBS.html?ei=1&en=6e778d594c855f09&ex=1058900761&pagewanted=print&position=)


The number of Americans claiming jobless benefits late last month hit its highest point in more than 20 years, the government said today in a report underscoring the persistent weakness of the nation's labor market.

The number of idled workers on the benefit rolls increased by 87,000 in the week ended June 28, to 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983, the Labor Department said.

It also said first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week from 434,000 a week earlier, surprising economists on Wall Street who had expected claims to decline.

(more)

Desertrat
Jul 15, 2003, 05:31 PM
Why am I not surprised? Corporate profitability has been on a downhill slide for decades.

Once the rest of the developed world started rebuilding its manufacturing infrastructure after WW II, and other previously-undeveloped countries started building their own (India, China, e.g.), our position of supremacy came to jeopardy.

IMO, it doesn't matter what any administration does, or what Congress does: It's gonna get a good bit worse before it gets better...

'Rat

pseudobrit
Jul 15, 2003, 05:40 PM
I just got a new job.

Of course, four people including the President and VP were laid off to create the one new job in the wake, but I still got a salaried job. Oh, I guess that's why the unemployment is so high.

- 4 +1 = -3 new jobs

or you could use Bushaccounting, which would give you:

(-4)-1 = 4 new jobs -- yay for tax cuts!!

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 06:32 AM
My new job pays 60% of what my old one did. My pay cut makes up for my smaller tax cut.

3rdpath
Jul 17, 2003, 12:54 AM
hmmmm, jobless rate highest since 1983.....

so who was in office then?

reagan and poppa bush.

just another coincidence i'm sure.:rolleyes:

bousozoku
Jul 17, 2003, 11:41 AM
That does not include all the other people who are ineligible for unemployment benefits. It's starting to look like the 1970s.

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 01:34 PM
Were you alive in the 1970s?

vniow
Jul 17, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Were you alive in the 1970s?

bousozoku was born in 1959, and you?

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by vniow
bousozoku was born in 1959, and you?

Let's just say I'm old enought to remember when CDs weren't used to store data and they were paying as high as 13 -14 percent. Interest rates and inflation make today look very much unlike the 1970s. Perhaps someone has forgotten in his old age! ;)

bousozoku
Jul 17, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Let's just say I'm old enought to remember when CDs weren't used to store data and they were paying as high as 13 -14 percent. Interest rates and inflation make today look very much unlike the 1970s. Perhaps someone has forgotten in his old age! ;)

I think you don't remember the gas rationing, the constant manfacturing layoffs (esp. auto companies), and all the people on welfare.

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I think you don't remember the gas rationing, the constant manfacturing layoffs (esp. auto companies), and all the people on welfare.

Is there gas rationing today? (no) Are welfare rolls down? (yes). Are auto companies laying off massive numbers? (not sure). It's looking less and less like the 1970s.

wwworry
Jul 17, 2003, 04:12 PM
Hooray! We don't have feathered hair! 2.5 million jobs lost in 2 years is OK!

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 04:55 PM
Electric disco and wide ties.
Frightening. :eek:

patrick0brien
Jul 17, 2003, 05:01 PM
-Folks

The economists were ecpecting this. With all of the news that the economy is finally ready to turn around, there will be a rush of unemployed filing.

Remember, this is a statistic, and as bousozoku mentions, it counts neither those ineligible, or not looking.

So try to take this statistic with a tempered view.

IJ Reilly
Jul 17, 2003, 07:38 PM
The economic problems we have now are nothing like the '70s, but they are no less serious on account of that.