What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
293 Comments
- rignopolis, on 11/06/2009, -9/+73At some point President Obama will have to address this in some way other than blaming the previous administration. And claiming to have "saved" X number of jobs isn't going to cut it for long.
- thebreach, on 11/06/2009, -6/+61Good thing that recession is over!
- Awwzm, on 11/06/2009, -4/+54Not really a time to say Yahoo.
- vakeraj86, on 11/06/2009, -12/+51At least the $700 billion stimulus worked. Wait, what?
- SteveJobsLiver, on 11/06/2009, -13/+51Uhh, well... George W. Bush... something something something....
- hblask, on 11/06/2009, -13/+41When Obama was trying to force the ridiculous pork-for-Democratic-contributors....oops, I mean Stimulus Bill down our throat, real economists said it would lead to massive unemployment. Deficit spending and threats of higher taxes in the future makes employers stop hiring. Regulatory uncertainty makes employers stop hiring. Obama has done nothing but create uncertainty and threats of higher taxes. Based on everything he has done, the real surprise is that unemployment hasn't climbed faster.
The Obama administration made a specific, testable prediction regarding their stimulus bill and it's effects on unemployment. He was clearly wrong, and the people who made specific, testable predictions in the opposite direction were correct. The policies of this administration are destroying this country. Theory predicted it, subsequent facts support it.
The blame-it-on-Bush chorus is getting old, and the it-would've-been-worse story is clearly false, based on both theory and facts.
It's time to stop pretending that tax-and-spend, redistribution, and central planning can work. We have 100 years of failed experiments, there's no need to try this anymore. - JROXZ, on 11/06/2009, -13/+38Actually... you can start by thanking risk-addicted investment firms, ***** packaging bankers, and a wary consumer market. But you can't really think for yourself can you?
- medost, on 11/06/2009, -0/+21Its really sad news for all of all. The competition will be tougher in all job areas.
- seltaeb4, on 11/06/2009, -20/+39We haven't seen unemployment like this since the third year of Saint Ronnie!
- Screwy1138, on 11/06/2009, -2/+21What is interesting to discuss is the impact of having dual income families. I'm not going to get into 'women going to work' that's not the point, it doesn't matter the sex.
What I'd like to see discussed is the impact of trying to support so many more people working. Are we starting to see an economy that cannot sustain so many workers? When more and more families started having two incomes, things like house prices and other standard of living costs inflated to make up for that. Now, many families are FORCED to have dual incomes. However, overall consumption per family has increased, but not doubled.
So I propose, only for the sake of discussion and not presented as absolute fact, that maybe we are going to have to live with much higher unemployment rates because, by comparison, these unemployment rates are actually less than when one worker per family was the norm.
If, in a broad generalization, every family has a single worker employed, and move towards every family wanting to have two incomes. On average, we would expect, statistically (again a huge generalization, to make a point), 25% to have two incomes, 50% to have one income, and 25% of families to have no income.
Obviously there are MANY factors involved other than this, such as a rise in numbers of single people, and many many other factors. So I am not trying to single handedly explain unemployment with this ONE issue. That said, it is certainly possible that this is one significant factor in what we're seeing. - govsucks, on 11/06/2009, -7/+25Thanks Republicans and Democrats. Hey, I have an original idea, spend more money and raise taxes. If the government is bigger and more wasteful, people will have more resources to create jobs.
/s - MWeather, on 11/06/2009, -7/+22We're talking about 1983, dumbass. Reagan didn't cut taxes for another 4 years. That's 6 years of 50% or over under Reagan (one year was 69%!).
So far his first year has half the tax rate of Reagan's first year. Obama could raise taxes to 50% and it would take him 7 years to match Reagan.
Not to mention nationalising air traffic controllers. If Obama is a socialist, Reagan was even more of a socialist. Could you imagine Obama nationalising an industry over a strike? The right would have a field day! - CySailor, on 11/06/2009, -3/+18I rembemr hearing Timothy Geithner say if the stimulus was passed we would hit no more than 8% unemployment. But it seems people forgot that...
- awinters, on 11/06/2009, -1/+14This must just be crushing for jobless people looking to see this number to go down so they can hope a new job is coming soon.
It is weird because living here in the DC/VA/MD area, the job situation is different. Recruiters call me 3 times a week. So many people are getting new jobs every day. Professionals that is. I think non-exempt people are suffering badly. I know 2 people that were laid off in the last year and both were employed again in full-time, similar jobs within 3 months. - OriginalLucid1, on 11/06/2009, -11/+23There are two kinds of people in the world, those who remember what it was like to live under Carter, and those who are finding out.
- SteveJobsLiver, on 11/06/2009, -13/+25Except under Saint Ronnie the federal funds rate was at about 20%. Not ~0% like it is now. Keep grasping at straws, though.
- pauldy, on 11/06/2009, -8/+20Don't worry there's a czar for that.
- Bloodwine, on 11/06/2009, -2/+13I've been saying this for quite some time. The U.S. economy did quite well before women entered the workforce en masse. I'm not being sexist, just stating that our workforce has nearly doubled and as a nation we really aren't any more productive.
I'm sure the quality of life for many workers improved due to compartmentalization and more people sharing tasks, but realistically we could slash a large percentage of our current workforce and be just as productive.
Couple that with modern technology and efficiencies, and there are a lot of redundant people.
I'd love for us to get back to one income households, because then we can start restrengthening the family unit and doing a better job of raising and preparing future generations as well as improve our overall quality of life. - MWeather, on 11/06/2009, -2/+13Since when is a strike an impetus for the government takeover of an entire industry? Bankruptcy? Sure. It's the government or no more company, but a strike?
- Doubledown, on 11/06/2009, -2/+13The U6 figure is at 17.5%. If you want to compare apples to apples against the Great Depression, you need to use this figure.
- bishop, on 11/06/2009, -6/+16Thank God the stimulus was passed. Obama promised the unemployment rate wouldn't go above... Oh...
- JROXZ, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10I just hope there's really no correlation between crime rate and unemployment rate. I'd hate to see NYC revert.
- vakeraj86, on 11/06/2009, -3/+13What does Geithner care? It's not as if he's paying for the stimulus through his taxes.
- irvman21, on 11/06/2009, -14/+24His stimulus projections have only been off by 6.5 million jobs so far, and unemployment has risen to over 10%, why is it anyone thinks it's a good idea to hand more of the economy over to his control by passing a trillion dollar healthcare bill?
- seltaeb4, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10It's really cool how you guys support single moms: a dollar at a time.
- NoLibertarians, on 11/06/2009, -2/+11Jimmy Carter's employment rate sucked, and it was one of his better economic numbers.
- vakeraj86, on 11/06/2009, -6/+15Even if you're right, that defeats the purpose of stimulus. It was meant to be a quick-acting jolt to the economy. Spending it a year later is pointless and, at worst, inflationary. Obama FAIL!
- duncan202, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10Hopefully 80's hair metal comes back too.
- hughesw2, on 11/06/2009, -5/+14I think the important thing is that Republicans deny that any of their policies resulted in this because after all things are bad now and they're not in power now, then get self-righteous about the deficit and ignore the Bush and Reagan era deficits because after all they "learn their lesson" every time they're out of power.
- Kingal, on 11/06/2009, -7/+15So Obama said without spending almost $800 billion, unemployment would reach 10%. Well, $800,000,000,000 = down the drain.
- BullBearMS, on 11/06/2009, -2/+10If you look at the unmodified version of the unemployment rate (where they don't do things like ignore people who no longer qualify for unemployment compensation) the actual unemployment rate is at 22%.
http://www.shadowstats.com/ - treeflappa, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9this ***** is bipartisan
- juankovo, on 11/06/2009, -5/+13The whole notion of "stimulus" is Keynesian bunk, promoted by politicians because it gives them more power and control. Instead, try this: http://mises.org/story/3128
- SolitaireRose, on 11/06/2009, -5/+13So....in your world, Carter was President in 1983?
Or his Presidency resonated until then, meaning you blame Bush for this?
Partisanship fail. - skintigh, on 11/06/2009, -14/+22Bush CAUSED this recession. It started in December 2007. To brag that a trailing economic indicator didn't dip until after the start of the recession shows a complete lack of understanding of economics, which in turn explains your support of Bush.
- Screwy1138, on 11/06/2009, -2/+10Isn't something like 4% considered 'max employment'?
So that would be republicans 2.2% and democrats 4%.
Also, we all know party doesn't matter. Each party is pushing for bigger government. Republicans do it using the military/security road. When we get sick of that, we elect democrats. They do it socially. When we get sick of that, we elect republicans. That way we're forced into their overall agenda. - TherealObadiah, on 11/06/2009, -2/+10Dr. Christina Romer’s (Obama's own economics advisor) testimony before the Joint Economic Committee on October 23:
"Citing economic analysts she says the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009. (Editors note – those quarters are now behind us). By mid-2010, according to her testimony submitted to the committee, the “fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”"
-ABC News - Crimeodial, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9It's tough out there, I'm really unhappy in my current position and have been looking to make a move for months now, but there's just nothing out there.
- cmcagle, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9I think one factor driving high unemployment is regime uncertainty. Businesses aren't likely to expand when the future regulatory environment (e.g. new health care requirements, new regulations on the financial sector) is one giant unknown. Expect unemployment to continue to rise as long as we're stuck in legislative limbo.
- Screwy1138, on 11/06/2009, -3/+10Obama made a campaign promise to do the same. Provide tax credits to companies that hire US workers. Too bad that's "not a priority". Here's hoping he gets around to it.
- seltaeb4, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8Oh please. A nominal increase in the minimum wage caused our Titans of Finance to collapse?
For people like you, everything is always the fault of the poor. Grow up, already. - enantiodromia, on 11/06/2009, -6/+13jobs come back after everything else has been fixed, not before.
- DooM, on 11/06/2009, -3/+10Yeah, ***** 'em, amiright? /s
You are a tool. No you're right - no more disaster relief, let's ask the 9/11 families for our money back, no more sending supplies when 100,000 people are killed by a tsunami, etc. Yeah, that's the kind of "***** You" country *I* want to live in. Yeeeee haw! - Snuff99, on 11/06/2009, -3/+10because he's human?
- DooM, on 11/06/2009, -5/+12Can I just remind people that our unemployment rate would be far less than 10% if Obama/Congress had not extended unemployment benefits by 20 weeks for people whose benefits have expired..? Obama COULD have dodged your assaults and let those people crash and burn. I said it at the time and I'll say it again now - that takes political guts to know that you're going to be hammered but to go out and help people who are being hurt by this economy anyway.
- poprocksandsoda, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8It's a good thing for us guys who frequent strip clubs though.
- jman491, on 11/06/2009, -5/+12I seem to remember that we NEEDED to pass the stimulus; otherwise, unemployment would top 8.5%... wow.
- TherealObadiah, on 11/06/2009, -16/+23Seriously, Obama is incompetent. The only thing he seems to be good at is screwing things up! We wasted $787 BILLION dollars. We are now up to our eyeballs in debt!
But wait, there's more.
We also no have reported unemployment of 10.2 percent! With those who have given up, or who no longer qualify unemployment benefits, the real unemployment is closing in on 18%!
For all you college types that fell in love with Mr. Hope and Change, good luck finding anything but a pizza delivery job when you graduate. Oh, and all the money you earn in tip -- for the rest of your life -- will go to paying off the government debt.
Good luck with that! - puter, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8So really, this article is just reiterating what was already said months ago and making it seem like a new event.
"quick, lets cover up that things have gotten better...I know we can make a claim that is completely misleading!"
Reporting excellence. - Korberos, on 11/06/2009, -0/+6I believe you spelled ***** wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 297 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is