"Job openings plunge by most in nearly four years"

By Tiffany Hsu
June 19, 2012, 8:59 a.m.
In the largest drop in more than three years, the number of job openings
in the U.S. has plunged as the hiring rate fell and firings rose,
according to government figures.
To economists, the data seem to be another signal of a so-called spring
stall, in which a cooling economy tempers growth. Between the
uncertainty in Europe, mixed forecasts domestically and the looming
presidential election, experts worry that employers will curb hiring
this summer.
Available jobs fell by 325,000 to 3.42 million positions in April,
sliding the most since September 2008 and hitting a five-month low,
according to the Labor Department.
With roughly 12.5 million Americans jobless that month, there were about
3.7 people competing for each open position, not counting employed
workers trying to switch jobs.
formatting link

Three and a half years into The One's administration, and the jobs
picture is no better than the day he took office.
Reply to
George Plimpton
Loading thread data ...
formatting link
And there are 8,245,105 more people in the US.
Why don't you look at the number EMPLOYED?:
Here's private nonfarm employment:
formatting link
Here's total government employment:
formatting link
Whoop! You mean, private employment has gone up -- as has total employment -- while government employment has gone down??? What's a Republican to do??
Reply to
Ed Huntress
Ja sure there are more people employed, but the economy is not growing at a rate as high as the rate of new people entering the work force. If we keep at this rate the number of unemployed will keep rising.
Easy vote for someone besides the incumbent.
Dan
Reply to
dcaster
formatting link
There are 1.5 million more unemployed than in January, 2009.
Reply to
Oglethorpe
formatting link
Irrelevant. We have the lowest workforce participation in over 40 years. Obama has negative job growth.
Reply to
Oglethorpe
It is pretty easy for the economy to have full employment when the private sector is adding 25% of GDP to its debt load as it did every year from 1998-2008.
Now that the private sector is no longer spending 25% more than its income (today it's spending about 8% less than income) it will be impossible for the economy to maintain full employment unless the govt borrows the funds the private sector is no longer willing or able to borrow.
When Congress decides to balance the budget the US private sector economy will fall off a cliff. Unemployment will jump to 25% and if congress doesn't react fast enough with increasing stimulus unemployment will hit 50%. That is how bad the private sector debts are.
Irving Fisher, the man who Milton Friedman called "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced", describes the process:
formatting link
Reply to
jim
So you're saying no businesses in the private sector were/are going concerns?
Reply to
Oglethorpe
In your dreams maybe... What happens when nobody is willing to borrow? You know like when the private sector has already borrowed $25 trillion and is not interested in borrowing more even at rock bottom interest rates.
And very little of that enormous debt went into productive purposes. All that borrowing went to mostly chasing after inflating assets (AKA capital gains) and now nobody wants to borrow or lend because the assets are valued way ore than they are worth.
In the last 3 years the private sector has saved $3 trillion more than it has lent out.
And nobody will borrow for productive purposes because there is no demand for production. There is no demand for production because the money is all tied up with repaying debt or trying to protect deflating financial assets
things are not going to change by wishful thinking or by arguing about who was supposed to be in charge of the deck chairs on the titanic.
Reply to
jim
What "happens" is exactly what we have been seeing for the past several = years.
Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:7Pednd-_odBMn3zSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:
True.
Yet, Bush saw a net increase of 1,095,000 jobs between January of 2001 and January of 2009 even with the recession during 2007 and 2008. Obama has seen a net decrease of 552,000 jobs between January of 2009 and May's preliminary report.
formatting link
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from Current Employment Statistics Survey (National) Total Non-Farm
I'm not the one doing that.
Reply to
RD Sandman
Ed Huntress wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Which agrees pretty much with my findings. Of course, Obama's numbers started at the low point while Bush's numbers started with Clinton's high ending. Neither one is responsible for the numbers that they started with, however. It just worked out that way.
BTW, the numbers I have disagree somewhat with yours since mine are all nonfarm numbers. I show:
131,361,000 for May of 2004. 133,194,000 for May of 2005. 133,009,000 for May of 2012.
Mine are all employment other than farm so it would include the public sector.
Yep.....that is why I made the comment that to stay even on the unemployment percentage you need to grow jobs at least even with population growth.
Then don't do it. I simply asked a question, I didn't ask you to go to work on it. ;)
Reply to
RD Sandman
This has been explained to you before.
formatting link
Reply to
deep
Not according to the chart found here :
formatting link
Not according to the chart found here :
formatting link

That's a nice tool, one I've used it many times in research myself; = sadly, the generated tables aren't directly linkable.
But even if true, your 552,000 figure would be a drop in the bucket if = expressed as a ratio to the total loss of government workers that = occured over the same period, or at least 8had occured the last time I = checked. =20
Nor am I.
Anyways, while seemingly we are in fact slowly recovering, it's becoming = increasingly apparent that our continuing with allowing disproportionate = tax advantages to the wealthiest members of our society while at the = same cutting back on government employment certainly doesn't appear to = be speeding things along..
Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT
snipped-for-privacy@dudu.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Yes, but you keep failing to read the numbers. Try that once. My numbers are actual numbers from the Department of Labor Statistics, the reference to, I see, you snipped.
Reply to
RD Sandman
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:F4idnSGCoOyijn_SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:
You posted this before and I looked at it. What it shows is monthly changes in non farm employment whereas the servlet below will show actual numbers from the monthly jobs report.
Yes, but that is also why I gave the title for the figures being looked at.
The bottom line is that Obama has overseen a very significant recovery from what he was handed but he is not quite back to the levels that were in play prior to his coming into office.
This is the title of the chart at that location you wish to look at.
Yes.....my point was that to reduce the unemployment numbers we need new jobs in number that exceed population growth.
it's
No, but if you really wish to compare the effect of that taxcut (which Obama extended) was about $700B over a 10 year period. The amount cut from the middle class was $4.4T over the same time period.
Reply to
RD Sandman
so-called
formatting link
0,4064418.story=20
Interestingly, on my screen, it displays a graph.
Here are the cooresponding numbers, generated directly from the BLS = site :
=3D=3D=3D
Series Id: LNU01000000 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status: Civilian labor force Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Download: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2000 141228(1) 141775 142123 142138 142144 143874 143797 143171 142149=20 142685 142797 143110 142583 2001 142828 143100 143664 143026 143023 144553 145097 143826 143601 = 144060=20 143987 144042 143734 2002 143228 144266 144334 144158 144527 145940 146189 145565 145167 = 145320=20 144854 144807 144863 2003 145301(1) 145693 145801 145925 146067 148117 147822 146967 146166=20 146787 146969 146501 146510 2004 146068(1) 146154 146525 146260 146659 148478 149217 148166 147186=20 147978 148246 147877 147401 2005 147125(1) 147649 147745 148274 148878 150327 151122 150469 149838=20 150304 150239 149874 149320 2006 149090(1) 149686 150027 150209 150696 152557 153208 152465 151635=20 152397 152590 152571 151428 2007 151924(1) 151879 152236 151829 152350 154252 154871 153493 153400=20 153516 154035 153705 153124 2008 152828(1) 152503 153135 153208 154003 155582 156300 155387 154509=20 155012 154624 154349 154287 2009 153445(1) 153804 153728 153834 154336 155921 156255 154897 153617=20 153635 153539 152693 154142 2010 152957(1) 153194 153660 153911 153866 154767 155270 154678 153854=20 153652 153698 153156 153889 2011 152536(1) 152635 153022 152898 153449 154538 154812 154344 154022=20 154088 153683 153373 153617 2012 153485(1) 154114 154316 153905 154998=20
=3D=3D=3D=20
The line wrap will probably be all messed up but the important numbers = are below:
Jan 2000 141228
Jan 2009 153445
Present 54998
Yes, and this has occured in spite of a staunch refusal on the part of = his opponents to even consider any ideas that might have a chance of = improving the situation
Thanks, I've been all over that site before and lately I've been having = problems with my peripheral vision that make it kind of difficult to = navigate =20
Well, I know at least a few folks who work for the government and I can = assure you that most of them work pretty darned hard to earn their = living.
I would be interested to see those numbers, yes.
Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote=20
The important numbers are below:
Jan 2000 141228
Jan 2009 153445
Correction :
Present 154998
Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:4pSdnWcvTu9-93_SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:
Interesting that the same site seems to give different numbers for essentially the same thing.
Reply to
RD Sandman

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.