[Sixstrings]

The U.S. economy lost 95,000 jobs in September, far worse than expectations for no change in employment. More Census-related temp jobs ended, as expected, but state and local governments slashed staff far more than predicted.

So far in 2010, the U.S. has added just 613,000 jobs — for a monthly average of 68,111.

Employment bottomed in December 2009 at 129.588 million — two years after peaking at 137.951 million. At this year’s pace, the U.S. won’t recoup all those 8.36 million lost jobs* until March 2020 — 147 months after the December 2007 high.

That would obliterate the old post-World War II record of 47 months set in the wake of the 2001 recession.

The current jobs slump also is the deepest of any in the post-war era, with payrolls down as much as 6.1%. They are still 5.6% below their December 2007 level.

With state and local governments likely to shed workers for at least the next year or two as budget woes continue, the hiring burden will fall entirely on the private sector.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2128-us-wont-recover-lost-jobs-until-march-2020-at-current-pace

Keep in mind this article is assuming no double dip or any other economic turmoil between now and 2020.

So what are the 99'ers supposed to do; 99 weeks does not last until 2020. I guess they just eat cake and die?

Oh, and Wall Street loved the news and rallied yesterday. Seems bad economic numbers don't matter anymore, the markets are all gaga over printing press money from the Fed.

[Ludi]

So what are the 99'ers supposed to do; 99 weeks does not last until 2020. I guess they just eat cake and die?

Yeah, I wonder too. I wonder what the GOP/Tea Party will do to bring back jobs, when their plan seems to be to slash government spending (aka government jobs).

[efarmer]

I believe that after the elections, a large amount of the people in the upper echelons of banking and finance are going to release much of the money they have hoarded to obtain the leverage to get politicians installed again to make the regulations that threaten profits on Weapons, Pharmaceuticals and Health Care, and Financial Industries exist as toothless shells of legislation on the books but not affecting their prize sources of income.

If not for resource limits, it would have worked almost perfectly, and as it is,
it will probably be one the best kicks the can has seen lately.

[Ludi]

That's a Bold Prediction, efarmer.

If by "the elections" you mean the 2010 mid-terms, no, I don't see them doing that because it would tend to reflect well on Obama the Socialist, not on the new GOP congresscritters. I don't see any money being released as long as Obama is in office. It's imperative to keep things as bad as possible while The Socialist is in the White House.

[Sixstrings]

Yeah, I wonder too. I wonder what the GOP/Tea Party will do to bring back jobs, when their plan seems to be to slash government spending (aka government jobs).

The GOP are still living in the fantasyland of trickle-down Reaganomics -- they REFUSE to acknowledge this is a far different country than in 1980. Different times require different solutions. Give the rich big tax cuts (big tax cuts are already in place anyway with the Bush cuts) and all the rich and corporations will do with that money is offshore it.

The cruelest thing about the Republicans is that they spout crap like "Americans are lazy and just don't want to work," meanwhile non-partisan agencies and even the Federal Reserve admit the reality that we're in a terribly deep jobs hole with no end in sight for a decade. For Republicans to tell the 99'ers to go pound salt is cruelty and political malpractice. It's Hooverism all over again, screw you we got ours.

[Ludi]

The cruelest thing about the Republicans is that they spout crap like "Americans are lazy and just don't want to work,"

They seem to think Americans should be willing to compete on equal footing with the Chinese, working for below minimum wage. This suggestion that Americans are expecting too much, that they should be willing to take any job at any wage, is remarkable in these times of historic wealth inequity. But some people seem to be buying it (just as long as THEY don't have to work for below minimum wage). And of course not only should Americans be willing to work for near-slave wages, to compete with the Chinese they should have no worker protections or other nasty "government interference." The other plank in the GOP/TeaParty platform is "cut regulation." Cut taxes, cut wages, cut regulation, and all our problems will be solved, apparently.

[Sixstrings]

Incidentally, where's Oilfinder? I'd like to hear his explanation of how 95,000 jobs lost is actually "sideways recovery."

[Lore]

The stock market has been disfunctional since prior to the dot.com bust. You've got hedge fund managers and robot traders playing with casino rules.

[Plantagenet]

The 95,000 lost jobs in September is just another indication of the failure of Obama's economic policies to create jobs.

After two years it is now clear that:

Obama's porkulus didn't work.

Obama's budget supplements didn't work.

Obama's huge deficits didn't work.

And if we continue with the same failed policies, economists can't see a recovery until 2020.

[Cog]

The underlying assumption that both the left and right are operating under is that their policies will lead to growth and jobs. I no longer accept that growth is desirable or even possible.

[Lore]

The underlying assumption that both the left and right are operating under is that their policies will lead to growth and jobs. I no longer accept that growth is desirable or even possible.

Correct on both counts, there needs to be a new paradigm accepted. Although fat chance.

[Ludi]

Correct on both counts, there needs to be a paradigm accepted. Although fat chance.

So, Americans are to accept the paradigm that the wealth of the few can continue to prevail and the rest stagnate or fall? Because that's what it sounds like to me, when I see people make these kinds of arguments.

"Sorry, we're entering tough times so YOU just have to lump it, while I drive off in my Maserati, private sailboat, etc."

I agree with you that economic growth forever is not tenable, but I do not accept the idea that the privileged minority who own 90% of everything get to keep it while the rest of us be damned.

[Sixstrings]

So, Americans are to accept the paradigm that the wealth of the few can continue to prevail and the rest stagnate or fall? Because that's what it sounds like to me, when I see people make these kinds of arguments.

"Sorry, we're entering tough times so YOU just have to lump it, while I drive off in my Maserati, private sailboat, etc."

I agree with you that economic growth forever is not tenable, but I do not accept the idea that the privileged minority who own 90% of everything get to keep it while the rest of us be damned.

Excellent point, Ludi. A lot of doomers seem eager to twist the limits to growth argument into a justification for the great sucking sound going to the top 1%.

Kind of like the Tea Party there; a bunch of pseudo "Joe the Plumber" populism in support of, you guessed it, the rich and incorporated.

[efarmer]

The financial services sector has grown explosively to outgrow the real economy it is intended to service. As this accelerated under globalization, it gutted resilience and jobs within America and when it reached the limits of support of real economic foundations, it went into overshoot and engaged in fraud and unjustifiable risk. The industry is a parasite on the United States at this point in time, as evidenced by the stock market rising in anticipation of printing of more worthless money.

You can't run a nation on casino mentality, but it will pay for elections of people who will be glad to make the attempt and explain to all their citizens that they can all become patrons in the casino and have a shot at becoming rich on their wits, and other people's sweat and fortunes. This is not the beauty of free markets and capitalizing enterprises, it has overshot and is pure gambling by using the assets of America to buy chips.

The people who want jobs to work at, or going to have to face off against those who wish to invest in jobs that return higher amounts because they are not in America. The worker is going to lose to the investor and all the powerful people above the investor who buy elections.

[Ludi]

The people who want jobs to work at, [are] going to have to face off against those who wish to invest in jobs that return higher amounts because they are someplace else.

Yep, it's the working class versus the investor class, and presently the investor class is winning. Does the working class let them win? Do they help them win in the name of "taking our country back"? Or will we see an honest to gosh populist movement in which the working class demand protections (yes, protectionism ) OR transition to an entirely new form of economy (Sharing or Gifting Economy, or other model)?

[Lore]

So, Americans are to accept the paradigm that the wealth of the few can continue to prevail and the rest stagnate or fall? Because that's what it sounds like to me, when I see people make these kinds of arguments.

"Sorry, we're entering tough times so YOU just have to lump it, while I drive off in my Maserati, private sailboat, etc."

I agree with you that economic growth forever is not tenable, but I do not accept the idea that the privileged minority who own 90% of everything get to keep it while the rest of us be damned.

Not at all, the paradigm change is that growth may not always be such a good thing in our traditional sense of the term. Whether rich or poor, we should have been always striving for personal growth in mind, body and spirit. That the accumulation of things and power has and will always lead to a dead end.

[Ludi]

That the accumulation of things and power has and will always lead to a dead end.

Easy to say when you have more than you need.

[Lore]

That the accumulation of things and power has and will always lead to a dead end.

Easy to say when you have more than you need.

The reality is we all could live much simpler lives and be just, if not more so, as happy. Because whether you have a lot, or nothing at all, as corny as it sounds, it really doesn't change who you are. Most people seek and need security, everything beyond that is icing on the cake.

[Ludi]

The reality is we all could all live much simpler lives and be just, if not more so, as happy.

Nonsense. People who are having to choose between eating or keeping a roof over their head do not need to be "living simpler lives" and it is cruel to suggest they should be when others of us have so much excess. This is the kind of philosophy that convinces peasants to labor in the fields for their masters for the good of their souls and crapola like that. I refuse to accept it.

[Ludi]

And what the hell security do people have in our society? Almost none.

(sorry, just really grumpy about this stuff right now. See thread in the Planning Forum to tell us how you have simplified your life, given away all your stuff to the poor, and how you are much happier now. Thanks. )