Job Losses Surge, Decline More Severe Than During 2001 Recession In Some States

Wall Street Journal:

Rising unemployment across the nation reveals a pervasive downturn that is spreading at an accelerating pace.

In data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12 states, including Florida, Idaho, North Carolina and Illinois, reported a rise of at least two percentage points in unemployment rates over the past year.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[vippy]

Since the 1960s our number scheme has been wrong. We lost 25% of our jobs, that means we have 25% of unemployment. Anyone challenging this go out and try to find a job! Australia has full employment and they have 5% unemployment. Since we abandoned the precious metals in the 1960s our numbers have been skewed. And during the Bush years they adjusted the CPI and GDP
months later, I wonder why?

[brooklyncitizen]

How fitting that the Bush 8 year reign is bookended by two serious recessions.

[curiousasheck]

This is what happens when you have mass consolidation and hoarding of money and power into the hands of the top 1%.

The country no longer has enough money to run on.

[PhilipTaylor]

Exactly Right! Combined with uncontrolled corruption on Wall Street and in the White House!

[MajorKong]

Note to Corporate America. People that don't make any money can't afford to buy your stuff. You've been putting your own customers out of work all these years.

[Erdgeist]

Under President Ronald Reagan in 1983 unemployment hit 9.7%. During the Reagan era, already the Republican theory of economics was proving itself to be a failure with its stupid belief in supply-side economics. In fact, Reagan's economy was vying with Hoover's as being one of the worst in the 20th century. To be frank, Bush's continuation of what can only be labeled as "Republican economics" has set the stage for the likelihood of even greater unemployment than 9.7%. Sadly, President-elect Obama is heir to Republican economic incompetence. And one of the great ironies of the age, he may have to go back to the 19th century to find a solution which lies with the "revenue tariff" and the "protective tariff" both of which served the U.S. well, making it an economic giant in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htmm). By the way, both Japan and China use the tariff to their nation's great economic benefit.

[Soulsurfer]

Gee, go figure.........an economy based on lousy retail and stupid service jobs plummets at the first sign of large scale fiscal responsibility by the populace and tight credit from the banks.

[Paul]

The only bright spot may be that no matter how many people they fire, it won't help sales. Might be two-by-four to the head American management needs. You can't improve product by cutting labor costs.