Why job market is even worse than you think

[Liberal_in_LA]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/economy/longterm_unemployment/index.htm?cnn=yes

Why job market is even worse than you think
Nation's first job loss in more than four years tells only part of the story of the weak labor market. The ranks of the long-term unemployed are growing.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 2 2008: 9:05 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A government report on January jobs showing that employers trimmed payrolls for the first time in four years set off alarm bells.

But the report, which was released Friday, tells only part of the story about the underlying weakness in the labor market.

The number of Americans out of work for at least six months is rising - reaching levels more typically seen deep into a recession or period of job contraction, not at the beginning.

And while some economists believe that the drop in jobs reported in January might later be revised away to show a narrow gain, it's clear that the rise in long-term unemployment is a far more established trend and one economists say isn't going away anytime soon.

Harder to find a new job. The number of long-term unemployed stood at a seasonally-adjusted 1.4 million in January, up about 21% from year-earlier levels and up 3% from the previous month. The full-year average for 2007 was 1.2 million long-term unemployed, nearly double the reading for 2000 - just before the last recession.

[RC]

1. It's finally reached the point where they can't cook the numbers any more.

We have had double digit unemployment since the middle of bu$h's first term.

[Skittles]

6. aw they're still trying to spin the numbers though

pitiful

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956912/

[SoCalDem]

2. Personally, I want the "jobs numbers" reported by PAY..

xxxx number @ $7-9 per hour
xxxx number @ $10+ per hour
xxxx number @ $15+ per hour
xxxx number @ $20+ per hour

Just the term "jobs" is USELESS..

A kid mowing lawns for $10 per lawn in the neighborhood, is technically a "job"..... so is a temp job for a few weeks..

and when a head of household loses a $25 hr job and ends up taking 3 part time jobs @$8 a hour with no benefits, that transaction shows up as a 2 job GAIN..:grr:

[mediaman007]

3. I would think that more people have to work two or three jobs to earn

the money a good job in 1997 would have paid. People are underemployed.

[SoCalDem]

4. actually they are OVER-employed and OVER-worked..just underpaid

at every job, so they have to work many jobs..

Instead of the 35-40 hr workweek with benefits & decent pay, many are rushing from job to job at $8 hr (burning extra gas too), with no benefits....and ending up working 60 hrs a week..

[dysfunctional press]

5. at one time, i thought that they should have to report the average wage for jobs lost...

as well as the average wage for jobs "created"- but they could probably cook those numbers with a couple of high-paid ceo positions thrown into the mix.

but you're right- there has to be some accounting into the disparity in wages between the jobs going away, and the ones they're being replaced by.
it always pisses me off to hear lil' boots trumpeting the new jobs numbers, because i know that those mcjobs are nowhere near as lucrative for the ones who get them, as the job they lost to get it.