 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
April 3, 2009
UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUES ITS CLIMB.... For all the recent talk about hopeful hints that the worst of the economic news is behind us, the employment picture remains awful.
The 8.5% unemployment rate climbs to 15.6% if we include those who are working part-time but want full-time employment, or those who've simply given up. This number, often referred to as the U6 measure, was under 10% a year ago. In all, to date the U.S. has lost 5.1 million jobs since the start of the current recession, more than 2 million in the first quarter of 2009. We knew the March numbers would be abysmal, but as I mentioned last month, that doesn't make the news any less painful. Update: Chart by way of the Washington Post, relying on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)Comments
Thanks, greedy bankers and a bought-and-paid for government 'regulation' machine! I hope it was worth it for you. Posted by: terraformer on April 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINKThis is Bush's legacy. It's too soon to blame Obama for these numbers. I think we are no longer in Kansas. Nothing will be the same. Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINKNot to dismiss this bad news, but I think it's important to note that the unemployment rate is considered to be a lagging economic indicator. Therefore, I remain hopeful. Posted by: CJ on April 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINKt the unemployment rate is considered to be a lagging economic indicator. Therefore, I remain hopeful. Exactly. If, say, 3 months from now the numbers are bout the same and the trajectory is getting worse, then we can't consider ourselves as pulling out of this thing. But for now, the unemployment numbers are about where one would expect them, even if we are on the upswing. Re-hiring does not occur instantaneously. Who wants to re-hire, just to have to re-lay off? When the trend is longer and stronger, the employment rate will begin to turn up. Give it some time. It's too soon to blame Obama for these numbers.Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK***************************** Right you are. This is a bu$h/dickless cheney/turdblossom manifestation. It takes a long time to wreck the most powerful economy the world has ever known. Idiots and liars who want to call this "Obama's recession" are unwittingly attributing tremendous amounts of god-like power to him. This financial collapse took the repigs nearly 30 years to accomplish. For dickless and shitflower and their ilk to try to blame Obama is to say that in 2 months he could destroy the world's economy, and that there is no lag time to anything he may or may not have done. And yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus. Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on April 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINKAll Obama would have to say is, "Nobody could have anticipated that the massive job loss and huge giveaways to the rich under Bush would have ill effects!" The Washington Post and the New York Times and Fox and MSNBC and CNN would all pick this up, like they've done for the last eight years, whenever a pol says, "Nobody could have anticipated ..." Or does that only work for Rapethepublicagain pols? Posted by: Give whatever's left to the rich, so they can save us out of the goodness of their hearts! on April 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINKAn inadequate economic stimulus, a financial rescue plan that kicks the problem further down the road -- this is what Obama has provided so far. I agree that years of Republican mismanagement is the cause of the current crisis -- and Bill Clinton shares some of the blame too, but Obama's response has been less than adequate. I understand the political restraints that he faces, but I think still think he could have passed a larger stimulus package and a nationalization plan for the sick banks. He decided not to go that far. So the economy will continue to sink and Obama will own the recession a year from now. If the Dems lose house seats in 2010, they will only have themselves to blame. Posted by: g. powell on April 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINKWhat would McCain be doing if he were president now? Listen to the solutions he has advocated. We would be truly screwed. Thank you. I'll take Obama. Posted by: Stuart on April 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKI wonder at which point, the unemployment numbers 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
