That's not the definition of unemployment

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Don't look now, but darn near every company is "restructuring," optimizing, reducing investment. Call it all kinds of things but it is always losses in jobs.

I bet by the end of next week, the panic of rising Unemployment will change the WH talking points.

They will say, "Companies reducing employees shows how strong the companies are."

---

Even leftists aren't that stupid. Yet.

WH will go back to the tried and tested "Corporations and CEOs are being greedy" which the economic dunces that vote Democrat will parrot religiously.

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

Quote:

---

WH will go back to the tried and tested "Corporations and CEOs are being greedy" which the economic dunces that vote Democrat will parrot religiously.

---

Yep, they will say that Corporations are being Greedy or possibly Racists. They will also blame Republicans somehow. They will also say that there is no recession and inflation is transitory.

Sadly almost half the people in this country will believe this.

titan said:

---

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

---

True, but this looks like the 2010-2016 Obama disaster.

I'm a contract recruiter and would work 9 months, off 6, work 9, off 6 because manufacturing clients were constantly going through hiring freezes

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

titan said:

---

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

---

True, but this looks like the 2010-2016 Obama disaster.

I'm a contract recruiter and would work 9 months, off 6, work 9, off 6 because manufacturing clients were constantly going through hiring freezes

---

It does look like that disaster, and far more than then, even more directly the fault of the DNC-MSM combine for their unhinged energy and total ignorance of logistics policies.

Lay-offs are transitory

Home Depot in Georgetown Texas just replaced the majority of their check out stations with self checkout. The tellers I spoke to were told nothing about the future plan. Sounds like the hammer is coming soon.

Ford announced that they were laying off 8,000 so they could focus on unicorns fart powered EVs. I'm pretty disappointed how Ford has gone lemming over the EV cliff.

Rising interest rates, the Fed sucking trillions out of the economy with QT, and Biden's policies will deepen and lengthen the recession and accelerate job losses.

GAC06 said:

---

That's not the definition of unemployment

---

Continuing to upwardly adjust the number of people "leaving" the work force will keep the unemployment rate favorable low.

Walmart has begun to lay off corporate employees, the company confirmed Wednesday, about a week after it slashed its profit outlook and warned that consumers had pulled back on discretionary spending due to inflation.

In a statement to CNBC, the retail giant described the layoffs as a way to "better position the company for a strong future."

Anne Hatfield, a Walmart spokesperson, declined to say how many workers will be affected and what divisions have experienced cuts. She said Walmart is still hiring in parts of its business that are growing, including supply chain, e-commerce, health and wellness, and advertising sales.

"Shoppers are changing. Customers are changing," she said. "We are doing some restructuring to make sure we're aligned."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/walmart-lays-off-corporate-employees-after-slashing-forecast.html

I'm at a healthcare chain and they are tightening. We had a couple leave and it's extra hoops just to get replacement FTEs filled.

Redifining "layoff" is next up from the WH.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

titan said:

---

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

---

True, but this looks like the 2010-2016 Obama disaster.

I'm a contract recruiter and would work 9 months, off 6, work 9, off 6 because manufacturing clients were constantly going through hiring freezes

---

In the 90's through early 2000s I was I/T Manager at a recruiting firm, so I know a bit of what you are describing. This means you ran into periods where you couldn't get job orders from your regular or larger clients. Do you see that starting to happen again now?

titan said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

titan said:

---

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

---

True, but this looks like the 2010-2016 Obama disaster.

I'm a contract recruiter and would work 9 months, off 6, work 9, off 6 because manufacturing clients were constantly going through hiring freezes

---

In the 90's through early 2000s I was I/T Manager at a recruiting firm, so I know a bit of what you are describing. This means you ran into periods where you couldn't get job orders from your regular or larger clients. Do you see that starting to happen again now?

---

My current client is cutting my hours back due to a decrease in salaried hiring.

Fiscal year starts October 1st so we'll see if they reopen the suspended requisitions then, but my hunch is that we'll be slow until January 2023

We have now fully recovered *all* the jobs that were lost early in the pandemic pic.twitter.com/IPz9gyWZIZ

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) August 5, 2022

MidnightMugdown said:

---

We have now fully recovered *all* the jobs that were lost early in the pandemic pic.twitter.com/IPz9gyWZIZ

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) August 5, 2022

---

So in essence it took 2.5 years to get back to 2020 numbers. That is not an indication of growth, but a correction of government shutdowns

what is the Labor Participation Rate?
Labor is a lagging indicator and can be fairly volatile in times of high inflation

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

MidnightMugdown said:

---

We have now fully recovered *all* the jobs that were lost early in the pandemic pic.twitter.com/IPz9gyWZIZ

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) August 5, 2022

---

So in essence it took 2.5 years to get back to 2020 numbers. That is not an indication of growth, but a correction of government shutdowns

---

Note even that. The chart notes the return since the last employment peak.
But there is no description of what or when than was. It could have been a "peak" during a dead cat bounce

tysker said:

---

what is the Labor Participation Rate?
Labor is a lagging indicator and can be fairly volatile in times of high inflation

---

Down 0.1%

The other fact we don't know is are these 528,000 new jobs full time, or mixed part-time?

And historically, we needed to maintain 200,000 new jobs / month, just to keep up with population growth entering the "jobs market", those between the ages of 16 and 65...and that by default includes part-time jobs...

So, there ya go...

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

titan said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

titan said:

---

Something probably needs to be pointed out. Don't go full doom-gloom. Even if it is a Recession, that is NOT 2020 repeating. Covid caused TOTAL shutdowns. That is not what a Recession is.

Just thought the reminder useful to bear in mind. We are not looking at 2020 repeating.

---

True, but this looks like the 2010-2016 Obama disaster.

I'm a contract recruiter and would work 9 months, off 6, work 9, off 6 because manufacturing clients were constantly going through hiring freezes

---

In the 90's through early 2000s I was I/T Manager at a recruiting firm, so I know a bit of what you are describing. This means you ran into periods where you couldn't get job orders from your regular or larger clients. Do you see that starting to happen again now?

---

My current client is cutting my hours back due to a decrease in salaried hiring.

Fiscal year starts October 1st so we'll see if they reopen the suspended requisitions then, but my hunch is that we'll be slow until January 2023

---

I see. Yes, that is one of the indicators. Especially since it sounds like you had one of those type of clients that provides regular job orders. They were the backbone of many of the recruiter's work---- the ones they could count on when more sporadic clients or single instance ones were quieter.

It was Feb '20 (start of pandemic). Private payrolls have recovered to higher than Feb '20 levels, government jobs are still lagging.

from the report today where the dims are touting the positive job creation but burying the bigly joss loss numbers short term and since start of Covid.

"Among the unemployed, the number of permanent job losers, at 1.2 million in July,
continued to trend down over the month and is 129,000 lower than in February 2020. The
number of persons on temporary layoff, at 791,000 in July, changed little from the
prior month and has essentially returned to its pre-pandemic level. (See table A-11.)"

"The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons increased by 303,000 to
3.9 million in July. This rise reflected an increase in the number of persons whose
hours were cut due to slack work or business conditions. The number of persons employed
part time for economic reasons is below its February 2020 level of 4.4 million. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See
table A-8.)"

MidnightMugdown said:

---

It was Feb '20 (start of pandemic). Private payrolls have recovered to higher than Feb '20 levels, government jobs are still lagging.

---

I call BS. Every place I go to, whether restaurant or store, is hiring and lacks employees, sometimes to the detriment of service and/or hours open.

Data isn't reflecting reality. And that isn't including the sheer numbers of shuttered businesses.

what happened to the other thread?

Don't know but assume OP was run ruled and staph invoked the "mercy rule" so it wouldn't be there to be pulled up in two months.

MidnightMugdown said:

---

It was Feb '20 (start of pandemic). Private payrolls have recovered to higher than Feb '20 levels, government jobs are still lagging.

---

Unemployment has been on a steady decline since the end of the last recession. So we're caught up but it's not really "growth." If every thing is 20% more expensive at the same time, how is this good for poor people?




If anything this shows the Fed didnt raise rates fast enough from 2016-2020 to give some breathing room

BigRobSA said:

---

MidnightMugdown said:

---

It was Feb '20 (start of pandemic). Private payrolls have recovered to higher than Feb '20 levels, government jobs are still lagging.

---

I call BS. Every place I go to, whether restaurant or store, is hiring and lacks employees, sometimes to the detriment of service and/or hours open.

Data isn't reflecting reality. And that isn't including the sheer numbers of shuttered businesses.

---

Less people in the workforce which makes lower unemployment appear lower that it is (because people have removed themselves from the workforce or are no longer looking for work)



You cant automate waitstaff, dishwashers, or retail clerks. Not really. Lots of need for semi-skilled workers. But those types of jobs come with major downsides, like ****ty customers and more diversity training than continuing skills education.

It's obviously Putin's job losses.

deddog said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Don't look now, but darn near every company is "restructuring," optimizing, reducing investment. Call it all kinds of things but it is always losses in jobs.

I bet by the end of next week, the panic of rising Unemployment will change the WH talking points.

They will say, "Companies reducing employees shows how strong the companies are."

---

Even leftists aren't that stupid. Yet.

WH will go back to the tried and tested "Corporations and CEOs are being greedy" which the economic dunces that vote Democrat will parrot religiously.

---

Well, CEOs are greedy as well. It's a combination of things. I hope you are not claiming that CEOs have the best interest of their companies topmost in mind, are you? Those types are very few, like Jobs, Gates and others. The rest are in for the money grab.

There is a huge need for labor at rates that can't pay bills and living expenses for adults.

Tons of $15-25/hr service jobs.

No takers because Uncle Sam pays effectively similar rates for not working, or people really want to smoke pot.

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Don't look now, but darn near every company is "restructuring," optimizing, reducing investment. Call it all kinds of things but it is always losses in jobs.

I bet by the end of next week, the panic of rising Unemployment will change the WH talking points.

They will say, "Companies reducing employees shows how strong the companies are."

---

Even leftists aren't that stupid. Yet.

WH will go back to the tried and tested "Corporations and CEOs are being greedy" which the economic dunces that vote Democrat will parrot religiously.

---

Well, CEOs are greedy as well. It's a combination of things. I hope you are not claiming that CEOs have the best interest of their companies topmost in mind, are you? Those types are very few, like Jobs, Gates and others. The rest are in for the money grab.

---

CEOs are as greedy as you and me. They don't fall out of the sky. They are humans, and like most humans, want to do well for themselves and their family.

Which is why most CEOs pay packages are structured around RSUs and around company stock.
So they *absolutely* have the best interest of their companies topmost because that is how their contracts are structured and it directly correlates to their income/wealth.

Wanting your company to do well, doesn't mean you care about your employees. That's what distinguishes good/great companies from mediocre ones.

Also, there are plenty of companies that get screwed because their execs don't have long term packages, and not enough stock in their parent company. Twitter CEO comes to mind.

Obviously there are other factors, like the CEO might just suck. Bad CEO + Badly structured pay package == disaster. Circuit City is a great example of this.