Slashdot Mirror


The US Just Had the Most Q1 Layoffs in a Decade (axios.com)

The U.S. saw its highest level of layoffs in a first quarter since 2009, data from staffing firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas released this week showed. From a report: Employers cut 190,410 jobs in the first 3 months of the year -- 10.3% higher than the number of layoffs announced in the fourth quarter of 2018 and 35.6% higher than job cuts announced in the same quarter of 2018. It's the highest number of job cuts in a quarter since 2015. The financial industry saw the third highest number of layoffs and the year-to-date total was 239% higher than it was in 2018.

239 comments

  1. Peculiar news by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever? The best jobs, even?

    1. Re:Peculiar news by flippy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Tim, who are you going to believe? The President of the United States or some fake news from a firm in the staffing industry?

    2. Re:Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well don't keep us in suspense... How many jobs were created, or weren't created? Surely if you are going to comment on total jobs created which is a totally different statistic than layoffs, then you'd have to have that statistic somewhere, yes?

    3. Re: Peculiar news by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That really makes absolutely no sense at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re: Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      196,000 created in March.

      You got tricked. Again.

    5. Re:Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://youtu.be/KDbpKPPsYK8?t=160

      How very strange for a country where it is "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      Oh my bad, its just another a degenerate shithole run by liars, thieves and murderers.

    6. Re:Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but President genital grabber didn't realize that he couldn't magically create "clean coal" jobs by wishing it so.

    7. Re: Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to you, because you are an idiot.

    8. Re: Peculiar news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. They did exactly that, then turned around and said "SEE?? We need more H1B visas so we can hire expertise we just can't get in the US!!".

      Then they fired all but a handful of their US staff.

    9. Re: Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant blaming it on the Libtard part. But seeing as you just ignore that part, you are probably a proud white republican. God be with you.

    10. Re:Peculiar news by gweihir · · Score: 1

      But he did not tell you how long they would be existing!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Peculiar news by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Total employment went up by over 1/2 million jobs in Q1, so yeah, he's creating jobs. The net change is what's important.

    12. Re:Peculiar news by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      We're literally at the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and you're complaining???

      You must have really lambasted Obama when he was in office over his job statistics, right?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    13. Re: Peculiar news by drik00 · · Score: 1

      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/0...

      March alone added 196k jobs.

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    14. Re:Peculiar news by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0

      We're literally at the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and you're complaining???

      You must have really lambasted Obama when he was in office over his job statistics, right?

      Of course not. Remember, anything bad that happened during Obama's term was Bush's fault. Now, anything bad is Trump's fault. Anything good was because of Obama during his term. Also, the good economy now is because of Obama.

      Remember:

      R = bad
      D = good

    15. Re: Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't even have to be west coast. Here in PA, I'm seeing the same jobs (from penny ante companies) closed without contacting me only to be reopened again and again. IT is a fucking joke of a career.

    16. Re: Peculiar news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One dimensional measure fails to paint adequate picture of complex economy" - Story at 11!

      Seriously, I think this President is an idiot, but high layoff numbers and high job growth numbers together are not only possible, but likely when you have a CHANGING job market. You need more dimensions of measure to know whether the change is positive or negative. The market is just too complex to reduce to one number.

  2. I'm so glad... by flippy · · Score: 2

    that our economy is 'setting records on virtually every front' and 'probably the best our country has ever done'!

    1. Re:I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just amazed that Kim gave up his nukes so EASILY! I mean Trump probably should just retire based on all his self-lauded accolades and fiats. There's no need to even continue in the job, he won all the wars. /pathological /treason

    2. Re: I'm so glad... by flippy · · Score: 1

      We literally added almost 200,000 jobs in March.

      This article is the definition of Fake News. It picks a random statistic out of context, ignoring that obviously layoffs would increase because millions of additional people have become employed.

      There's also orders of magnitude more deaths now than 300 years ago. Your logic dictates that life is worse and it's easier to die, when the reality is that there's orders of magnitude more people who exist.

      You are a sniveling fucking moron.

      That's rich. The AC calling me a sniveling moron. If you had actually read the original article, you'd see that it is analysis of job cuts only, and not a comment on the overall health of the job market or of the economy. If you choose to read more into it than that, that's on you.

    3. Re: I'm so glad... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Then why did you put 'setting records on virtually every front' and 'probably the best our country has ever done' in quotes? Maybe the economy IS doing those things. As you said, the report only talked about job cuts, not the economy overall.
       
      You are total BS. You know EXACTLY why you posted that. You hate Trump. We get it. Time to grow up and move on.

    4. Re: I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flippy: "[I]t is analysis of job cuts only, and not a comment on the overall health of the job market or of the economy. If you choose to read more into it than that, that's on you"

      Also Flippy: "I'm so glad that our economy is 'setting records on virtually every front' and 'probably the best our country has ever done'!"

      So, which is it? A single data point that the intelligent crowd knows doesn't tell the whole story? Or evidence that the economy is bad and President Trump lies? You claim the former but seem to mean the latter...

    5. Re: I'm so glad... by flippy · · Score: 1

      The first was factual, the second (first chronologically) was sarcastic.

      Perhaps I was hasty in my first post, and a bit inappropriate.

      It is, in fact, a single data point that an intelligent individual will know doesn't tell the whole story.

    6. Re: I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore these trolls. They are fuckboys sucking on trumps dick any moment they get.

    7. Re: I'm so glad... by flippy · · Score: 1

      Simply dismissing others that may have a differing opinion is a bad way of having an intelligent discourse. They are actually making valid points about the probable intent of the original post and how it is being seen by some here.

      What should be happening here, in my opinion, is a recognition that we need to think for ourselves and realize, when a link like the original is posted, that it is in fact a single data point and should not be taken out of context (or, made to serve a larger context that it doesn't actually belong to).

    8. Re: I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure thing, Nazi traitor kike fuck. You can suck trumps dick from the gallows, right before we put the noose around your neck too.

    9. Re: I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Rational discussion ended in November, 2016

    10. Re: I'm so glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. I thought you out those things in quotes because they were actual quotes. That's what the President says at all his campaign rallies. I didn't realize you meant to indicate sarcasm.

      He's wrong, of course. There are certainly quite a few good signs, and he should be happy about those, but there are some negative ones as well. He'd hold a lot more water with me if he stuck to taking credit where it was due, acknowledging where work needed to be done, and articulating an actual plan for addressing the problem areas. Instead, he claims victory for everything positive, ignores everything negative, attacks anyone who disagrees, and his plan is "believe me."

      Sorry, Mr. President, if you can't even tell the truth about where your father was born, I'm going to be skeptical of everything you say. No one made you lie about it, it wasn't a joke, you're just a pathological liar.

    11. Re: I'm so glad... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      #RIP_Intelligent_Discourse

      I used to come here to learn things I was too dumb to learn in school. Now I come here to see who can say the dumbest thing because of 'feelz bro'

  3. What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The President behave erratically
    The Markets interpret this as a cause for uncertainty
    The Employers see a Risk and mitigate it by reducing expenses via headcount

    This isn't rocket science and that fact is demonstrated by how earnestly every single prior President in the past several decades has worked to instill market confidence

    1. Re:What did you expect? by Brew+Bird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or... the headline and summary are misleading in order to give Trump Derangement Syndrome another outlet to express itself. “Companies appear to be streamlining and updating their processes, and workforce reductions are increasingly becoming a part of these decisions. Consumer behavior and advances in technology are driving many of these cuts,” said Andrew Challenger, Vice President of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. or The majority of cuts this year are due to “restructuring;” 49,868 cuts have been announced due to this reason. Bankruptcy claimed another 40,218 this year, a 33.8% increase over the first quarter of last year. Another 27,380 cuts were due to plant, unit, or store closings, 104.7% higher than the 13,374 cuts due to closings through this point last year. The article also talks about how the sectors laying off are also hiring more than they laid off, while trying to position the layoffs as being a potential symptom of an economic downturn (due to federal shenanigans), but the numbers, taken in context, simply don't support that conclusion. I'd liken it to dropping a penny and finding a dollar when you bend over to pick it up.

    2. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote your article, "Consumer behavior and advances in technology are driving many of these cuts"

      The US economy is Consumer driven.
      If consumers are not spending money (changes in consumer behavior from your quote), then that is exactly what leads to a Recession, and results in the store closings and bankruptcies that are mentioned in the article that you posted.

      Furthermore, the advances in technology result in the elimination of jobs in the long term. What is the plan for replacing those jobs which were eliminated?

    3. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It's definitely not rocket science. Rocket science has some actual fact associated with it.

    4. Re:What did you expect? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      196000 jobs added last month.

    5. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is the plan for replacing those jobs which were eliminated?

      We replace them with Mexicans!!!

      (I have the right to be as stupid as possible, and possibly even more so. There are precedents - or presidents - take your pick).

    6. Re: What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm weren't you just up thread calling those fake jobs for h1b1

    7. Re:What did you expect? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I thought technology created jobs?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology creates new 'technology' jobs while eliminating the jobs that the technology is replacing.

      From the company standpoint, they want to increase efficiency. This means that they pay less to produce more.

      In the case of new technology, it needs to produce more product for less overall cost (cost of technology, cost of operating/operator), than was possible with the methods that they are replacing.

      Simple automation can replace 10 manual workers with one machine and a person to maintain that machine.

  4. Predictable (really) by slipped_bit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The economy goes in cycles. We're overdue for a contraction.

    1. Re:Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lies go in cycle. You can only tell so many before consequences happen.

    2. Re:Predictable (really) by LemonFire · · Score: 1

      The economy goes in cycles. We're overdue for a contraction.

      Don't worry guys. There's always money in the banana stand.

    3. Re:Predictable (really) by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And indeed, the up cycle began in Obama's first term, and now, nearly a decade later, the cyclical down is coming. It demonstrates that its luck of the draw when a President is elected, and cycles have longer terms than election cycles.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Predictable (really) by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And indeed, the up cycle began in Obama's first term, and now, nearly a decade later, the cyclical down is coming. It demonstrates that its luck of the draw when a President is elected, and cycles have longer terms than election cycles.

      Too bad Trump took credit for the economy doing great, cause now it's only reasonable that he takes the blame when it tanks too.

    5. Re:Predictable (really) by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      In that Trump is like every president before him. They'll take credit for recoveries that began long before the entered office, and will deflect blame for the down turns that happen under them. To my mind, it more demonstrates the extreme limitations of politicians, and that in economies as large as the United States, government policy can at best only make modest changes in overall economic performance.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Predictable (really) by lazarus · · Score: 1

      I think you have simplified the weakening of capital requirements of banks in the USA under Bush and the resulting asset-backed commercial paper fiasco that led to the crash of 2008 a bit much there MM. There may indeed be minor cycles in the marketplace caused by global supply and demand, but the role of regulation is to ensure that it doesn't become the wild west. The formula is easy: Financial institutions want weak or no regulation because they are beholden to their shareholders (and executive's incentive plans). The government is beholden to the people who rely on the banks for their financial stability and well-being.

      When a government clown tells you that it is in your best interest to de-regulate financial institutions they are a lying sack of shit and what they really mean is "It is in MY best interest and the people who funded my campaign". Playing loose and fast with the public's money is a "bad deal" for the public.

      I believe the cycle you are looking at is the cycle of electing people who don't give a shit about the public and those who attempt to correct the mistakes of their predecessors. And the general public is too stupid to understand that the economy is a big ship that takes time to steer. A policy that you institute or invalidate today comes back to bite everyone in a year or two, not tomorrow.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    7. Re:Predictable (really) by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No touching!

    8. Re:Predictable (really) by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I always remember growing up with people saying stuff like "Everything that happens when a President is in office is just the results of the president before him" a ton. I can't remember who was president at the time (ie: I can't remember if it was good/bad stuff during Clinton or good/bad stuff during Bush....)

      But later on it just felt like the following situations:

      Anything good during Bush = Clinton
      Anything bad during Bush = Bush
      Anything good during Obama = Obama
      Anything bad during Obama = Bush

      Though during Trump it's also turned into:
      Anything during Trump = LE%&*DE%*DR*JRHR^*ERDYU%H$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (both sides)

      More on topic to TFS.... My first thought when I saw the title was Trump tweeting stuff like: "JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!!!"

    9. Re:Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contractions cause real people real pain, so maybe we could come up with a better plan than "oh well".

    10. Re:Predictable (really) by greythax · · Score: 1

      I mean, give him SOME credit. After launching trade wars with our allies and China, going against basically every economic lesson we learned in the 20th century, the global supply chains are basically being re-written. Once the tariffs are dropped, buyers of things like soybean are going to have no compelling reason to switch back to American suppliers. Whole industries will likely be changed for decades.

      He worked HARD to hasten this recession, give credit where credit is due!

    11. Re:Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post deserves more mod points than every political post I have read here since 2015 combined.

    12. Re: Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the way we remember it probably changes as time goes on also, shaped by current events.

      At least I really do not think an Obama supporter was any less frustrated during his time than a Bush supporter was during Bush's time.

      From Bush's sides's view everything good he did was because Bush. From Bush's side, everything good during Obama's time was also because Bush, but now if you look back maybe you feel differently?

    13. Re:Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, I remember it differently

      Reagan mismanaged the economy by providing a taxpayer give-away to 'stimulate the economy' (supply side), eventually he faced reality and had to increase taxes to cover government expenses. GHW Bush got the full effect of the deregulation when the savings and loan scandal hit bottom and faced a recession as a result.

      Clinton got elected as a result of 'the economy stupid' and started spending government money on education and jobs stimulus (demand side) and the economy came roaring back through the go-go nineties. Clinton also continued with Bush's cuts to the military and balanced the budget giving the country a path to eliminate the national debt.

      At this point, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the good economy under Clinton was a result of Reagan's trickle-down and shouted down any reasonable arguments to the contrary.

      When GW Bush was elected, he immediately went on a crusade of tax cuts and deregulation, which would have tanked the economy on its own through no-doc mortgages and give-aways to the pharma industry. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were kept of the books, but also acted like a boat anchor once that the banking scandal hit and tanked the economy.

      Once again, a Democrat enacted reasonable demand sided policies and the economy recovered.
      Once again the Republicans loudly took credit for anything good and tried to blame Obama for the War Debt (initially $4Trillion, but projected to be $14Trillion by the time it is paid off)

      And so it goes, and so it goes

      You have just provided one of the most inane examples of right-wing-nut-jobism, fun fact nobody is buying your bs any more

    14. Re:Predictable (really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad Trump took credit for the economy doing great, cause now it's only reasonable that he takes the blame when it tanks too.

      Nope. That's not how Narcissistic Personality Disorder works. Every success is always due to the NPD's genius, every failure is a plot against the NPD. And his cultish followers will turn on a dime to conform their minds to his whims.

    15. Re: Predictable (really) by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I think the way we remember it probably changes as time goes on also, shaped by current events.

      At least I really do not think an Obama supporter was any less frustrated during his time than a Bush supporter was during Bush's time.

      From Bush's sides's view everything good he did was because Bush. From Bush's side, everything good during Obama's time was also because Bush, but now if you look back maybe you feel differently?

      I'm mostly going off of what seemed to be the general consensus I saw from people in the media and online. I'd had a few people say to me / near me "everything during the presidency is the result of the previous president." Whereas it seemed most political conversations or news I saw just seemed to be pro democrat and anti Republican as far as the good and bad results of the presidency. I don't mean I saw it this way, or that it was the way everyone. It just seemed to be the majority of what I was exposed to.

      Though during Trump everything's gone to shit, supporter and opponent reaction wise. Trump could sacrifice a baby and eat it on camera and (a large number of) his supporters would somehow find a way to praise him and say he did right. Whereas (some of) his opponents would try to find fault if he ..... I dunno. Ran into a burning building and saved hundreds of LBGTQ and people of color?

    16. Re: Predictable (really) by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Trump? He ain't running into anything except maybe a McDonalds...

  5. Re:Predictable by flippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hahahahahahaha. I enjoyed reading that. I guess whining is allowed in that super-secret third chamber of congress.

  6. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off ivan you are transparent

  7. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won the house? Not the senate. And whatâ(TM)s the third Bisha?

  8. Well actually that is correct by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever?

    Lets see, you can choose to think about only number of jobs lost (although how many are truly lost, vs. just people being laid off...), while ignoring jobs created...

    Of course if you do that, you don't actually know the total, do you?

    Yep, more Fake News. What a surprise. *rolls eyes*.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well actually that is correct by flippy · · Score: 5, Informative

      From an analysis perspective, you can, in fact, only look at jobs lost. The original article is comparing apples to apples - job cuts in 2018Q1 vs job cuts in other recent quarters. It's not making a comment on the total job market or even attempting to. It's simply an analysis of job cuts only.

    2. Re:Well actually that is correct by gtall · · Score: 1

      Seems about right. Company discloses some results of their investigation. You don't agree. Hence Fake News. You should run for President...oh, we already have a Fake President, oh well...maybe there is a job for you in the fast food preparation business...better grab it quick before a robot does.

    3. Re:Well actually that is correct by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The report you provided showed a greater growth in 2016, before Trump took office, than 2017. 2018 was better than before, followed by this year with the greatest number of layoffs since 2009 (and so far less growth than 2016 as well). For being all about the best jobs, and sacrificing everything for that goal, the results have been disappointing to say the least. So yes, my original point stands (even stronger now that you provided the statistics).

    4. Re:Well actually that is correct by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Looking at raw numbers is foolish anyway if your population isn't stable. You'd want to look at it as a matter of % of jobs lost at the very least, but even that doesn't matter if those people who were cut just get a job somewhere else. If some company goes out of business, it will layoff 100% of its employees, but it hardly matters if the industry overall is growing and those people will get new jobs at other companies who will see an increase in business due to a competitor exiting the market.

      All of that aside, I'm not even certain that many people would be perturbed by the fact it's the financial markets that are suffering most.

    5. Re:Well actually that is correct by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      (although how many are truly lost, vs. just people being laid off...)

      As someone who was laid off in June 2017 (along with 30 other people) and am presently "retired at 55" (though I'm still casually looking because I have value to offer and am a little bored), I'm not sure why you think there's a distinction. Those positions were not filled by other people -- either at my former employer or at other employers -- because the client simply wanted less work done on the contract at renewal. In cases where work is shifted from one employer to another (contract lost by one and won by another) very often (and I know of two examples at my previous employer) the new employer wants to pay any new employees significantly less than at the previous employer (reduced cost -- or the promise of -- is often one big way companies win contracts). Yes, those positions are not lost, but the job is lost -- certainly at the previous levels of experience and knowledge (noting that companies and, it seems especially, the government are often fine with that).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Well actually that is correct by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      "From an analysis perspective, you can, in fact, only look at jobs lost."
       
      Um, what? That doesn't make any sense. You look really dumb here.

    7. Re:Well actually that is correct by sexconker · · Score: 0

      From an analysis perspective, you can, in fact, only look at jobs lost.

      If you're a retard, sure.

      If you fired 7 out of 100 in year 1 and fired 9 out of 150 in year two, comparing 9 to 7 is retarded.
      Failing to look at how many of those 7 or 9 stay unemployed is retarded as well.

    8. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't want you. a robot doesn't phone in claiming to be sick because they got drunk the night before. a robot doesn't expect an alleged livable wage or unrealistic work conditions.

    9. Re:Well actually that is correct by taustin · · Score: 1

      You can certainly look at a tiny piece of data in isolation from the rest. What you can't do is derive meaningful policy out of it.

      February's new jobs number was really, really low. And the unemployment rate dropped at the same time, and remains at a historic low. Claims for unemployment are down, too.

      So yeah, more people were laid off than in a long time. But they apparently all got new jobs immediately. Ergo, Trump is Hitler and Hillary Clinton is automatically now President.

    10. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About a decade ago the company I worked for had a turnover rate of 125% in their customer service call center. Does that mean the company not only fired the whole department but also jobs that never existed?

      Get your head straight or shut up and let the adults talk.

    11. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if the people presenting the facts do so in a way that supports their political positions. But people wouldn't actually to that, would they? Just go on the internet and deliberately mislead people?

    12. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop talking you are making yourself look dumb as fuck. Give it up.

    13. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you jobs created, jobs lost? It seems ridiculously complex to try and discover accurate figures for any of that given what I know about the job market.

      What counts as lost, what counts as created? The definitions and derivations are absolutely critical to make any reasonable assessments.

    14. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      t. #STILLWITHHER imbecile

    15. Re:Well actually that is correct by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Yep, more Fake News.

      what is it with Trump supporters having trouble understanding simple words tht the rest of the world has no problem with.

      A coment on a forum isn't news.

      Oh actually on second thoughts I think you do understand the wods, you just want to discredit the entire concept so that it's harder for people to dismiss the fake news that supports your "worldview".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > although how many are truly lost, vs. just people being laid off...

      how is that different?

      Anyways, more jobs doesn't mean much if there isn't more consumers. Are salaries rising fast again? If not, who gives a fuck how many people are working if no one can afford to consume anything anymore.

    17. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts don't care about your feelings, kiddo. You can get as angry as you want, but it will never make you correct.

    18. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > February's new jobs number was really, really low. And the unemployment rate dropped at the same time, ... they apparently all got new jobs immediately.

      Your conclusion may be completely wrong. This could also be explained by people moving to another country. There is, apparently, a nett migration back to Mexico where there are more job opportunities, and companies are moving to Canada where it is easier to get skilled workers from overseas.

    19. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does that mean the company not only fired the whole department

      They may not have 'fired' anyone. People leave employment by retiring or resigning. Those are not in the 'layoff' figures but their replacements may well be in the 'new jobs' figures.

    20. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Obama counted every part timer as fully employed and if you worked 3 jobs it was +3 to the employed numbers.

      Lying with statistics. Too easy. Then just repeat the lie enough and dumbasses will do your propaganda for you.

    21. Re: Well actually that is correct by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Can you point out to me how the way employment is counted has been changed since then?

    22. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the article is about that but the OP's post wasn't. Get your head out of your ass.

    23. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't stand at all. The overall trend is a gain. Learn to do math or shut the fuck up.

    24. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now Trump takes all the credit! MAGA! Build the Wall! 91 billion to Puerto Rico! Voter fraud!

    25. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen anyone here go further out of their way to miss the point of a post they've replied to and still stay on topic.

      WOOSH!

    26. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course he can't. He believed Trump's lies about unemployment under Obama being 10% or "as high as 42%", and then unemployment was magically down below 5% the minute Trump took office. The methods of measurements didn't change at all, the BLS measures different things and Trump was using the most pessimistic of measurements under Obama and using the most optimistic (and the one most everyone agrees is the "real" unemployment rate) measure once he took office.

      In reality the number was under 5% just before Obama left office, and has continued down to just under 4% under Trump.

    27. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, SuperDoucheBagKendall is dutifully repeating his Trump-mantra, "Fake News".

      I'm beginning to understand why so many people hate you and your noxious bullshit.

    28. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to think they're just using the same definition of 'fake news' the orange manbaby uses... Trump said 'fake news' is simply any news that makes him look bad.

    29. Re:Well actually that is correct by Sun · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe this statistics, on its own, is quite meaningful for "job stability".

      Even if the market keeps many people more-or-less employed, but they are frequently laid off and have to find a new employment, then that is not a very good sign for the market at large. At the very least, you'd have to say the market is volatile.

    30. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, but the point of Timothy's comment is to compare to the Presidents comments which are not valid. He's not commenting on the article, he commenting on the Presidents comments and these aren't apples to apples. Duh

    31. Re:Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't get any dumber. I suppose you support killing coal jobs and all kinds of polluting industries - guess what - these kill jobs. Don't blame Trump dumbass. Go dig deeper and see exactly what jobs are lost. You are trying to find statistics that make Trump look bad when it comes to the economy. And instead, you just look like an ass.

    32. Re: Well actually that is correct by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      The contractors quit the previous company that had the contract and join the new one that does.

    33. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure it means it sucked to work in that call center.

    34. Re: Well actually that is correct by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The contractors quit the previous company that had the contract and join the new one that does.

      As I mentioned, this didn't happen and doesn't always happen. When it does, it's often at lower pay and/or lost benefits -- so not really the same thing. Speaking as someone who has seen it happen both ways over my 30+ years of work experience.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    35. Re: Well actually that is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way the B.L.S. counts unemployment has not changed; what has changed is which unemployment number different groups decided to use for their propoganda. The U.S. has 6 measures, with different groups using different ones:

      U-1 is persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
      U-2 is job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
      U-3 is U-1 and U-2 persons who completed work or engaged in active job search activity in the previous 4 weeks and available for work, as a percent of the civilian labor force
      U-4 is U-3 plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
      U-5 is U-4, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
      U-6 is U-5, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force/quote

    36. Re:Well actually that is correct by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Good, more domestic jobs for citizens. And quite frankly I don't care if Canada wants to shoot their self in the foot importing indian cheap labor rather than hiring their local citizens. They might see why were trying to clamp down on that in a few years. More power to them.

    37. Re:Well actually that is correct by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You're right. Its the simple math that makes him correct. You must be one of those Australian Government people I hear so much about..

  9. And? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    196,000 jobs were added in March. During the same quarter 186,000 jobs on average were added per month. Certain industries are getting ready for a recession (including the financial industry).

    1. Re:And? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2

      More than that, we recently just hit the lowest jobless claims (i.e. new unemployment applications) since 1969.

      However, the labor force participation rate is only about 63%, meaning nearly 40% of eligible Americans have no job and are not looking for a job, and so don't count towards the unemployment or jobless figures.

      Finally, the highest labor force participation rate on record is only about 67%, and the lowest is 58%.

      In other words, you can support any finding you want with statistics as long as you're willing to ignore enough data.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  10. not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's just the 'official' announced ones.. i.e. ones reported to various state agencies, etc.

    that doesn't include the others..

    small scale staffing changes or shifts to outsourcing that aren't reported number far more job losses than the 'official' tallies.

  11. Re:Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how many jobs were created, or how many people were hired? Surely you must know if you are insinuating statements about over-all unemployment rates.

  12. Oh no the financial industry! Not the bankers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just Learn To Code!

  13. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [sarcasm]Right, democrats hate shopping at retail stores.[/sarcasm]

    Most of the job losses and projected losses are in retail. Unemployment is at an all time low, so people are working. Just not in retail and other low pay service jobs.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+rate+usa

  14. Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Brew+Bird · · Score: 1, Insightful

    196,000 jobs were added last month, a rebound from the February report. Economic analysts surveyed by FactSet had expected a gain of about 170,000 jobs in March. It was the 102nd straight month of job gains. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...

    1. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 2

      Why on earth would that warrant a downgrade of the thread?

      The original article is an analysis of job cuts only, not an analysis of the overall health of the job market.

    2. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because we all know WHY this article was posted. We don't like Trump, he is destroying things, etc etc etc.

    3. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      If you choose to see it that way, so be it. I find absolutely NOTHING in the post itself or in the original link that indicates anything except a strict analysis of job cut/layoff numbers. Perhaps I'm expecting people to be able to actually read and understand reports more than I should.

      Yes, some posters are misinterpreting (either through ignorance or willfully) the meaning of the report, but that isn't a reason to discount the report itself.

    4. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To analyze jobs cuts only publicly in an article is to misrepresent the overall health of the job market.

    5. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      Bulls**t. Learn to form your own context about things you read, and not use it for confirmation bias of your already-formed opinions.

    6. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Um, apparently you haven't been paying attention to Slashdot lately. Why do you think there is a report about layoffs at all on SLASHDOT? The "editors" are a bunch of Millenials who haven't even seen a recession yet. And they hate Trump. Hey, I don't like Trump either. But to pretend that he is destroying the economy is an insult to the country. We are more than one guy and who are President is doesn't define us.

    7. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vast majority of new jobs are service jobs (waiter, car wash attendant, etc) and the vast majority of those are in California. The US is bleeding higher paying jobs at a record rate.

    8. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      I've been paying the same amount of attention to Slashdot as I always have.

      I choose to look at statistics as just that - raw data. I'll form my own conclusions, thank you very much. As for anyone who wants to use raw statistical data to support their own confirmation bias, well, I guess they're unaware or misguided. If you look at my other comments on this thread, I think you'll see that I've tried to advocate taking the numbers for exactly what they are, and not an analysis of the overall health of the economy or of the job market.

    9. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      You are dumb. No one is saying downgrade the thread because they don't believe the report or the statistics, they are saying downgrade it because OF IT BEING POSTED ON SLASHDOT. The report is 100% correct.

    10. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how much I may or may not know about reading and understanding economic reports. Don't make assumptions about me, and I'm not being passive-agressive. I'm advocating elevating the level of discussion and people making scientific and warranted conclusions based on mathematics.

    11. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting that nothing but tech news should ever be posted here?

    12. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, I am asking WHY this PARTICULAR report was posted here. But not the one where 196,000 jobs were added last month, and 186,000 per month in the last quarter. Don't even bother to answer, because you KNOW why. Total BS. I get it, you hate Trump and think he is killing the country. I don't like Trump either, but he isn't killing the economy.

    13. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Is that why you posted above: "I'm so glad...that our economy is 'setting records on virtually every front' and 'probably the best our country has ever done'!"
       
      Total BS! You aren't "advocating elevating" anything. You are a joke. Stop pretending and just say you hate Trump. We get it. It is OK. But don't pretend you are being objective.

    14. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The headline and that statistic can both be true.

      Those big tech companies, though, didn't get big by taking grandstanding politicians at their word. They live and die by data. And that includes economic data. They employ more economists than governments do (And have to increasingly rely on their own data - Because this government seems to like to appoint hacks who don't say things that make the party look bad. Herman Cain on the fed? A fucking goldbug? What a fucking joke!)

      These companies are realigning their workforce in anticipation of a global growth slowdown that pretty much everyone agrees is coming (The only debate is on how when, how fast, and how much)

      If you make your decisions based on what any president stays on twitter (Good, or orange) you deserve to go out of business.

    15. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by flippy · · Score: 1

      To quote a response of mine above:

      one was factual, the other (first chronologically) was sarcastic. Perhaps I was hasty in my first post, and a bit inappropriate. It is, in fact, a single data point that an intelligent individual will know doesn't tell the whole story.

    16. Re: Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Maybe you don't belong here then.

    17. Re: Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the real Americans/conservatives left /. this site would vanish in a month. Daily Kos and so many others already fill the role of blindly pro-Marxist partisan trash sites with no room for adult discussion and they do it better.

    18. Re: Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Because he isn't spamming #Hangtraitor or #get the rope or w/e other bullshit you divisive trolls spew?

    19. Re:Someone should downgrade this entire thread by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Because we're making it harder to import almost slave labor. I say the companies in question should be investigated and punished for any wrong doing and exploiting of the immigration policies.

  15. Re:Predictable by gtall · · Score: 1, Interesting

    C'mon, he's talking about the cast of Fox News as the third chamber. Whining there is considered a job requirement.

  16. Re: Hey guys, lying faggot Kendall is back to lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suffering Jesus! Homophobic much?

  17. news of jobs created/lost news is bankrupt by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    It seems to really depend on how the data is presented. Is it based on how many are collecting unemployment checks? Or hiring/firing data from Fortune 500 companies? Or number of business licenses issued (it is really easy to start a business, doesn't mean it will earn anything). Or one person working three jobs because each one is part time with meager wages? Or companies posting job openings with requirements of years of experience in various technologies that are new?

    Then it depends on who is reporting. ***every*** President have always said their administration has had the lowest unemployment level ever. Kind of like those saying this is the best webpage//forum ever or we will have man on Mars 20 years from now. After a few decades it gets old.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:news of jobs created/lost news is bankrupt by flippy · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read the original article, it is an analysis solely of job cuts, and not of the overall health of the economy or of the job market.

      In that regard, it is a completely valid analysis. Anything else anyone wants to read into it is on them.

  18. Re: Oh no the financial industry! Not the bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former tech worker in finance, what I've seen is that the industry is continually consolidating. Not through mergers, but through automation. Eventually the goal is to automate everything except a few 100 jobs to maintain the machines. Anyone with any sense will leave that industry ASAP before they become an unemployed dinosaur.

  19. Re:Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by XXongo · · Score: 1

    So how many jobs were created, or how many people were hired? Surely you must know if you are insinuating statements about over-all unemployment rates.

    Scrolling two stories down: https://games.slashdot.org/sto... Apparently the video game industry is laying people off in large numbers.

  20. Remember all those "bad unemployment" posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From 2008-2016 that slashdot had?
    Oh wait... they were all good news posts and they suddenly stopped in 2017 and suddenly no good news could be found about the economy or jobs figures.
    Interesting that.

  21. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, there were more losses in Retail (and it indicated less consumer spending, which is likely to push the US into a Recession), but there were also significant losses in Auto, Energy and Finance

    All told, the auto industry reported plans in March to eliminate 8,338 jobs, bringing the first-quarter total to 15,887 jobs lost. Energy companies reported job cuts of 8,149 in March and total cuts of 10,548 for the first quarter.

    Financial firms reported the third-largest total of planned March job cuts with 4,884. The financial industry announced 9,570 job cuts for the quarter, an increase of 236.6% year over year.

    Retailers announced 4,860 job cuts in March, but the industry easily leads in the total number of jobs lost in the first quarter with 46,601 losses. That’s 18.5% fewer losses than in the first quarter of 2018. Challenger also reported that so far in 2019 retailers have revealed plans to close 4,048 stores.

    For the year to date, Massachusetts (30,160), California (29,501) and New York (27,953) have lost the most jobs.

    The top three reasons given for first-quarter job cuts are restructuring (49,868 jobs cut), bankruptcy (40,218) and the business is closing (27,380).

    https://247wallst.com/jobs/2019/04/04/march-job-cuts-send-q1-total-to-highest-in-10-years/

  22. Doesn't add up by tatman · · Score: 1

    This is completely contrarian to marketwatch report

    Job numbers are so hard to follow because there's different ways of counting them, reporting them etc.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re:Doesn't add up by flippy · · Score: 1

      No, it's not contrary to the marketwatch report. The two reports are stating completely different things.

      The marketwatch report is talking about the overall health of the economy and of the job market.

      The axios article is ONLY talking about job cuts / layoffs. It's not even attempting to analyze net job growth/loss

      The fact that some people (I'm not saying you, tatman, you actually seem to have a grip on it) can't tell the difference just means that they are incapable of reading an article/analysis and understanding it within the context of its own data.

    2. Re:Doesn't add up by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yet, ONLY ONE report was posted here. I wonder why that is? The fact that YOU can't see what is happening is means you are oblivious. We get it: the editors hate Trump. I do too, but time to move on.

    3. Re:Doesn't add up by flippy · · Score: 2

      What a lovely way of making assumptions about me. I DO see what's happening and I actually AGREE with you that the intent of the post was probably what you stated. But if one can't suggest that people learn to think for themselves and take analyses for exactly what they are and what they aren't, then perhaps Slashdot isn't the home of as many intelligent people as I thought.

    4. Re: Doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are responding to a known slashdot troll. The dude gets downgraded in every thread.

    5. Re: Doesn't add up by flippy · · Score: 2

      That doesn't necessarily mean that he can't make a valid point.

    6. Re:Doesn't add up by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I started off not really liking the man, But as time goes and I see how he brings the hate out in the people who claim to be better than everybody else because they can #Acceptandmoveon or are #Tolerant. I like him more and more every day. He is exposing the type of people I hate with a passion and wish to avoid. They will stab you in the back at the first opportunity if they think it will help them even a little bit.

  23. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He keeps saying he's responsible, thanks Obama.

    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is funny because he was washing his hands of everything when he was in charge.
       
      "New Normal" (unemployment rate)
      "Magic wand" (On Trumps GDP predictions)

  24. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you whine about immigrants, brown people, that is.

  25. Stocks Rise 10.3% ! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    This how we know this is fake. Stocks go up when you lay people off.

  26. Total down, not just layoffs up by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have to compare statistics over the same period.

    The article is about the first quarter 2019: that is, January through March. The job statistics for the first quarter are poor, mainly due to an absolutely terrible jobs report in February: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit... First quarter 2019 is significantly down in employment compared to the 2018 average.

    The guy saying "fake news *rolls eyes*", however did the old switcheroo: he is just talking about March. March did bounce back... although it would be hard to not bounce back after such a low report for February, and it's still not even as high even as the average for 2018.

    1. Re:Total down, not just layoffs up by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      The job statistics for the first quarter are poor, mainly due to an absolutely terrible jobs report in February: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit...

      Still positive in February though, as much as you pretend it was terrible.

      The guy saying "fake news *rolls eyes*", however did the old switcheroo: he is just talking about March

      Hey idiot, I posted the EXACT SAME LINK you did. How is mine a "Switcheroo", when my link covers January-March?

      You liars just can't help it, can you? What a retard.

      I'll let you have the last response, since you'll just lie about some other damn thing. Ain't nobody got time for a serial liar.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re: Total down, not just layoffs up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol you literally linked to the exact same thing the person you were trying to dispute linked.

      You are an incredibly retarded fucking moron.

    3. Re:Total down, not just layoffs up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still positive in February though, as much as you pretend it was terrible.

      Given things like population growth, its effectively negative.

      You liars just can't help it, can you? What a retard.

      Ok grampa rantypants.

  27. We've AVG +180K/mo in 2019! by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 0

    The U.S. has averaged ADDING 180K jobs each month across 2019. In March along, +196K jobs were added. This isn't to say there will be transitions as some companies cut and others add, but TFS makes it sound like the sky is falling when it isn't. That isn't to say were aren't headed into a slowdown in the next ~18 months, but we sure as Hell aren't there yet. https://www.ibj.com/articles/7... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...

    1. Re:We've AVG +180K/mo in 2019! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. I myself was laid off in January but found a job 2 weeks later making 30k less than what I was making before. And I can tell you I was quite surprised I had found this job because I didnt see sqaut for Sys Admin positions. So yeah I found another job which counts as creation but it doesn't tell the whole story.

      2 weeks after I was let go, they let 3 more go, out of a small MSP. So my thought is that the MSP is seeing contraction in spending from their customers and since IT is first line infrastructure we got hit first.

      I wonder how long it will take before it gets further into the economy.

    2. Re:We've AVG +180K/mo in 2019! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why are you complaining? You only need to be out of work 2 weeks more!

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:We've AVG +180K/mo in 2019! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      tag did not appear. Stupid html.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  28. Re: Hey guys, lying faggot Kendall is back to lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hate lying faggots, what can I say? He claimed Kavanaugh's big impropriety was drinking beer. Not lying. It's just so pathetic what this Republican party has reduced itself to - lying treasonous incel faggots exclusively.

    Go get cancer from a windmill you goof.

    This is how democrats do. First they form the KKK to kill black adults, then they form Planned Parenthood to kill black babies. Now they're turning on homosexuals. Democrats will demonize any marginalized group to prop themselves up, just like the Nazis and Communists did. And they're making lists. AOC has hers and threatens people with it.

  29. A down quarter in job creation [Re: Peculiar news] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    196,000 created in March.

    You got tricked. Again.

    The article under discussion is about first quarter 2019. Not about March.

    First quarter 2019 was, in fact, down in job creation.

    Even March was down in job creation compared to the average for 2018.

    We'll see whether second quarter 2019 is better, or not.

  30. Way to cherrypick, msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/nonfarm-payrolls-march-2019.html

    And yet 190K were added to the payrolls just in March.

    Let's not get confused about what "numbers" actually "mean". Yes, 190K layoffs from companies that were closing plants or stores, whereas the people that held those jobs went on to fill positions that were vacant.

    What's the net? In the first quarter, 0.5% of the population went from unemployed or not looking for work to gainfully employed.

    Oh, and this is a news site for tech nerds. Leave the political claptrap for your masters at huffpo. People on this site actually can do math.

    1. Re:Way to cherrypick, msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People on this site actually can do math.

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Way to cherrypick, msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's the net?

      I don't think that either of those figures include the numbers of employees who retire due to reaching retirement age, or for other reasons such as ill heath or dying.

      The 'new jobs' seems to be just 'new employees' regardless of whether they are new positions or just filling an empty desk, and don't reflect increased workforce/

  31. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John, behave.

  32. Orange Julius Caesar will drive us into recession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will you Republicans still vote for him when the economy is in the crapper like it was in late 2007?
    Meanwhile Russia will celebrate because they'll have succeeded in disorganzing the U.S. to the point where we're completely paralyzed. Again.
    Nice job, Republicans.

  33. Exactly how is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In what nerdiverse does this matter?

    Why can't there be at least one sanctuary left for people with above room temperature IQ?

    1. Re:Exactly how is this news for nerds? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Because that doesn't sell ads, as most people with above luke warm IQ use ad/js blockers.

  34. New American Economic Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of doing each others laundry is not fucking sustainable, duh.

  35. Re:Orange Julius Caesar will drive us into recessi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republican traitors should be the first wave of foot soldiers when Russia invades. Let them serve as meat shields.

  36. Lies of omission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that like doing a budget while only looking at the money spent and not the money earned?

    Usually, people subtract the losses from the gains and look at the change. So it is *really odd* to mention only half the story... it's almost like they have some reason for that. It's like they want us to believe something that's not true by telling us only certain facts and not others.

    I wonder why...

    1. Re:Lies of omission by flippy · · Score: 1

      It is very much like doing that. I'm saying that people should recognize it for being that, and realize that it is decidedly NOT a balanced analysis of the job market. I suppose I haven't been articulate enough to get that across.

    2. Re:Lies of omission by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      People who got a job: The economy is awesome! Trump is a genius!
      People who lost a job: The economy sucks! Trump will fix this!

  37. Re:Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The video game industry ALWAYS lays people off in large numbers.

    Thanks for developing this billion-dollar-budget AAAA title! We've sold 8 million copies and people are buying $5 skins like crazy! We're firing 90% of you and keeping 10% on for patches and new skins.

    And that's to be expected. When a crew wraps on a film they don't keep getting paid for not working on that film.

    What's less normal is when a mega publisher shuts down an entire studio after a game under performs, or after some nontroversy. But this, too, is understandable. You close the studio so you have less baggage to deal with. You they start up a new studio, give it the IP the old studio had, and hire the people from the old studio who were actually pulling their weight.

    This all boils down to the simple fact that you can't look at the number of firings, layoff, or hirings. You need to look at the unemployment number as a whole (either nationally or within an industry). Basically, this story is meaningless bullshit.

  38. Re: Hey guys, lying faggot Kendall is back to lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wish we killed you as a baby, retard

  39. Re: Predictable by sexconker · · Score: 1

    They won the house in a historic blue wave (historically weak, as your typical midterm election flip on a new president is much stronger).

  40. Because we don't like lies? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Why on earth would that warrant a downgrade of the thread?

    You may enjoy spreading lies, must of us reasonable people do not.

    A literal half-truth without full context, is a lie.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Because we don't like lies? by flippy · · Score: 1

      I agree - the intent was a half-truth without full context. That's what I mean when I said "The original article is an analysis of job cuts only, not an analysis of the overall health of the job market."

    2. Re:Because we don't like lies? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Which was only posted here to try to smear #presidenttweety as one of our #trumpisliterallyhitler! users points out at every opportunity before rational thought can get a word in.

  41. Slashdot News From Pravda Izvestia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually employment is at the highest percentage in 50 years. Anyone who wants a job, has a job.

    I guess msmash is one of those glass half empty kind of gals. Hey msmash, learn to code!

    1. Re:Slashdot News From Pravda Izvestia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I just read that it takes people an average of 9.6 weeks to find another job and that number is steadily increasing. I'm assuming the times pan is how long it takes the average person to realize they're never going to find another job like they used to have and just take one out of desperation. Wages never went up. The whole thing was a sham to put even more money in the pockets of the wealthy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  42. Re:Oh no the financial industry! Not the bankers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just Learn To Weld!

    FTFY.

  43. Overdue for a contraction by Comboman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The economy goes in cycles. We're overdue for a contraction.

    That's certainly true. It's been over a decade since the last recession, so one is likely on the way in the next 6 to 12 months. Trump's tariffs, trade wars and general instability certainly haven't helped, but a recession probably would have happened anyway. The real problem though is that the tools government normally uses to help ease a recession (cutting taxes and lowering interest rates) have already been used by Trump early in his term in a vain attempt to boost his popularity. Taxes can't be cut any further and he stopped the fed from raising rates during the boom so there's no room to lower them during the bust. This is going to be another bad recession with another long, slow recovery.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Overdue for a contraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's tariffs and "trade wars" are the reason why many companies are moving their production back to the US. Before then, companies were moving to low-cost countries like Mexico and China, because there was no penalty for doing so. Now there are tariffs or the threat of tariffs. I'm going to guess you sit in front of a computer all day and actually think that's a real job, but there are millions of real people in America who use their hands to earn their bread. The globalist "free trade" policies of previous administrations - Republican and Democrat - have gutted the economic fabric these people have relied on for generations. Their only sin was they were paid more than Chinese rice farmers to do the same job. There's nothing wrong with free trade if done properly. The problem happens when the counterparty countries don't play by the same rules. The WTO has sat idly while China (and other similar countries) have violated every tenant of a civilized economy. You know this. So what should we expect Trump to do? Pray that the Chinese stop violating intellectual property? Beg the CCP to stop manipulating the Yuan and dumping subsidized products onto the world market? You may not like Trump, but he's going up against the most dishonest, murderous government in history. They're terrible people. Utterly horrible. We've followed the rules, and they didn't. They started this trade war when they stopped following the rules.

    2. Re:Overdue for a contraction by Comboman · · Score: 1

      Trump's tariffs and "trade wars" are the reason why many companies are moving their production back to the US.

      You mean companies like Harley Davidson who are cutting production in the US because Trump's tariffs hurt their European sales (where all the growth is)?

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  44. Where are the job creators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though the tax cuts were going to create jobs? What ever happened to that. Oh right, it was just another bald faced lie.

  45. Thanks, Trump! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    The Trump Recession will probably start before the 2020 election...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  46. It was inevitable, given presidential incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, everyone knew the Trump recession would eventually come. You can't treat America with contempt and carelessness and expect the Obama recovery to continue indefinitely. On the bright side, Putin is getting what he paid for, so Trump's record of defaulting on every deal is finally broken.

  47. People by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    People keep lambast me because I say the recession is coming.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  48. Reading between the lines by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Granted this story is /. click baity-ish. But there is some value in reading between the lines. If I am involved in both business and personal finance (which I am) I want to know where things are headed in the future,. So while the typical folks that want to make every story political bash it out in -1 Score land, I would say that there are more and more dots pointing to economic slowdown later this year. That's hardly surprising news given that we've had a long economic expansion and many other pundits and experts have opined the same thing. But if I'm looking to re-balance a portfolio or make some big purchasing decisions I do want to take this into account. February jobs report was an outlier it was said, this report is an outlier its being said. But a few more of these makes a trend.

  49. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolling 101:

    1) Make a baseless statement that will offend at least 50% of readers [Democrats]

    2) Include an incorrect fact [three chambers]

    3) Include a mis-spelling that makes the statement nonsensical [whining]

    Transparent, indeed! But well-done from a brevity stand-point.

  50. Trump's BIGLY Succeeding Y'all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The breadlines are gonna be funny.

  51. mortality rate equivalence by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

    for example -- lets see 1.3? 1.3 birth, 1 death, 1.3 hired, 1 fired. I wish those losing there jobs had something to do with major government re-organization and streamlining. the business sector can absorb the government layoffs and reductions in force, yet the unfunded liabilities of our federal pensions is astronomical. we need to auto-correct and get unfunded liabilities back to zero. amen. peace.

  52. I keep saying this by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they're gearing up for a recession. Corporations are squirreling away money for buy backs to bump the stock price so the CEO doesn't take a hit to his income.

    We should ban stock buy backs immediately. Pre-Reagan they were an illegal manipulation of the market. The damage they've done to the economy and to working class jobs can't be understated. The fact that Reagan got them past the American people like he did is a testament to how much he could get away with because folks loved him so damn much. We need to put a stop to that kind of politicking, where warm feelings replace sound policy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I keep saying this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing a lot of rhetoric about buy backs the last couple of weeks (and never once in 30 years before it). I worked in the investment industry for all of 2 years, and I can't fathom how buybacks == evil. All I see is more tribalism "buy backs good mkay" vs "buybacks bad mkay" but without any facts or reasoning or logic.

    2. Re:I keep saying this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We should ban stock buy backs immediately
      Honest question, why? If you've got a willing seller and a willing buyer, what's the harm?

  53. Re: Hey guys, lying faggot Kendall is back to lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Southern Democrats switched sides in droves from 1964 to 1980.

  54. Potential of Trumpism? by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever? The best jobs, even?

    #PresidentTweety's ONLY concern is surviving past the election of 2020. Trump has NO long-term plans and he would not care AT ALL if the country collapsed into total bankruptcy the day after the election.

    I'm not optimistic about America's future. The Democratic Party primary process is quite similar to the GOP's, which in 2016 picked the least qualified and utterly worst candidate out of a large number of them. Now that Trump has proven "YUGE lies work", what's to stop the Democrats from nominating worse-than-Trump under the guise of anti-Trump?

    The only good aspect I can see is that Trump is a doddering old fool, so he can't live long enough for Trumpism to devolve all the way into Stalinism. Notwithstanding, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump locked the door on "executive time" and died of a stroke before anyone worked up the courage to check on him. That's how Stalin died in 1953. Any day now for Trump?

    Just venting, but I've already taken cover.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by greythax · · Score: 1

      What low slouching reptilian beast would be "worse-than-trump?" I'm almost positive the bar has hit the floor.

    2. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandy Occasional-Cortex is actually dumber than Trump, and lies more often.

      And it's hard to believe, but even AOC looks good when compared to Ilhan Omar.

    3. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm a moderate and I'd consider voting for Sanders or Warren. I didn't vote for Trump (authoritarian) and I wouldn't vote for AOC (too much mouth, not enough brains), Pelosi (generally a jackass), or H. Clinton (dictator), so in my book those latter three are equal to Trump's low bar.

      I'd add some Republicans to the list of people I'd possibly vote for if I could think of one that I thought had some brains and was a team builder, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

    4. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to go back to before Trump when politicians were honest and cared more about helping their constituents than their donors and the next election.

    5. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What low slouching reptilian beast would be "worse-than-trump?" I'm almost positive the bar has hit the floor.

      Somebody who was competent and surgical at deconstructing the American system instead of just a proverbial bull with a bee up his ass in a china shop.

    6. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #PresidentTweety's ONLY concern is surviving past the election of 2020. Trump has NO long-term plans and he would not care AT ALL if the country collapsed into total bankruptcy the day after the election.

      Indeed, it was reported that he basically said so outright:

      Since the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s aides and advisers have tried to convince him of the importance of tackling the national debt.

      Sources close to the president say he has repeatedly shrugged it off, implying that he doesn’t have to worry about the money owed to America’s creditors—currently about $21 trillion—because he won’t be around to shoulder the blame when it becomes even more untenable.

      The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.

      “Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.

      As I've been saying to all those cheering about liberal tears since the day after the election - you lost too, you just don't know it yet.

    7. Re:Potential of Trumpism? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Don't say that. Don't even THINK it.

      He who shall not be named will just take it as a challenge.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  55. Can you guys math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So 190k jobs were lost over 3 months but you guys are ignoring the 190k jobs added every month... are you guys stupid?

    1. Re: Can you guys math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you? A quarter is three months, so a net loss in that longer time means loss on average per month.

  56. Re: Oh no the financial industry! Not the bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Anyone with any sense will leave that industry ASAP before they become an unemployed dinosaur.

    I am not sure how 'leaving the industry' will make them less 'unemployed'.

  57. Re: A down quarter in job creation [Re: Peculiar n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolute figures are fluff for stupid internet trolls to bandy about.

    The percentage unemployed is the only number that matters.

  58. Slashdot is reporting its usage by user list again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And companies are reacting accordingly. If they have time to read and reply on slashdot, they have time to look for a job...

  59. Re:Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is at the lowest unemployment claims since 1969, which is even better considering there are a lot more people in the workforce now.

    At 3.8%, a 50-year low, we're currently beyond what most economists would consider "full employment", with more job openings than people looking for work. All this reported news, combined with the 196K new jobs in March, means is that companies are restructuring and jobs are moving from less efficient uses of people's time to more efficient and valuable uses, which is exactly what we want in order to continue to build wealth in the country.

    I'm sure the /. editors will be posting a story about all that anytime now....

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  60. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  61. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't whining a requirement at any Operation Mockingbird News Network?. After all, you have been mind controlled by at least one. (hint: they are all owned by the cia)

  62. Who? Which ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who? Name some. I do sit in front of a computer all day and know for a fact it's a real job, I don't see any indicators that domestic production is coming back. I see plenty that are leaving again though. You need to work on your lies better, you company can get better liars for less money in China. You might get outsourced.

    I also like how you started off using those poor blue collar workers as a sympathetic tool in your argument which really turned out to be an anti-China racist screed. Again, like above, a Chank is gonna take your job of being a better liar and racist if you don't step up to the plate and stop being the lazy American you want us to think you are.

    1. Re:Who? Which ones? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yes lets send all manufacturing jobs to China!! Then when that's done we will import all of the Skilled Labor from India to take your Job!!! See what you say then. moron.

      I'm an Electrician, and I'm better than most I've seen in the trade. I don't care if you import labor and export jobs. I will ALWAYS have a job, The low skilled labor from the south can't do what I do and still make money for my company no matter how cheap they will work for. And I doubt robots will be able to do my job before I'm dead. So on that note, have fun shooting yourself in the foot. I however have job security.

  63. Curious that this is news in /. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...when it could be highlighting that US Jobless claims have hit a low not seen since 1969
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/0...

    I guess it depends which side of the political fence you are, which "truth" you believe is representative?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Curious that this is news in /. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Certainly looks happier than the labor participation rate, so yeah, stick with that.

    2. Re:Curious that this is news in /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hey, if we are going to make america great again then we need to get that labor participation rate back down below 60% like it was for the majority of the 50's. (and the top income tax bracket back up to ~90% like it was in the 50's.)

  64. Another Reason We Need Single-Payer Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video game industry ALWAYS lays people off in large numbers.

    Which is yet another argument FOR single-payer healthcare. Turns out that each year roughly 28% of the workforce has to switch to a new health insurance plan and endure all the anxiety and hassle of figuring out new doctors networks, new coverage rules, new deductibles, new copays, etc. It would be so much nicer to switch just once and never have to go through all that shit again.

    1. Re: Another Reason We Need Single-Payer Healthcare by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the little loophole in Obama are that let's them reset your deductible when you switch.

  65. Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When were USA politicians ever not corrupt etc? Itâ(TM)s some mythical age that never existed you speak of.

  66. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you didn't get the memo, the Russian Collusion hoax has been debunked.

  67. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is "dumb" yet he defeated all of your heroes (HIllary et al)...what does this say about them?

  68. This a non story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, does this take into account the fact that we had a government shutdown? Do these numbers count furloughed government employees?. In any event, job creation numbers just bounced back for March, so this is pretty much a non-story.

  69. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile wages are still flat. Inflation over 3% and our deficit has ballooned to a historic level of a trillion dollars and our national debt has risen to 22 trillion dollars.

    We canâ(TM)t grow our way out of debt you can be damn sure the rich wonâ(TM)t let themselves tax our way out of debt. I wonder what our tax rates will end up being when the national debt bubble pops. Yâ(TM)all screaming about we canâ(TM)t afford healthcare at 1.5% tax increase on employee and employer what will you say when we pay more in taxes than Europeans and have no guaranteed healthcare, no guaranteed retirement (401k is a piggy bank for Wall Street) and your kids are too broke to help. Your parents and grand parents will be dead and theyâ(TM)re the ones to blame.

  70. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just shut the fuck up dude it's so fucking boring

  71. Huh?! Jobless rate at lowest, too?! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    So how is it these stories manage to get posted securely OUT of context?

    Supposedly, the USA is at the lowest jobless rate in a very long time.
    With rises in AI and automation tech, are we really adding more jobs than are being cut?

    How about some clarity?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  72. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    By 2.86 million more votes!!!
    Oh, wait, that was the other one.....

  73. Re: Rats fleeing the traitor's sinking ship by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Because the popular vote has always mattered in the USA. Get a life.

  74. Re:Predictable by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    For the year to date, Massachusetts (30,160), California (29,501) and New York (27,953) have lost the most jobs.

    If I'm reading this right, you're blaming liberals for the job losses?

  75. Re:Oh no the financial industry! Not the bankers! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Welding is actually one of the first being automated away. Look at car factories and the such. Need to learn a better trade. Heavy Equipment Operator maybe? They make a lot of money, but not the healthiest job. However neither is being a desk jockey.

  76. Re:Orange Julius Caesar will drive us into recessi by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Well seeing as they're the only ones not afraid of guns. If they sent you guys in first your only offense would be defense(see meat shield). If Russia does invade, lets hope that never happens. You can bet your sweet ass the armed republican population will be at arms on the front line. That's what happens when you love your country. You will fight to the death for it.