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.
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...
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.
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/
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.
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