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.

Comments

Predictable (really)

[slipped_bit]

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

Re:Predictable (really)

[ilsaloving]

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.

Re:Predictable (really)

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Predictable

[flippy]

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

Re:Well actually that is correct

[flippy]

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.

Re:Well actually that is correct

[TimothyHollins]

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).

Re:news of jobs created/lost news is bankrupt

[flippy]

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.

Total down, not just layoffs up

[XXongo]

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.

Overdue for a contraction

[Comboman]

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.

I keep saying this

[rsilvergun]

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.

Potential of Trumpism?

[shanen]

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.