It turns out the bulk of the jobless numbers are adjusted upwards a little while after they are reported......so this 399 number is probably over 400,000 but they are fudging on reporting the REAL number.
The number of Americans applying for first-time benefits rose on Thursday, reversing a recent decline and suggesting the labor market remains brittle.Unemployment claims jumped to 399,000 in the first week of 2012, the highest in six weeks, from an upwardly revised 375,000 in the prior week. The four-week average of claims also marched higher to 381,750 from 374,000.
The Labor Department report also showed 3.63 million continuing claims, up from 3.61 million.
Including the millions of workers receiving benefits under emergency federal programs, some 7.3 million Americans were receiving as of December 24, the most recent date for which comprehensive figures are available.
The unemployment rate has fallen sharply in recent months and was 8.5 percent December, but some economists worry the drop has been due in part to discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.
Read more: Labor Pains: Weekly Jobless Claims Rise to 6-Week High | Fox Business
The House has had some 30-33 jobs bills all rejected by the Senate. Why also does the pres continue to make regulations so ridiculous that a company's hands are tied, their future is unclear, so out of fear, they don't hire.Yes exactly. The economy is still brittle and needs a boost. So why is the republican party sitting on its hands and not passing a strong jobs bill that helps put people to work. Nevermind, I know. If more people have jobs, the more they will vote for obama. Hence let the economy scream for a few more months so the republicans can profit from it. That is today's republican party. Be proud!!
The House has had some 30-33 jobs bills all rejected by the Senate. Why also does the pres continue to make regulations so ridiculous that a company's hands are tied, their future is unclear, so out of fear, they don't hire.
It's not the govt's job to create jobs, they are suppose to create the favorable atmosphere for small businesses to hire more and create businesses.
When the gov't tries, we get gov't motors, Solyndra, Fiskar, post office and the like.
How about a budget?He said JOBS BILLS, not political hatchet bills moreluck. Every jobs bill sent to the senate by the republcans contained CUTS from everything from Healthcare to Abortion.
How about a clean jobs bill without and RIDERS in it moreluck? I realize you wont have an answer , so I wont expect anything intelligent in response.
Peace.
2007 there were 74000 UAW Jobs.
Since Nov 2005 they had reduced the union jobs by 34400.
In 2008 they had 61000 Hourly jobs. Reduced to 49000 by Dec 2010, plan was to reduce to 40000.
Salaried jobs were to be reduced by 10000. Actually 6000.
Mostly thru a Special Attrition Program.
Dealers were 6246 in 2008 and 4500 in Dec 2010. Down 1746.
Jobs cut by 18,000 to 20,000 at GM.
PLUS the jobs lost in the 1746 dealerships closed and the companies that supplied them.
Cost 80 Billion Dollars.
Effects of the 2008–2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USATODAY.com - Timeline of United Airlines' bankruptcy
GM Bailout and Airline Bankruptcies, Did Obama Save Jobs? | Brian Koenig
Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Motors Earnings Releases - Quarterly Reports & Financial Releases
How Much Did the Auto Bailout Cost Taxpayers? - ABC News
The auto industry is a key component of the U.S. economy. Economists used 2007-2008 data to build estimates of what a shutdown would cost in summer 2008, in order to set benchmarks to help policy makers understand the impact of bankruptcies. Such estimates were widely discussed among policy makers in late 2008.[SUP][41][/SUP] Closing the Big Three would mean loss of 240,000 very highly-paid jobs at the Big Three,[SUP][42][/SUP] a loss of 980,000 highly-paid jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, plus the loss of 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy—a total loss of 3 million jobs.
The point is, the company would've survived (probably better) going through the bancruptcy process and the taxpayer's money needn't have been wasted in the process. Our money was basically thrown away!!
You make it sound like they were sitting on money and paid back.....they reborrowed from other sources!!! And I say it would've survived bankruptcy.....you say it wouldn't......stand off!No, it wouldnt have survived actually and it would have cost the government about $28.6 BILLION in lost tax revenue and assistance to the unemployed. Overall it only cost the government about $14 billion. Remember they got $80 billion and paid most of it back.
You make it sound like they were sitting on money and paid back.....they reborrowed from other sources!!! And I say it would've survived bankruptcy.....you say it wouldn't......stand off!
You made my point....if that's what companies do....borrow money....then they could've done that themselves. They didn't need the taxpayer bail out !!!Thats what companies do: they borrow $ just to pay payrole adn invest, especially when interest rates are so low. No, they werent sitting on $$ , they became profitable once again thanks to the government.
You made my point....if that's what companies do....borrow money....then they could've done that themselves. They didn't need the taxpayer bail out !!![/QUOTE
No in there position no bank would loan them the $$ they needed to survive. The government did it because they "owned" them for a while .