Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/6/2010 8:38:25 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224729

Service Sector added jobs in December. Yeah, Walmart Greeters will lead us out of this recession./s

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/6/2010 10:04:07 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224729

Salazar Slips Energy Policy In Reverse Energy: As energy prices surge to uncomfortably high levels, a top administration official wants to make it harder for U.S. companies to get more oil and gas. Once again, we're shooting ourselves in the foot on energy. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar couldn't have picked a worse time to announce that he's placing new barriers on the development of oil and gas resources. Last year's rise in oil was the largest in a decade, and crude prices today have topped $82 a barrel. Yet Salazar on Wednesday announced plans, as the energy news service Greenwire put it, that "will require more detailed environmental reviews, more public input and less use of a provision to streamline leasing." In short, private energy development efforts are going backward. Worse, Salazar has politicized energy to an unseemly degree. In unveiling his new plans and trying to lay blame somewhere else for recent energy price jumps, he said: "The previous administration's 'anywhere, anyhow' policy on oil and gas development ran afoul of communities, carved up the landscape and fueled costly conflicts that created uncertainty for investors and industry." This isn't the first time Salazar's turned our energy future into a political debate. In November, he lashed out at the oil and gas industry, accusing it of "behaving like an arm" of the Republican Party and decrying the industry's "untruths." "Trade groups need to understand that they do not own the nation's public lands," he said. He's right. They don't own it. We do. And because of Salazar's unwise and even hostile energy stewardship, we will likely suffer through years and years of higher prices for crude oil, natural gas and other badly needed resources. As the chart shows, oil jumped from $44 a barrel at the start of 2009 to $83 a barrel at Wednesday's close. It's no accident. Salazar's latest move partly reverses the clear intent of a 2005 law, passed by a Republican Congress, that would speed up and streamline permits for energy projects on public lands. In effect he's pawning our energy future to political expediency. The U.S. is sitting on an immense supply of oil and gas, probably larger than anywhere else in the world. We have at least 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. As much as 35 billion barrels of oil lies waiting to be tapped in Alaska and the Chukchi Sea. A massive 2.2 trillion barrels of energy lies in our oil shale deposits in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Let's put this in perspective: Since 1859, when the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pa., the world has used 1.1 trillion barrels of oil. We have twice that amount locked up in oil shale deposits, mostly on federal lands. By comparison, the current No. 1 in proven oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, has just 266 billion barrels of oil. Worldwide, according to the respected Cambridge Energy Research Associates, as many as 4.8 trillion barrels of crude may be left. And a lot of it is here in the U.S. All this is important because, like it or not, the U.S. will still depend on carbon-based fossil fuels for 80% of its energy by 2035, according to the Energy Department. Yet this administration seems intent on leaving it in the ground, opting instead to enact a cap-and-trade law that will cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars while doing little if anything to cut C02 output. "When it comes to paving the way for the responsible development of homegrown, job-creating energy resources, no administration in history has done more to ensure producers do less," said Tom Pyle, head of the nonpartisan Institute for Energy Research. During the next 25 years, U.S. energy consumption is expected to grow by 15%, according to government estimates. We desperately need all the energy we can get — now. If not, we face a future of rising prices, higher inflation, slower economic growth and lower standards of living. That may be change, but it doesn't sound very hopeful.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/6/2010 10:05:48 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224729

Jon Shure, state fiscal project director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it will be hard for the White House and Democratic majority in Congress to ignore them. The center estimates 900,000 jobs could be lost without federal assistance. "The Federal Recovery Act, in terms of its impact on states, was huge and positive last year," he said. "We are already seeing other state governors say we need another recovery act or some kind of jobs bill." Last year's federal aid helped states close about 30% of their budget shortfalls, the center said. The political problem is that you cannot do it for just one state, says John Pitney, economic scholar at the conservative Pacific Research Institute. "Every parent ... is familiar with the phenomenon. You buy a toy for one kid and the other ones want it too," Pitney said. This is a classic example of "moral hazard," PRI's Pitney added. Despite their talk, California and other states did little to truly reform their budget processes to prevent future crises, he says. More assistance won't spur real reform, he said. Most states are barred from running budget deficits. The federal aid lets them continue to spend beyond their means. "Basically what California is asking for is subsidize us for misgovernance," Pitney said. "Had we prevented the spending increases in the first place we obviously wouldn't be in this fix." Indeed, Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday that touching education spending — about half of the state's general fund spending according to the free market Reason Foundation — was off limits. He also vowed to increase higher education spending by shifting funds from prisons. Late last month, White House spokesman Bill Burton indicated that the administration would listen to the states' funding requests. "It's obviously something that we'll take a look at," he told reporters on Air Force One. The $787 billion stimulus bill gave states an estimated $87 billion last year. But they remain in trouble. State budget shortfalls are likely to reach $180 billion in the coming fiscal year. California is leading that edge too. Schwarzenegger said the state faces a $19.9 billion shortfall over the next two years. 'Our Katrina' The CBPP and other liberal groups cite plunging sales and property tax revenue as the main culprit, along with the refusal of states to raise taxes. Critics say the recession exposed politicians' failure to reform fiscal policy during the fat years. (California managed to run deficits even amid surging tax revenue fueled by the unsustainable housing boom.) Schwarzenegger seemed to agree with the critics. "The budget crisis is our Katrina. We knew it was coming. We've known it for years. And yet Sacramento would not reinforce the economic levees," he said. To help close the shortfall, he called for a "More fair and equitable financial relationship with the federal government," according to a press release laying out the budget priorities. This is based on the argument that California residents only get 78 cents back for every tax dollar that goes to Washington. Golden State Parachute Schwarzenegger did not lay out specifics but said he wants more money for border enforcement as well as restructuring the state reimbursement formula for Medicaid. He laid out the latter request in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., late last month. "This flawed formula is forcing California to subsidize Medicaid costs in other states," he wrote. The speaker's office did not respond to a request for comment. "We haven't received a formal response, but the Speaker's spokesperson has been receptive in the press," said Rachel Arrezola, spokeswoman for the governor. In his speech Schwarzenegger also attacked Washington Democrats' health care overhaul. While it began as a "noble" effort, it has become a "trough of special bribes, deals and loopholes." And the problem with that, he argued, is that California isn't getting one. "The California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal that Sen. (Ben) Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State," he said to cheers. Nelson was able to get the Senate bill to cover his state's Medicaid costs to an estimated $100 million. A similar break for California would be far more costly, though. The big question, according to experts on both sides, is whether federal assistance gets labeled as a bailout. If it does, it is likely to become toxic and lawmakers in Washington will keep their distance. "When seen as a bailout, I think there is less of an appetite for it," CBPP's Shure said, adding he does not view it as a bailout. PRI's Pitney said, "Any kind of special assistance to the state is going to have to be disguised in some way."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/7/2010 8:23:00 AM
From: TideGlider	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Thanks to Obama manufacturing may make a come back in the US. Soon as the real income and quality of life are downgraded to the third world status we can become the Mecca of cheap plastic toys, pot holders and woven baskets.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/7/2010 9:21:57 AM
From: JakeStraw	6 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Obama begings 2nd. year with highest disapproval rating in modern era my.auburnjournal.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/7/2010 2:51:47 PM
From: JakeStraw	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Have you ever noticed how Obama thinks nothing is impossible as long as somebody else has to pay for it?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 8:37:47 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Economy loses more jobs, unemployment at 10 pct. Employers cut more jobs in December than expected, as unemployment rate remains 10 percent Friday January 8, 2010, 8:33 am WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy lost more jobs in December and the unemployment rate was unchanged, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation's employers. The Labor Department says employers cut 85,000 jobs last month, worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected. A sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work, kept the unemployment rate at 10 percent, the same as in November. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed. Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years, while it lost 16,000 more than previously estimated in October.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 9:04:17 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

Well tell us how the jobs report went today!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 9:28:10 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Employment Report Disappoints as Economy Sheds 85,000 Jobs in December- Reuters U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 85,000 jobs in December, cooling optimism on the labor market's recovery and keeping pressure on Obama. The Labor Department said November payrolls were revised to show the economy actually added 4,000 jobs in that month rather than losing 11,000 as initially reported. With revisions to October, however, the economy lost 1,000 more jobs than previously estimated over the two months.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 9:28:13 AM
From: FJB	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224729

The Democrats’ Job Standard Posted by: Research gop.com After Attacking Bush During Periods Of Job Growth, And Pledging Their Stimulus Would Create Millions Of Jobs, Where’s The Dems’ Outrage? LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED … In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As “Far From Enough.” “The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years … know that it is far from enough …” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough -- We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,’” Press Release, 10/3/03) In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush “Created A Climate … Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing.” “This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764) In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers “Anemic.” “Today’s anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Today’s Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,’” Press Release, 6/3/05) In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies “Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America’s Working Families.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America’s Working Families,” Press Release, 9/22/06) By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had “Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush’s Failed Economic Policies,” Press Release, 1/4/08) THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would “Fix The Economy.” “President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package ... ‘We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,’ Obama said, calling the legislation ‘the beginning of the end’ of what needed to be done to fix the economy.” (Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill,” The Washington Post, 2/18/09) And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. “[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years ...” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09) SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED 2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09) •Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/8/09) In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09) That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) •Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10) KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009 Obama Says “The Yardstick Should Be … Am I Creating These Jobs?” (Sam Stein, “Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create,” The Huffington Post, 12/15/08) •Pelosi: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs … We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Judge Dems’ Success On Whether We Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’” “The Plum Line” Blog, 12/3/09) DGA Chairman, Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE), Says “Burden Of Proof” On Dems To Show That They’re Creating Jobs. “When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here.” (Peter Wallsten and Naftali Bendavid, “Departures Shake Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/7/09) •But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Says Obama Made A Mistake In Pushing Health Care, And Should Have Focused On Jobs. “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy… I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move …” (Chris Zavadil, “Nelson: We Should Have Waited On Health Care,” The Fremont Tribune, 1/6/10) •And Obama’s Liberal Agenda Preventing Small Businesses From Creating Jobs, “Could Impede An Economic Recovery.” “But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses’ energy costs. … Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60% of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government’s Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery.” (Gary Fields, “Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 10:27:14 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224729

U.S. Job Losses in December Dim Hopes for Quick Upswing By PETER S. GOODMAN and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ 15 minutes ago The government said the economy shed 85,000 jobs last month, surprising forecasters, while the unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/8/2010 1:41:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

By ABBY GOODNOUGH Published: January 7, 2010 BOSTON — Martha M. Coakley, the Democrat running for Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, had seemed so certain of winning the special election on Jan. 19 that she barely campaigned last month. But the dynamic has changed in recent days. The news that two senior Democratic senators will retire this year in the face of bleak re-election prospects has created anxiety and, even in this bluest of states, a sense that the balance of power has shifted dramatically from just a year ago. With the holidays over and public attention refocused on the race, Ms. Coakley’s insistence on debating her Republican opponent, Scott P. Brown, only with a third-party candidate present has drawn mounting criticism. And a new poll that showed a competitive race between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown has generated buzz on conservative blogs and energized the Brown campaign — though many news organizations dispute its methodology. In a sudden flurry of activity, the Coakley campaign released its first television advertisement on Thursday and accepted the endorsement of Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, at a splashy event outside Boston. A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support. But a tighter-than-expected margin in the closely watched race would still prompt soul-searching among Democrats nationally, since the outcome will be the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party will play out in tangible ways at the polls later this year. “If I had to bet a week’s salary,” said Dennis Hale, a political science professor at Boston College, “I’d still bet it on Coakley. But this is going to be like in the military, where the bullet misses you but it still scares you to death.” While Ms. Coakley kept a low profile over the holidays, Mr. Brown hammered her as soft on terrorists and as a “crusader” for abortion rights. He has played up his military credentials — he serves in the Army National Guard — and his opposition to the health care overhaul headed for a final vote in Congress. That, too, has unnerved Democrats, who cannot afford to lose a single vote on the embattled legislation. Republicans are hoping that diminished support for President Obama and his party among independents could give Mr. Brown a shot at winning. About half of the state’s voters are not affiliated with a party. “Scott’s done a great job of tapping into the economy as an issue and the fact that people aren’t happy with what’s going on in Washington,” said Charles Manning, a Republican strategist here. “When you couple that with the coronation campaign that Martha’s been trying to run, it’s really made a difference.” Democrats dismiss such statements as wishful thinking whipped up by conservative commentators outside Massachusetts. Still, Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist, said Ms. Coakley erred in not campaigning more aggressively last month. “By taking a low-profile approach, she invited more of a race than she would have had otherwise,” Ms. Marsh said. “Sometimes I wanted to say, ‘My God, woman, take it up a notch.’ ” Massachusetts voters have not sent a Republican to the Senate in 37 years, though they have elected three Republican governors since 1990. Polls suggest that Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, will face a tough re-election battle this year despite his landslide victory in 2006. The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said. “The only people who come out in an election like this,” Ms. Marsh said, “are the diehards.” Ms. Coakley won the Democratic primary election on Dec. 8 with 47 percent of the vote, compared with 28 percent for her closest opponent. Mr. Brown won 89 percent of the vote in the Republican primary. Election officials said turnout was among the lowest for a contested primary in the state’s history. After receiving Mrs. Kennedy’s endorsement on Thursday at a center for the elderly in Medford, Ms. Coakley said she had been busy preparing for debates and ramping up a get-out-the-vote effort, among other things. “A campaign is composed of many parts,” she told reporters. “I think Jan. 19 will show the results of how busy we’ve been.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/10/2010 6:12:50 AM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Your man Edwards comes off as a real ass clown. ===================================================================================== posted at 9:45 pm on January 9, 2010 by Allahpundit "The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed… "[W]hen Biden, at an October fund-raiser in Seattle, famously predicted that Obama would be tested with an international crisis, the then-Illinois senator had had enough. "'How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?' he demanded of his advisers on a conference call, a moment at which most people on the call said the candidate was as angry as they had ever heard him… "Speaking to his own staff, Biden insisted that it hadn't really been a gaffe. And feeling a bit defensive, he invoked one of the worst memories of Obama's primary campaign. "'I guess it's a good thing I didn't say anything about bitter people who cling to their guns and religion,' Biden cracked, the authors paraphrase." *** "For all the high drama of the Obama-Clinton battle and the historic import of the former's general-election victory over McCain, Edwards's story is equally, lastingly resonant: an archetypal political tragedy in which the very same qualities that fuel any presidential bid—ego, hubris, vanity, neediness, a kind of delusion—became all-consuming and self-destructive. And in which the gap between public façade and private reality simply grew too vast to bridge… "Many of his friends started noticing a change—the arrival of what one of his aides referred to as 'the ego monster'—after he was nearly chosen by Al Gore to be his running mate in 2000: the sudden interest in superficial stuff to which Edwards had been oblivious before, from the labels on his clothes to the size of his entourage. But the real transformation occurred in the 2004 race, and especially during the general election. Edwards reveled in being inside the bubble: the Secret Service, the chartered jet, the press pack, the swarm of factotums catering to his every whim. And the crowds! The ovations! The adoration! He ate it up. In the old days, when his aides asked how a rally had gone, he would roll his eyes and self-mockingly say, 'Oh, they love me.' Now he would bound down from the stage beaming and exclaim, without the slightest shred of irony, 'They looooove me!'… "As for Elizabeth Edwards, she is reportedly now urging John to accede to Hunter's demands and take responsibility for his paternity of Frances Quinn—a dramatic and no doubt painful turnabout from her position eighteen months ago. Confronted then with the Enquirer photo of her husband cuddling Hunter's baby, she insisted to Palmieri that she still believed he was not the father. 'I have to believe it,' Elizabeth said. 'Because if I don't, it means I'm married to a monster.'" Hot Air » Blog Archive » Quote of the day (9 January 2010) hotair.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77206)	1/10/2010 11:23:03 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Shrinking U.S. Labor Force Keeps Unemployment Rate From Rising By Bob Willis and Courtney Schlisserman Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- An exodus of discouraged workers from the job market kept the U.S. unemployment rate from climbing above 10 percent in December, economists said. Had the labor force not decreased by 661,000 last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent, according to economists including David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto and Harm Bandholz at UniCredit Research in New York. “The actual unemployment rate is higher than shown by the official numbers,” Bandholz said yesterday after a Labor Department report released in Washington showed the economy unexpectedly lost 85,000 jobs in December while the jobless rate was unchanged. About 1.7 million Americans opted out of the workforce from July through December, representing a 1.1 percent drop that marks the biggest six-month decrease since 1961, the Labor Department report showed. The share of the population in the labor force last month fell to the lowest level in 24 years. December’s 10 percent unemployment rate matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. It was shy of the 26-year high of 10.1 percent reached two months earlier. The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent. The number of discouraged workers, those not looking for work because they believe none is available, climbed to 929,000 last month, the most since records began in 1994. Length of Unemployment The backdrop to the disillusionment is that it’s taking longer and longer to find work, economists said. Workers were unemployed for 29.1 weeks on average last month, the most since records began in 1948. “Longer-term unemployment is one of the biggest problems,” said Bandholz. “Payroll declines will come to a halt in the next couple of months, but the people who are unemployed are having problems getting a job and it’s getting tougher by the month.” Revised figures showed payrolls climbed by 4,000 in November. The gain was the first since the economic slump began in December 2007. “Workers seem to be particularly discouraged by this recession,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. Participation Rate The participation rate, or the share of the population in the labor force, fell to 64.6 percent in December, the lowest level since 1985, from 64.9 percent. The labor force will probably grow this year as the economy continues to expand and Americans believe jobs will be easier to get. That will mean the unemployment rate will head higher because there won’t be enough jobs available to satisfy the demand for work. “The exodus from the labor force can’t contain the unemployment rate indefinitely,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “We expect unemployment to resume rising over the next few months, peaking near 10.5 percent in the third quarter.” Federal Reserve policy makers, while noting stabilization in the labor market, have expressed concern about unemployment and poor job prospects. That’s one reason policy makers will keep the benchmark interest rate near zero longer than most anticipate, said John Ryding. Fed ‘On Hold’ “We continue to believe that the Fed will leave monetary policy on hold throughout 2010 in light of the high level of un- and under-utilized labor resources,” Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics in New York, said in a note to clients. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News last month projected the first rate increase would come in the third quarter of this year. Treasury two-year notes yesterday gained the most in three weeks following the worse-than-expected payroll numbers. The yield fell five basis points, or 0.05 percentage point, to 0.97 percent at 4:31 p.m. in New York. President Barack Obama on Dec. 8 proposed additional spending on the nation’s transportation system, tax credits to spur hiring by small businesses and incentives to make homes more energy efficient in a second round of efforts to cut the jobless rate. “We’re going to have to work harder to create jobs.” U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “This is a very stubborn recession.”