Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million
View Full Version : Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million
MARCH 25, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Ongoing uncertainty about
the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than
2.5 million jobs in the **18** months following the Sept.
11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of
Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job cuts in the 18 months "before" (Clintons watch) Sept.
11 tallied 1,642,988 positions lost. From Sept. 11 through
the end of February, job losses totaled 2,523,217, an
increase of 54%, or 880,988 jobs, Challenger said. The
largest losses were in the transportation industry, where
226,674 jobs were eliminated, and the aerospace/defense
sector, where 138,937 jobs were cut.
Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-11 on
the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the last 9 months
of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his best interest..
Or maybe this has nothing to do with cycling?
Or maybe George W. Bush is a terrible president and that is why jobs are being lost?
Open your eyes.
Steve wrote:
> MARCH 25, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Ongoing uncertainty about
> the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than
> 2.5 million jobs in the **18** months following the Sept.
> 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John
> A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray &
> Christmas.
>
> Job cuts in the 18 months "before" (Clintons watch) Sept.
> 11 tallied 1,642,988 positions lost. From Sept. 11
> through the end of February, job losses totaled
> 2,523,217, an increase of 54%, or 880,988 jobs,
> Challenger said. The largest losses were in the
> transportation industry, where 226,674 jobs were
> eliminated, and the aerospace/defense sector, where
> 138,937 jobs were cut.
>
> Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-11
> on the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the last 9
> months of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his best
> interest..
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth-
_may04.png
Originally posted by Robert Chung
anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_may04.png Interesting, but then Steve is blinded to the truth!
On 6/28/04 12:03 AM, in article 2k9u6uF19ku9mU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert
Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> MARCH 25, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Ongoing uncertainty
>> about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of
>> more than 2.5 million jobs in the **18** months following
>> the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John
>> A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray &
>> Christmas.
>>
>> Job cuts in the 18 months "before" (Clintons watch)
>> Sept. 11 tallied 1,642,988 positions lost. From Sept. 11
>> through the end of February, job losses totaled
>> 2,523,217, an increase of 54%, or 880,988 jobs,
>> Challenger said. The largest losses were in the
>> transportation industry, where 226,674 jobs were
>> eliminated, and the aerospace/defense sector, where
>> 138,937 jobs were cut.
>>
>> Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-11
>> on the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the last 9
>> months of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his best
>> interest..
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_m-
> ay04.png
>
>
Recession? War?? 9-11?? Those mean nothing to your infamous
"Coward French" website?
Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will post an
update later?
Why does it not show "increments" like it shows for Bush?
Probably would not fit into its biased point it is trying
to show.....
Steve wrote:
> On 6/28/04 12:03 AM, in article 2k9u6uF19ku9mU1@uni-
> berlin.de, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-11
>>> on the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the last 9
>>> months of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his best
>>> interest..
>>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_m-
>> ay04.png
>>
>>
> Recession? War?? 9-11?? Those mean nothing to your
> infamous "Coward French" website?
>
> Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will post
> an update later?
Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the June
numbers aren't out yet.
> Why does it not show "increments" like it shows for Bush?
> Probably would not fit into its biased point it is trying
> to show.....
As for the effect of 9/11 on the US economy, the recession
began in March 2001 and ended 8 months later.
On 6/28/04 12:32 AM, in article 2k9vshF19amrrU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert
Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> On 6/28/04 12:03 AM, in article 2k9u6uF19ku9mU1@uni-
>> berlin.de, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-
>>>> 11 on the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the
>>>> last 9 months of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his
>>>> best interest..
>>>
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_-
>>> may04.png
>>>
>>>
>> Recession? War?? 9-11?? Those mean nothing to your
>> infamous "Coward French" website?
>>
>> Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will post
>> an update later?
>
> Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the
> June numbers aren't out yet.
>
>> Why does it not show "increments" like it shows for Bush?
>> Probably would not fit into its biased point it is trying
>> to show.....
>
> As for the effect of 9/11 on the US economy, the recession
> began in March 2001 and ended 8 months later.
>
>
ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking
While Clinton Was In Office. "America went into recession
long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. ...
The new figures suggest ... that the economy grew more
slowly in ... 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose
by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The
Economist, 8/3/02)
Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton's
Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, "it
was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming
into 2001."
The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.
(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)
Congress' Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic
Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. "By mid-year 2000 ...
signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it
became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A
number of key economic and financial indicators provided
evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future
growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements
of this evidence, for example, would include the following:
Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth
rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0
percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively,
before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of
2001. Key components of GDP such as real consumption
expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth
moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains
lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then
deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally
corroborated these developments.
Gross private investment also contributed significantly to
this general slowdown with most key investment categories
registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and
advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and
parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-
year basis).
The index of leading indicators trended down after
January 2000.
Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year.
Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged
about 256,000 per month for the 2
1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month
after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased
after mid-year.
The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly
since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity
utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers
index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have
all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.
Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year
2000 as well.
In short, there can be little doubt that a significant
economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000
in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration."
("Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment," United
States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)
Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph
Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure.
"It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton
Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by
President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly
sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely
with its taking charge. But ... the economy was slipping
into recession even before Bush took office, an d the
corporate scandals that are rocking America began much
earlier." (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The
Atlantic Monthly,
1/1)
Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That Bush
Administration Is Responsible For Recession. Stiglitz noted
that during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for
some of the problems we are now experiencing was being
laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken
further than it should have been; and corporate greed was
pandered to ...." (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties,"
The Atlantic Monthly,
1/2)
Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The
Economy. "Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is
proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated
the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000
election. Did the federal government join Enron and
WorldCom in cooking the books? ... Most startling, the
Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing
through most of the election year, while in fact it was
declining." (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, "Sunny Clinton Forecast
Leaves Cloud Over Bush," Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)
Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To
Recession. "A plunge in investment that began in the last
half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets, was
an important force in the recession." (Council Of Economic
Advisers, "Strengthening America's Economy: The President's
Jobs And Growth Proposals," 1/7/03)
Robert Chung wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will post
>> an update later?
>
> Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the
> June numbers aren't out yet.
The plot was based on the data from "Change in Payroll
Employment" that you can get here:
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
Note also that (as of today) the data only go up to May
2004. Perhaps you will blame that on Michael Moore.
BTW, job growth has been good over the last several
months, thank goodness, so I suspect that the June numbers
will bring GWB's average very close to out of the red and
up to right around zero. Note, however, that with current
growth in the labor force the US economy needs to generate
roughly 1.7 million jobs per year (about 140k per month)
to break even.
Steve wrote:
>>
> ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
Recession is defined by a *decrease* in real GDP for two
consecutive quarters. See
http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html. Real GDP *grew* in
2000Q4, albeit slowly; indeed, it also grew in Janary and
February 2001. It started decreasing in March 2001 and
decreased for 8 months--that's why the start of the
recession is dated to March 2001. Real GDP started growing
again right after 9/11.
You can get the data on GDP here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/download.html
On 6/28/04 12:51 AM, in article 2ka111F19d0kiU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert
Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will
>>> post an update later?
>>
>> Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the
>> June numbers aren't out yet.
>
> The plot was based on the data from "Change in Payroll
> Employment" that you can get here:
> http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
>
> Note also that (as of today) the data only go up to May
> 2004. Perhaps you will blame that on Michael Moore.
>
> BTW, job growth has been good over the last several
> months, thank goodness, so I suspect that the June numbers
> will bring GWB's average very close to out of the red and
> up to right around zero. Note, however, that with current
> growth in the labor force the US economy needs to generate
> roughly 1.7 million jobs per year (about 140k per month)
> to break even.
>
>
1) You ignored everything I posted showing the slowdown in
all economic indicators in the last half of 2000.......
2) You ignore the fact that if you add up what will
transpire in his SECOND term it will be much higher...
On 6/28/04 1:10 AM, in article 2ka237F19mtjkU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert Chung"
<me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>>
>> ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
>
> Recession is defined by a *decrease* in real GDP for two
> consecutive quarters. See
> http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html. Real GDP *grew* in
> 2000Q4, albeit slowly;
A "slowing" increase does not mean a "decrease" from the
norm? You can play semantics to your hearts content
"Homie don't play that"
> indeed, it also grew in Janary and February 2001. It
> started decreasing in March 2001 and decreased for 8 months--
> that's why the start of the recession is dated to March
> 2001. Real GDP started growing again right after 9/11.
>
> You can get the data on GDP here:
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/download.html
>
>
Well..........There you go again!!
Steve wrote:
>>
> 1) You ignored everything I posted showing the slowdown
> in all economic indicators in the last half of
> 2000.......
Oh, I only ignored it because a recession, by definition,
means we're going backward, not that we're going forward
slowly. Perhaps this forward-backward thing is a bit complex
for you. Think of a car. During much of the Clinton
adminstration, the car was going at freeway speeds. Toward
the end of the Clinton adminstration, the car was going
slower than it had been when it was on the freeway, but it
was still going forward. During eight of the first nine
months of the GWB adminstration (including the period when
it is estimated that GWB spent 42% of his time on vacation),
the car was in *reverse*. A month or so after 9/11/2001, the
recession ended and the car started moving forward again.
Please preface your post with "off topic" in the subject
line so we will know this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
this newsgroup. Gary
Steve wrote:
> MARCH 25, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Ongoing uncertainty
> about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of
> more than 2.5 million jobs in the **18** months following
> the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A.
> Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray &
> Christmas.
>
> Job cuts in the 18 months "before" (Clintons watch) Sept.
> 11 tallied 1,642,988 positions lost. From Sept. 11
> through the end of February, job losses totaled
> 2,523,217, an increase of 54%, or 880,988 jobs,
> Challenger said. The largest losses were in the
> transportation industry, where 226,674 jobs were
> eliminated, and the aerospace/defense sector, where
> 138,937 jobs were cut.
>
> Yet Michael Moore mentions nothing of the effect of 9-11
> on the economy???? Nothing of the job loss in the last 9
> months of Clinton?? I guess it was not in his best
> interest..
Steve wrote:
He didn't even mention Abu Ghraib! Shocking! (then again,
the abuse of prisoners took place between August and
November of 2003, but we only hear Bush and Rumsfeld lament
about it after the pictures become public)
patch70 wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_may04-
> > .png
>
> Interesting, but then Steve is blinded to the truth!
>
Sadly, I have a couple brothers like him. Hardheaded and
rigidly adhering to their side of issues, care more to be
recognised as right than what a discussion is about or if it
even has meaning. If the people who do their thinking for
them (and believe me, they will refuse to consider any other
sides to an issue once something has been presented to them
by their idols) say it's so, then everyone and everything
else is wrong. I don't think they're paranoid, yet, but
that'll probably come, too.
Robert Chung wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will post
>>>an update later?
>>
>>Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the
>>June numbers aren't out yet.
>
>
> The plot was based on the data from "Change in Payroll
> Employment" that you can get here:
> http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
>
> Note also that (as of today) the data only go up to May
> 2004. Perhaps you will blame that on Michael Moore.
>
> BTW, job growth has been good over the last several
> months, thank goodness, so I suspect that the June numbers
> will bring GWB's average very close to out of the red and
> up to right around zero. Note, however, that with current
> growth in the labor force the US economy needs to generate
> roughly 1.7 million jobs per year (about 140k per month)
> to break even.
>
>
Sadly those job counts don't include the decline in earning.
I've been hearing that on average it's 40% less. Which
describes my plight and the same for several of my friends
and associates. So, is this an adjustment, were we earning
too much? I have seen a few executives award themselves
retroactive raises over the past few years.
On 6/28/04 1:49 AM, in article 2ka4dpF18b69iU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert Chung"
<me2@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>>
>> 1) You ignored everything I posted showing the slowdown
>> in all economic indicators in the last half of
>> 2000.......
>
> Oh, I only ignored it because a recession, by definition,
> means we're going backward, not that we're going forward
> slowly. Perhaps this forward-backward thing is a bit
> complex for you. Think of a car. During much of the
> Clinton adminstration, the car was going at freeway
> speeds. Toward the end of the Clinton adminstration, the
> car was going slower than it had been when it was on the
> freeway, but it was still going forward. During eight of
> the first nine months of the GWB adminstration (including
> the period when it is estimated that GWB spent 42% of his
> time on vacation), the car was in *reverse*. A month or so
> after 9/11/2001, the recession ended and the car started
> moving forward again.
>
And why did the car start slowing down...........
Duh!!!!!!!!
All the markets peaked and were going down in the middle of
2000 You need to get past your narrow view of proving your
own reality of the truth
On 6/28/04 7:19 AM, in article cbp9d4$rkc@dispatch.concentric.net, "Richard
Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote:
> patch70 wrote:
>
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>> anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/employment_growth_may-
>>> 04.png
>>
>> Interesting, but then Steve is blinded to the truth!
>>
>
> Sadly, I have a couple brothers like him. Hardheaded and
> rigidly adhering to their side of issues, care more to be
> recognised as right than what a discussion is about or if
> it even has meaning. If the people who do their thinking
> for them (and believe me, they will refuse to consider any
> other sides to an issue once something has been presented
> to them by their idols) say it's so, then everyone and
> everything else is wrong. I don't think they're paranoid,
> yet, but that'll probably come, too.
>
Really??????
And Michael Moore does your thinking??
On 6/28/04 7:23 AM, in article cbp9lf$rk6@dispatch.concentric.net, "Richard
Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why does it stop at May 2004? Do you think they will
>>>> post an update later?
>>>
>>> Because, last time I looked, this is still June and the
>>> June numbers aren't out yet.
>>
>>
>> The plot was based on the data from "Change in Payroll
>> Employment" that you can get here:
>> http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
>>
>> Note also that (as of today) the data only go up to May
>> 2004. Perhaps you will blame that on Michael Moore.
>>
>> BTW, job growth has been good over the last several
>> months, thank goodness, so I suspect that the June
>> numbers will bring GWB's average very close to out of the
>> red and up to right around zero. Note, however, that with
>> current growth in the labor force the US economy needs to
>> generate roughly 1.7 million jobs per year (about 140k
>> per month) to break even.
>>
>>
>
>
> Sadly those job counts don't include the decline in
> earning. I've been hearing that on average it's 40% less.
> Which describes my plight and the same for several of my
> friends and associates. So, is this an adjustment, were we
> earning too much? I have seen a few executives award
> themselves retroactive raises over the past few years.
>
Now THAT is your big whiney problem! You have job problems
and your cushy lifestyle is upset! Now you have to follow
the liberal line and BLAME SOMEONE else
I am sure you could have cared less when the aerospace
industry was hosed in the past! You probably thought "Those
bad ole weapons makers got what they deserved!"
Steve wrote:
> On 6/28/04 1:49 AM, in article 2ka4dpF18b69iU1@uni-
> berlin.de, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>> 1) You ignored everything I posted showing the slowdown
>>> in all economic indicators in the last half of
>>> 2000.......
>>
>> Oh, I only ignored it because a recession, by definition,
>> means we're going backward, not that we're going forward
>> slowly. Perhaps this forward-backward thing is a bit
>> complex for you. Think of a car. During much of the
>> Clinton adminstration, the car was going at freeway
>> speeds. Toward the end of the Clinton adminstration, the
>> car was going slower than it had been when it was on the
>> freeway, but it was still going forward. During eight of
>> the first nine months of the GWB adminstration (including
>> the period when it is estimated that GWB spent 42% of his
>> time on vacation), the car was in *reverse*. A month or
>> so after 9/11/2001, the recession ended and the car
>> started moving forward again.
>>
>
> And why did the car start slowing down...........
> Duh!!!!!!!!
>
> All the markets peaked and were going down in the middle
> of 2000 You need to get past your narrow view of proving
> your own reality of the truth
You know, some people accuse the current
administration of up-is-downism. You're the first to
create forward-is-backism.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
