When Might Jobs Return to your Area ???

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Projection: It'll be years before jobs
return to much of U.S.</font size></center>



map-employment-html-box.jpg



McClatchy Newspapers
By Tony Pugh
Sunday, June 14, 2009


WASHINGTON — Unlike the labor market collapse that killed millions of U.S. jobs in a matter of months, the nation's return to peak employment will not be nearly as uniform nor as swift.

While signs indicate that the worst of the recession may be over, only six metropolitan areas across the country are expected to regain their pre-recession employment levels by the end of 2009, according to projections from IHS Global Insight, a leading economic forecaster.

The areas poised for a jobs rebound later this year are: Anchorage, Alaska; Champaign-Urbana, Ill.; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Columbia, Mo.; Laredo, Texas; and the Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux areas of Louisiana.

Only five areas are expected to see a similar jobs recovery in 2010: Las Cruces, N.M. and El Paso, San Antonio and the McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr and Austin-Round Rock areas of Texas.

Most of the country — 286 of 325 metro areas covered in the IHS analysis_ aren't likely to regain their pre-recession employment levels until at least 2012.

Of these areas, 112 probably won't return to their recent peaks until 2014 or later. These include Rust Belt towns such as Cleveland, Dayton and Akron, Ohio; Detroit, Warren and Flint, Mich.; the hurricane-ravaged Gulfport-Biloxi, Miss., area and the greater Los Angeles region, where the housing bubble and high unemployment have strangled the local economy.

The bleak jobs picture underscores the long, tough road ahead in rebuilding the U.S. economy after the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Of the 6 million jobs lost since the recession began 18 months ago, nearly 4 million were eliminated between November and April. The six-month freefall included a record four straight months with more than 600,000 job losses.

"This recession is unique because of the way it leveled the playing field," said James Diffley, IHS managing director of U.S. regional services. "The precipitating factor, after housing, was the finance industry, and that affected everybody. Now everybody's cutting back on debt, and the banks are being more cautious about lending, so there's less spending. All those things mitigate against a quick turnaround."

The IHS analysis covers 325 of 363 U.S. metropolitan areas, or population centers, as defined by the Census Bureau. Thirty-eight metro areas weren't included because of a lack of government data, said Jeannine Cataldi, an IHS senior economist.

Diffley said the projections reflect a local economy's response to various economic factors based on a statistical analysis of recent history.

IHS expects Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska to be among the first to match their previous employment peaks because their economies never fell as far as those in the rest of the country.

All three states are dominated by the energy industry and are benefitting from rising oil prices. They also have lower unemployment rates than the national average and have weathered only light-to-moderate job losses compared to the rest of the country. In April, Alaska was one of two states that had more people employed than it had in the previous year.

In addition, none of the states has suffered through the kind of major housing bubble that has sapped housing wealth nationwide. In fact, Alaska has one of the nation's lowest foreclosure rates.

Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, on the other hand, will take years to recover from manufacturing job losses, particularly in the troubled automobile industry.

President Barack Obama this week said that he expects the economic stimulus bill to create 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days, but most economists expect the economy to continue bleeding jobs for the foreseeable future.

"Although we expect the economy to bottom out in GDP terms during the second half of the year, job losses should continue throughout 2009, with the unemployment rate peaking just above 10 percent," said IHS chief U.S. economist Nigel Gault in a recent letter to investors. "We still expect total job losses to exceed 7 million. But the worst news is behind us, and employment declines should progressively soften as the year proceeds."

In fact, by the end of the year, the economy is expected to begin adding jobs. "We'll start to have an uptick, but it won't be very strong," Diffley said.

At least not until mid-2010, when a majority of states are likely to be adding jobs, Diffley said.

Expect much of the new job growth to occur in areas where the population is growing, Cataldi said. Many of the new jobs will be in the areas of professional and business services.

"We expect that to be a large growth sector going forward," Cataldi said.



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/69823.html
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1936416.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1936416.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
With the current leadership, jobs won't:

John Smith, an American, started the day early having set his alarm clock for 6am.
(MADE IN JAPAN )

While his coffeepot
(MADE IN CHINA )

was perking, he shaved with his electric razor
(MADE IN HONG KONG)

He put on a dress shirt
(MADE IN SRI LANKA)

designer jeans
(MADE IN SINGAPORE )

and tennis shoes
(MADE IN KOREA)

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet
(MADE IN INDIA )

he sat down with his calculator
(MADE IN MEXICO )

to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch
(MADE IN TAIWAN )

to the radio
(MADE IN HONG KONG)

he got in his car
(MADE IN JAPAN )

filled it with GAS
(MADE IN SAUDI ARABIA )

and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.
At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer
(Made In Malaysia ),

John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL )

poured himself a glass of wine
(MADE IN FRANCE )

and turned on his TV
(MADE IN TAIWAN)

and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA
 
This is not a traditional recession where the market has starts and stops that result in job loss. This a restructuring of a World economy where a segment of the American workforce has been eliminated. Those jobs are in Asia, Middle East, Mexico and some parts of Africa, they won't be back. Workers are being marginalized so wealth is concentrated among a very select few. What started as low wage jobs going overseas has extended to upperclass positions. Car dealerships being forced out of business, banks forced into closing. We are seeing like a new status quo and if we don't stop it we will not have any rights or power whatsoever. The people have got to form some resistance, it could be just turning off tv for a week or 2, but we better do something or we will end up working for China wages, $75.00 per month.
 
lol@jobs returning.
returning to who?

When the US increase import Tariffs to the same level the Chinese and Japanese impose on us!


Wont be happening. Especially under the Puppet Obama administration. China's people could honestly be wipped off the map..theyre not needed. They dont trade shit! Theyre basically just a bunch of peasants being controlled by a BS government, just like us, that puts gaining revenue and control before the needs of its people.

The question that should be asked is why is Obama and crew pushing those SHORT TERM BS green jobs so much? Short term in bold.
 
Last edited:
This is not a traditional recession where the market has starts and stops that result in job loss. This a restructuring of a World economy where a segment of the American workforce has been eliminated. Those jobs are in Asia, Middle East, Mexico and some parts of Africa, they won't be back. Workers are being marginalized so wealth is concentrated among a very select few. What started as low wage jobs going overseas has extended to upperclass positions. Car dealerships being forced out of business, banks forced into closing. We are seeing like a new status quo and if we don't stop it we will not have any rights or power whatsoever. The people have got to form some resistance, it could be just turning off tv for a week or 2, but we better do something or we will end up working for China wages, $75.00 per month.
Not me I'm a Medical Assistant going to school to be a Nurse: there's always work in the health industry. And I make $14 an hour now and $45 starting when I finish school.:hmm::yes::hmm:
 
lol@jobs returning.
returning to who?




Wont be happening. Especially under the Puppet Obama administration. China's people could honestly be wipped off the map..theyre not needed. They dont trade shit! Theyre basically just a bunch of peasants being controlled by a BS government, just like us, that puts gaining revenue and control before the needs of its people.

The question that should be asked is why is Obama and crew pushing those SHORT TERM BS green jobs so much? Short term in bold.


To divert the dumb cattle's eyes and minds away from the fact that America is being converted into a slave colony, with Jews and the Chinese at the helm...
 
^^^

If the projections of the expected effect of the recovery plan were inaccurate, what reason is there to believe the numbers projecting what would have happened without the recovery plan?
 
Save me lord Obama!!

stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif

Gee, you’re quoting crystal ball web sites. Tell me why if the right knows so much about what the economy would do with out the recovery plan, why didn't the Bush and the corporatist gang implement this fore thought when the shit was hitting the fan last fall?
 
Save me lord Obama!!

stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif

Hmm there's something I just noticed about this chart.

It's funny that the jobs start going away when the DEMOCRATS got control of both houses of congress. Yet, no one wants to point this out....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Notice the chart starts at 2007!
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>

good post que, that clears up the THOUGHT process...
 
In asses zeal to prove me wrong is this an example of routing for Obama to fail, which will in turn causing the economy to fail?
 
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html" width="780" height="1500"><br /> <A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html">link</A> <br /> <br /> </iframe>

Why did you felt the need to post the original, sheep?
 
In asses zeal to prove me wrong is this an example of routing for Obama to fail, which will in turn causing the economy to fail?

I've always said that I was against his policies. I stated that when I post the "I can't vote for him" thread. I've stated that he will be a great president *fuck good president because nearly every president was good* if he actually look at both sides of the aisle. Obama is basically going the straight left approach of governing. The same approach that will alienate most Americans *beyond racial, religious, and social lines*.

One thing you tend to forget in your argument is that the economy went down once the far left wing of the Democratic party took control over congress. I might be towards the right slightly, but I do agree with some democrats when it comes to credit, ect. What I can't support is this notion that if ONE person fails, the country fails. This country, nor the economy is based off ONE person. The economy is based on what the American people want to support. From how I see it, THOUGHT, Obama is trying to make the economy HIS economy. So, the American people would look at him in some kinda Father America type way. If what I say is true, then yes I want him to fail on that endeavor.



I don't understand your question.

QueEx

I'll translate. He is trying to say that you are a right wing extremist in a sly way......

TRUST ME!!! QUE IS NOT ON THE RIGHT AT ALL!!!!
 
I've always said that I was against his policies. I stated that when I post the "I can't vote for him" thread. I've stated that he will be a great president *fuck good president because nearly every president was good* if he actually look at both sides of the aisle. Obama is basically going the straight left approach of governing. The same approach that will alienate most Americans *beyond racial, religious, and social lines*.

One thing you tend to forget in your argument is that the economy went down once the far left wing of the Democratic party took control over congress. I might be towards the right slightly, but I do agree with some democrats when it comes to credit, ect. What I can't support is this notion that if ONE person fails, the country fails. This country, nor the economy is based off ONE person. The economy is based on what the American people want to support. From how I see it, THOUGHT, Obama is trying to make the economy HIS economy. So, the American people would look at him in some kinda Father America type way. If what I say is true, then yes I want him to fail on that endeavor.

See this is what we are talking about. When you make a statement as an opinion, you claim it as a fact. You said the far left. Who was elected that was far left? You said the economy started going down when the far left of the Democratic Party took control of congress. Give the exact date and what control did they have? I want you to explain your comments, perhaps to school me. May be there is something I might have missed. The days of Americans making there votes based on sound bytes and talk show blitzes are over. If you make a statement, back it up with arguments, which can be validated.
 
<font size="3">
This "Left Wing Did It Theory" is interesting:</font size>

One thing you tend to forget in your argument is that the economy went down once the far left wing of the Democratic party took control over congress.

<font size="3">
You might be right (I don't like that far left wing either) but, what exactly did it do to cause the economy to go down ??? What votes did they make??? What policies did they institution ??? In other words, what "FACTS" do you rely upon for that theory ???

But, if you are right, doesn't your "People Want Theory" . . . :



The economy is based on what the American people want to support.

<font size="3">
Contradict your "Far Left Wing Did It Theory" ???


And then there's your "Obama Wanna Make It Theory":</font size>

From how I see it . . . Obama is trying to make the economy HIS economy. So, the American people would look at him in some kinda Father America type way. If what I say is true, then yes I want him to fail on that endeavor.

<font size="3">Thats just Genious !



QueEx

</font size>
 
See this is what we are talking about. When you make a statement as an opinion, you claim it as a fact. You said the far left. Who was elected that was far left? You said the economy started going down when the far left of the Democratic Party took control of congress. Give the exact date and what control did they have? I want you to explain your comments, perhaps to school me. May be there is something I might have missed. The days of Americans making there votes based on sound bytes and talk show blitzes are over. If you make a statement, back it up with arguments, which can be validated.



<font size="3">
This "Left Wing Did It Theory" is interesting:</font size>



<font size="3">
You might be right (I don't like that far left wing either) but, what exactly did it do to cause the economy to go down ??? What votes did they make??? What policies did they institution ??? In other words, what "FACTS" do you rely upon for that theory ???

But, if you are right, doesn't your "People Want Theory" . . . :



<font size="3">
Contradict your "Far Left Wing Did It Theory" ???


And then there's your "Obama Wanna Make It Theory":</font size>



<font size="3">Thats just Genious !



QueEx

</font size>

Hopefully I can answer the "far left" comment with this statement.

If you go back, and review how the Democrats got control of congress, you will see that the states that was impacted the most was states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Thought, you remember when you was complaining about the moderate Democrats? They pretty much gave the Democrats the majority. The American people want smaller government, lower taxes, cut spending. The moderate Democrats ran on that issue because the republicans failed to give that to their supporters. Causing the Democrats to win overwhelmingly. What the American people did not want is the far left to take control of congress. Thus, why congress approval ratings was lower than Bush's during the time period between 06 until he left office. If you take a closer look at a couple of things, you will notice that not all of the Democrats are on board with issues like nationalize health care, government owned car companies, the stimulus, ect.

Thought, I can find articles if you want me too, but all you going to do is discredit them. So why should I bother?
 
Hopefully I can answer the "far left" comment with this statement.

If you go back, and review how the Democrats got control of congress, you will see that the states that was impacted the most was states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Thought, you remember when you was complaining about the moderate Democrats? They pretty much gave the Democrats the majority. The American people want smaller government, lower taxes, cut spending. The moderate Democrats ran on that issue because the republicans failed to give that to their supporters. Causing the Democrats to win overwhelmingly. What the American people did not want is the far left to take control of congress. Thus, why congress approval ratings was lower than Bush's during the time period between 06 until he left office. If you take a closer look at a couple of things, you will notice that not all of the Democrats are on board with issues like nationalize health care, government owned car companies, the stimulus, ect.
<font size="3">. . . but, what exactly did it do to cause the economy to go down ??? What votes did they make??? What policies did they institute ??? In other words, what "FACTS" do you rely upon for that theory ???

QueEx

</font size>
 
<font size="3">. . . but, what exactly did it do to cause the economy to go down ??? What votes did they make??? What policies did they institute ??? In other words, what "FACTS" do you rely upon for that theory ???

QueEx

</font size>

Blocking oil drilling until RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION for one. We both know, when gas went up, that caused a ripple effect throughout the economy.

BTW, the graph is consistent with my argument. Look at the unemployment from 2003 to 2009, and it will show how fast unemployment increased during late 2006 to today.
 
Back
Top