Jobless Rate Falls to Lowest Level in More Than 4 Years

[bhk]

http://nytimes.com/2006/02/03/business/03cnd-econ.html?hp&ex=1139029200&en=71eaaede30e79d63&ei=5094&partner=homepage


By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: February 3, 2006
The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in four and a half years in January, the government reported today, as the economy added construction, education, health and other jobs.

Employment was up in virtually every sector of the economy and the country as a whole added 193,000 jobs, the Labor Department reported. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, the lowest it has been since July 2001.

The report also revised upward the employment gains for November and December, increasing the total number of new jobs created in those months to 81,000. Though total job growth remains at a slower pace than at this point in past recoveries, the 687,000 jobs added in the last three months was one of the strongest showings of the current economic expansion.

With those additions and other revisions to the 2005 data taken into account, the economy added an average of 174,000 per month in the last 12 months. Economists estimate that the nation needs to add roughly 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth.

Though January's report fell short of economists' expectation of about 250,000 new jobs, it showed broad-based strength. The construction industry added 46,000 jobs, perhaps reflecting the warmer than usual January, and the number of education and health services jobs increased by 39,000. Employment was up in all parts of the economy except for retail services, in which jobs decreased by 2,000, and the government, which was down 1,000.

"This is one of the very-easy-to-interpret reports," said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist for Lehman Brothers. "In this one, everything lined up like the planets."

The unemployment rate also fell across most major population groups, except teenagers, who saw a slight increase. It fell the most for blacks, to 8.9 percent from 9.3 percent, and for adult men, to 4 percent from 4.3 percent.

Average wages, which have lagged behind inflation for much of the last year, were up 0.4 percent, or 7 cents an hour, to $16.41, indicating that workers are gaining some ground in a tightening labor market after anemic gains of recent years.

If the increase in incomes keeps up at this pace in the coming months it could prompt the Federal Reserve's policymakers to raise its benchmark short-term interest rate, now at 4.5 percent, when they meet on March 28, economists said. Sharply rising wages are often seen as a harbinger of inflation because they allow people to bid up the price of goods and services.

"We have not seen any inflation yet, but what we have heard is an inordinate number of price increase announcements in the third or fourth quarter, but they were not supposed to take effect until Jan. 1," said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research in New York.

Stocks were trading moderately lower this morning, as investors took into account the probability of another interest rate increase, which the Fed last raised earlier this week. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was down 0.5 percent. Bond prices initially fell after the employment report came out, but they have since recovered.

Among people who evacuated their homes because of Hurricane Katrina in late August, the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent in January from 12.4 percent in December.

About half the 1.2 million people who left their homes because of the hurricane had returned by January, most of whom were employed; the unemployment rate for returnees was 2.9 percent in January, down from 5.6 percent in December. But the situation appears to be getting worse for those who have not returned; the unemployment rate for them rose to 26.3 percent from 20.7 percent in December.

Separately, the University of Michigan's index of consumer confidence dipped slightly to 91.2 this month from 91.5 in December. The latest reading was down from an earlier estimate of 93.4.

Not sure about you but I want to assign some blame for this.

[dick_grayson]

http://nytimes.com/2006/02/03/business/03cnd-econ.html?hp&ex=1139029200&en=71eaaede30e79d63&ei=5094&partner=homepage



Not sure about you but I want to assign some blame for this.


the liberal media? :D

[kvrdave]

So it's not just the sky that's falling? :whofart:

[VinVega]

You can't believe the NY Times. There's an agenda there.

[mosquitobite]

Move along, nothing to see here.

The economy sucks, we're all doomed, we must elect Democrats to turn this country around before it's too late!

:lol:

[The Bus]

"Average wages, which have lagged behind inflation for much of the last year, were up 0.4 percent, or 7 cents an hour, to $16.41, indicating that workers are gaining some ground in a tightening labor market after anemic gains of recent years."

This is slightly more important. It means that either 1) the jobs added have higher wages or 2) that raises are more commonplace. But we still need to some much more of a change here.

[classicman2]

The fewest jobs created since Herbert Hoover - record Bush can be proud of.

[X]

If the unemployment rate is this low it appears there weren't that many jobs to "create". How can you "create" jobs when you have close to full employment?

I suppose by importing workers. Is that what's being advocated?

[Geofferson]

Did anyone here truly expect to see the unemployment rate go below the rate just prior to 9/11 only 4 years after the fact?

Somebody is doing something right.

[Geofferson]

The fewest jobs created since Herbert Hoover - record Bush can be proud of.
I love these 75-year-old comparisons because surely the US and world societal factors have not changed in the slightest.

[Bill Needle]

If the unemployment rate is this low it appears there weren't that many jobs to "create". How can you "create" jobs when you have close to full employment?
During the greatest economy the world has ever seen (1993 - 2000) the unemployment rate was below this level for a grand total of 1.5 years.

[The Bus]

The fewest jobs created since Herbert Hoover - record Bush can be proud of.

That's a completely useless benchmark.


Would you rather create 1,000 jobs paying $10/hr. at a shoe factory where people put in shoelaces into shoes? Or would you rather create 50 jobs at an engineering firm where everyone makes at least $25/hr?
Demographically speaking, in my lifetime we'll have a president who presided over America while it had the most non-wartime deaths. Is that the fault of a healthcare system or is it just the fact that baby boomers are starting to reach their 80s? Couldn't net growth be slightly affected by people now starting to reach retirement or early-retirement age?
What about the loss of 1,000 government jobs? Should government be employing more people?

[Tommy Ceez]

I love these 75-year-old comparisons because surely the US and world societal factors have not changed in the slightest.
Similar to the 'least jobs created after a recession since teh Depression" horseshit

[Tommy Ceez]

That's a completely useless benchmark.


Would you rather create 1,000 jobs paying $10/hr. at a shoe factory where people put in shoelaces into shoes? Or would you rather create 50 jobs at an engineering firm where everyone makes at least $25/hr?
Demographically speaking, in my lifetime we'll have a president who presided over America while it had the most non-wartime deaths. Is that the fault of a healthcare system or is it just the fact that baby boomers are starting to reach their 80s? Couldn't net growth be slightly affected by people now starting to reach retirement or early-retirement age?
What about the loss of 1,000 government jobs? Should government be employing more people?


Hell, theres probably 10000 unionized baby boomers with totally unnecessary, non replaced jobs retiring every day.

[X]

That's a completely useless benchmark.Not to mention the current high productivity which has kept prices low.

[classicman2]

If it is so useless why have you Repubs started numerous threads about job creation under George W. Bush?

Folks there were 8 other recessions between the Great Depression & Bush's recession. Why were more jobs created under those 8 other ones?

[nemein]

Folks there were 8 other recessions between the Great Depression & Bush's recession. Why were more jobs created under those 8 other ones?

I thought it was Clinton's recession that Bush pulled us out of -ptth- We also have 3 years left of his <strike>reign</strike> term so there's still time, or is there a time limit on this post-recession stat?

[classicman2]

You can only hope! Who knows Bush may be impeached and removed from office before then. :lol:

[Tommy Ceez]

If it is so useless why have you Repubs started numerous threads about job creation under George W. Bush?

Folks there were 8 other recessions between the Great Depression & Bush's recession. Why were more jobs created under those 8 other ones?

Because, Like was answered in the thread where you last asked the question...the global economy was not capable of handeling outsourcing on a large scale until recently...or am I missing the supercomputer that could send phone calls, engineering documents, and machining specifications to India that was built in 1940?

[classicman2]

Newsflash: There were other recessions after 1940? You are aware of Bush'd daddy's recession, I assume.

Why is it that recessions seem to occur under Republican Presidents?

[Bill Needle]

Most were deeper. The lower you go, the bigger the room to grow.

Quite honestly I can only hope the DNC latches on to this idea as a centerpiece for the 2006 election cycle. As talking points go, I can't see how a public that is nearing full employent (typically assumed to be 4%) is going to fall for some "there's no jobs" mantra. This, plus the already once discredited "Iraq is a failure" talking point should assure they are handily defeated yet again in November.

[SkullOrchard]

You can only hope! Who knows Bush may be impeached and removed from office before then. :lol:Yeah, let's impeach a President who is guilty of nothing more than trying to keep your unappreciative ass safe from a bunch of lunatics who want to kill you.

[Bill Needle]

Why is it that recessions seem to occur under Republican Presidents?
One reason is we have mostly Republican presidents. That being said, Carter's economy was an unmitigated disaster, and the latest one started under Clinton.

[classicman2]

Yeah, let's impeach a President who is guilty of nothing more than trying to keep your unappreciative ass safe from a bunch of lunatics who want to kill you.

That's a bunch of nonsensical crap.

[SkullOrchard]

That's a bunch of nonsensical crap.No, it's called the truth.

[classicman2]

No, it's called the truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

[Bill Needle]

No, it's called the truth.
I think he meant he actually does appreciate it. ;)

[classicman2]

Methinks you thinketh wrongly. :)

How many presidents have used the excuse 'we're doing this (curtailing civil liberties) to keep America safe?' Both Democrats & Republicans have used this argument.

I'll be the first to admit - the argument resonates with the majority of Americans. They value perceived safety more than they do the curtailment of their civil liberties.

[SkullOrchard]

Methinks you thinketh wrongly. :)

How many presidents have used the excuse 'we're doing this (curtailing civil liberties) to keep America safe?' Both Democrats & Republicans have used this argument.

I'll be the first to admit - the argument resonates with the majority of Americans. They value perceived safety more than they do the curtailment of their civil liberties.On the morning of 9/11, nearly 3,000 American citizens left the perceived safety of their own homes and went to work. A short time later, 19 murderous lunatics curtailed the most basic civil liberty available to anyone...the right to live. Your rhetoric is not only hollow and misguided, it can be fatal if taken literally.

[crazyronin]

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

How can this post be viewed as anything other than a personal attack, that adds nothing to the debate. C-man, I always expected better than this from you.

:sad:

[Tracer Bullet]

On the morning of 9/11, nearly 3,000 American citizens left the perceived safety of their own homes and went to work. A short time later, 19 murderous lunatics curtailed the most basic civil liberty available to anyone...the right to live. Your rhetoric is not only hollow and misguided, it can be fatal if taken literally.

Appeals to emotion will almost always win out against reason. This is not something to be striving for.

[Bill Needle]

If the facts elicit emotion, so be it. Facts are also the most basic element of reason.

[classicman2]

How can this post be viewed as anything other than a personal attack, that adds nothing to the debate. C-man, I always expected better than this from you.

:sad:

In response to this post:

Yeah, let's impeach a President who is guilty of nothing more than trying to keep your unappreciative ass safe from a bunch of lunatics who want to kill you.

[Thor Simpson]

Great. First Bush lets his approval rating fall, now he lets the Jobless rate fall. At least we knew Clinton could keep <i>something</i> up.

[Dead]

... your unappreciative ass safe from a bunch of lunatics who want to kill you.

SkullOrchard, this really wasn't called for. There's no need to be rude when making your point.

[crazyronin]

you did happen to read the sticky? (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448146)

- Try not to "fire from the hip" or respond "in-kind" when posting. Take the time to think through your response and reread it before hitting the submit button to make sure it says what you want to say in the manner you want it said. This is especially important when a particular thread starts to get a little heated and people on both sides are getting worked up and feeding off of each other leading to an all out "flame war".

[Dead]

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.


Same here... any you've been warned before recently. I'd strongly suggest that you not repeat this type of action again.

[SkullOrchard]

Appeals to emotion will almost always win out against reason. This is not something to be striving for.You mean like how the Democrats and Liberal media conspire to manipulate our basic emotional response to privacy invasion by perpetuating the false notion that the Bush administration is illegally spying on your average, innocent American citizen without just cause...in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?

[Bill Needle]

You mean like how the Democrats and Liberal media conspire to manipulate our basic emotional response to privacy invasion by perpetuating the false notion that the Bush administration is illegally spying on your average, innocent American citizen without just cause...in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?
:lol: You forgot to add: "Women, children, the elderly, and minorities hardest hit."

[Tommy Ceez]

Newsflash: There were other recessions after 1940? You are aware of Bush'd daddy's recession, I assume.



What are you talking about?

I am going allow for the fact that you may not get humor, but 1940 had nothing to do with it.

Are you honestly comparing telecommunications technologies in 1990 and 2006?!?!

The world economy did not have the infrastructure to handle outsourcing in 1940 OR 1990 like it does today.

Let me guess: the response to this post will be a cryptically phrased question.

[SkullOrchard]

SkullOrchard, this really wasn't called for. There's no need to be rude when making your point.You are correct, sir. My sincerest apologies to classicman2 and this forum.

[classicman2]

Are you honestly comparing telecommunications technologies in 1990 and 2006?!?!

Bush took office 5 years ago.

[Tracer Bullet]

You mean like how the Democrats and Liberal media conspire to manipulate our basic emotional response to privacy invasion by perpetuating the false notion that the Bush administration is illegally spying on your average, innocent American citizen without just cause...in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?

:lol:

Is that all you have? Did I mention any parties?

[Tommy Ceez]

Bush took office 5 years ago.

That has nothing to do with this


Newsflash: There were other recessions after 1940? You are aware of Bush'd daddy's recession, I assume..

[classicman2]

Are you comparing Bush's recession to his father's recession? Yes or no?

[Tommy Ceez]

Are you comparing Bush's recession to his father's recession? Yes or no?
No, YOU ARE!!!!!!!

Holy moly! Its impossible to hold a conversation with you, you're the most evasive poster on this board

[bhk]

the liberal media?

The liberal media is doing their usual of trying to make Bush look bad by shedding jobs. You can't blame them, they're doing their part.

[kvrdave]

Appeals to emotion will almost always win out against reason. This is not something to be striving for.

It is if it will work on my wife......hmmmmmm.

[dick_grayson]

The liberal media is doing their usual of trying to make Bush look bad by shedding jobs. You can't blame them, they're doing their part.


yeah, the joke that whenever any good news for the admin comes out people here (including you) blame the liberal media that you never hear anything about it. since you cited the NY Times as your source for this "good news," I found amusing.

by the way, your committment to spin has been quite impressive. keep up the good work :up:

[bhk]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/23/financial/f044201S80.DTL

Reuters Posts Disappointing 2006 Outlook
02-23) 05:10 PST LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) --


Reuters Group PLC, the news and financial data provider, reported a 25 percent rise in full-year profit Thursday due to the sale of its stake in Instinet, but a disappointing 2006 outlook sent its shares down sharply.


Reuters shares fell 10 percent to 406 pence ($7.11) in trading on the London Stock Exchange.


Reuters said net profit rose to 456 million pounds ($793 million) in 2005 compared with 364 million pounds in 2004. Revenue rose 2.9 percent to 2.41 billion pounds ($4.19 billion) from 2.34 billion pounds.


Analysts said the results were broadly in line with the market consensus.


The London-based company also delivered revenue growth from core subscribers for the first full year since 2001.


Underlying recurring revenue — subscriptions to Reuters terminals, which account for 93 percent of the company's sales — rose 1 percent for the year, including a 1.7 percent gain in the second half.


The company recorded a net gain of 191 million pounds ($335 million) on the December sale of its majority stake in the electronic trading platform Instinet to the Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.


But the company's outlook soured sentiment toward Reuters' stock. Numis Securities noted that the company's guidance of 3 percent underlying revenue growth for 2006 was below forecasts of 4 percent.


"The shares have had a good run but numbers are at the bottom range of expectations and people were pricing upgrades into the market and those haven't been delivered," said Numis analyst Paul Richards.


Reuters has struggled to increase sales against fierce competition from U.S. rivals Bloomberg LP and Thomson Financial, while mergers and consolidations in the banking industry have reduced demand for its financial products among banks.


Chief Executive Tom Glocer implemented a cost-cutting program in 2003 and last year started the Core Plus plan, which aims to boost revenues by targeting markets outside the traditional terminals business.


Glocer said the Core Plus program was beginning to reap rewards, pointing to a new global contract with Citigroup Inc.


New services such as "tick history," which provide intraday trading prices, and new transactional products would be the key new drivers of growth in 2006, he said. He also highlighted strong growth in revenues from emerging markets, especially India, which recorded a 19 percent lift in revenues during 2005.


Glocer said the company has achieved the objectives announced in 2003 for its Fast Forward restructuring and cost-savings program. Those steps are predicted to deliver 440 million pounds ($765 million) in savings on an annual basis by the end of this year.


"I am confident that in 2006 we will increase growth while reinforcing our hard-won cost discipline," Glocer said in a statement.


Where is that pic of that tiny violin.

[mosquitobite]

:violin:

Same as the NYTimes, and all the rest of the biased news businesses.

The internet has doomed them in that bloggers sometimes do a better job of research than those PAID to do so.

I must say though, that lately I've been QUITE impressed with NPR. Props :up: I can tell a difference in how they are reporting their stories. While the topics are still pretty liberal in nature (environmental stuff, local humanity issues, etc) I can tell they have really started to work at reporting BOTH sides (positive/negative, dem/rep) of a story. It makes it much more enjoyable to listen to lately. Whoever is in charge MIGHT actually get a donation from me this season. ;)

[JasonF]

Speaking of how the mean old liberal media has it in for poor Mr. Bush, here's a recent column on the jobless rate from that noted leftist, Pat Buchanan:

Our hollow prosperity

Posted: February 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Now that the U.S. trade deficit for 2005 has come in at $726 billion, the fourth straight all-time record, a question arises.

What constitutes failure for a free-trade policy? Or is there no such thing? Is free trade simply right no matter the results?

Last year, the United States ran a $202 billion trade deficit with China, the largest ever between two nations. We ran all-time record trade deficits with OPEC, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Latin America. The $50 billion deficit with Mexico was the largest since NAFTA passed and also the largest in history.

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States.

Again, when can we say a free-trade policy has failed?

The Bushites point proudly to 4.6 million jobs created since May 2003, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and low inflation.

Unfortunately, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts and analysts Charles McMillion and Ed Rubenstein have taken a close look at the figures and discovered that the foundation of the Bush prosperity rests on rotten timber.

The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service sector – credit intermediation, health care, social assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and state and local government.

But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss in goods-producing jobs.

"The decline in some manufacturing sectors has more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing than with a super-economy that is 'the envy of the world,'" writes Roberts.

Communications equipment lost 43 percent of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37 percent ... The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30 percent. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25 percent of its workforce.

How did this happen? Imports. The U.S. trade deficit in advanced technology jobs in 2005 hit an all-time high.

As for the "knowledge industry" jobs that were going to replace blue-collar jobs, it's not happening. The information sector lost 17 percent of all its jobs over the last five years.

In the same half-decade, the U.S. economy created only 70,000 net new jobs in architecture and engineering, while hundreds of thousands of American engineers remain unemployed.

If we go back to when Clinton left office, one finds that, in five years, the United States has created a net of only 1,054,000 private-sector jobs, while government added 1.1 million. But as many new private sector jobs are not full-time, McMillion reports, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."

This is an economic triumph?

Had the United States not created the 1.4 million new jobs it did in health care since January 2001, we would have nearly half a million fewer private-sector jobs than when Bush first took the oath.

Ed Rubenstein of ESR Research Economic Consultants looks at the wage and employment figures and discovers why, though the Bushites were touting historic progress, 55 percent of the American people in a January poll rated the Bush economy only "fair" or "poor."

Not only was 2005's growth of 2 million jobs a gain of only 1.5 percent, anemic compared to the average 3.5 percent at this stage of other recoveries, the big jobs gains are going to immigrants.

Non-Hispanic whites, over 70 percent of the labor force, saw only a 1 percent employment increase in 2005. Hispanics, half of whom are foreign born, saw a 4.7 percent increase. As Hispanics will work for less in hospitals and hospices, and as waiters and waitresses, they are getting the new jobs.

But are not wages rising? Nope. When inflation is factored in, the Economic Policy Institute reports, "real wages fell by 0.5 percent over the last 12 months after falling 0.7 percent the previous 12 months."

If one looks at labor force participation – what share of the 227 million potential workers in America have jobs – it has fallen since 2002 for whites, blacks and Hispanics alike. Non-Hispanic whites are down to 63.4 percent, but black Americans have fallen to 57.7 percent.

What is going on? Hispanic immigrants are crowding out black Americans in the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled job market. And millions of our better jobs are being lost to imports and outsourcing.

The affluent free-traders, whose wealth resides in stocks in global companies, are enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens and sacrificing the American worker on the altar of the Global Economy.

None dare call it economic treason.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48837

[shifrbv]

This is slightly more important. It means that either 1) the jobs added have higher wages or 2) that raises are more commonplace. But we still need to some much more of a change here.

16.41, is that after taxes? If not, it's still only 34K per year which won't buy crap when the median home price is over 200K in this country. Republicans don't seem to understand this. It's not the quantity, it's the quality. And quality under the Bush admin has quite frankly sucked.

[salamander2]

I thought Pat Buchanan was a Bush-supporter, a no liberal?

[Tracer Bullet]

I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan more and more, and it scares me.

[classicman2]

I thought Pat Buchanan was a Bush-supporter, a no liberal?

Buchanan is tough to define. You might call him a half-assed populist. ;)

I agree with him on trade & mostly on immigration - with the exception of Mexico.

He also is opposed to the war in Iraq.

[jdodd]

I thought Pat Buchanan was a Bush-supporter, a no liberal?
He's certainly not liberal, but more and more conservatives appear to be growing dissatisfied with Bush and Pat seems to be one of them. A few of them are even in this forum.

[classicman2]

He's certainly not liberal, but more and more conservatives appear to be growing dissatisfied with Bush and Pat seems to be one of them. A few of them are even in this forum.

I think Buchanan has a number of traditional liberal views - trade is definitely one of them.

[jdodd]

Didn't Buchanan fancy himself a Libertarian at some point? I admittedly don't know enough about him to know how accurate he was in calling himself that.

[AGuyNamedMike]

16.41, is that after taxes? If not, it's still only 34K per year which won't buy crap when the median home price is over 200K in this country. Republicans don't seem to understand this. It's not the quantity, it's the quality. And quality under the Bush admin has quite frankly sucked.

I agree with you that low paying jobs suck, but the reality of the matter is that whether we as a society magically create hundreds of thousands of new high paying jobs or not, we will still need to fill those sucky ones. There will always be janitors, school bus drivers, fast food clerks, grocery checkers, groundskeepers, movie ticket takers, and snarky teens folding sweaters at the Gap. Always. and their wages will bring down the average.

[classicman2]

Didn't Buchanan fancy himself a Libertarian at some point? I admittedly don't know enough about him to know how accurate he was in calling himself that.

Oh, no!

He's pretty much the opposite of a libertarian. He's a social conservative.

[jdodd]

Ah, never mind. Just did a quick read-up and it was the Reform Party he campaigned under, not Libertarian. I was young back then and all the "third parties" were all the same to me. :lol:

[bhk]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/23/D8FURQGO0.html

CBS Records $9B Loss on TV, Radio Charges
Feb 23 8:48 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

NEW YORK


CBS Corp. reported a loss of $9.1 billion in the fourth quarter on hefty charges to write down the value of its radio and television businesses, the media company reported Thursday.

CBS was reporting earnings for the first time as a separate company since its separation from Viacom Inc. was completed at the beginning of the year. CBS reported the fourth quarter as if it were already a separate entity.

On that basis, CBS had a net loss amounting to $6 per share for the three months ended Dec. 31, weighed down by charges to write down the fair market value of its radio and television properties. The valuations of radio stations in particular have suffered in recent years due to stagnant revenues and higher costs.

The latest results compared to an even larger net loss of $18.4 billion, or $10.99 per share, in the comparable period in 2004, when the company also recorded big charges to write down its radio stations as well as its outdoor advertising business.

Revenues rose 2 percent to $3.83 billion from $3.75 billion a year earlier.

Excluding the charges, and assuming the split had occurred at the beginning of 2005, CBS said earnings would have been $311 million, or 41 cents per share. That was 2 cents a share ahead of the forecast of analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.

Also excluding the charges, CBS said that operating income rose 3 percent to $647 million, led by a 9 percent gain in its television business, 18 percent higher profits in outdoor advertising, offset by an 11 percent decline in earnings from radio.


I'm sure that if they contact Dan Rather, he can get documents showing a profit for CBS.

[Tracer Bullet]

I agree with you that low paying jobs suck, but the reality of the matter is that whether we as a society magically create hundreds of thousands of new high paying jobs or not, we will still need to fill those sucky ones. There will always be janitors, school bus drivers, fast food clerks, grocery checkers, groundskeepers, movie ticket takers, and snarky teens folding sweaters at the Gap. Always. and their wages will bring down the average.

Sure, but I think the point is that relatively high-paying manufacturing, etc. jobs that allowed the working class to live a middle class lifestyle are disappearing and being replacing by those "sucky" jobs. Perhaps it was an accident of history that this could occur, and is now being corrected. I don't think there are any easy answers.

[Fokker's Feint]

Sure, but I think the point is that relatively high-paying manufacturing, etc. jobs that allowed the working class to live a middle class lifestyle are disappearing and being replacing by those "sucky" jobs. Perhaps it was an accident of history that this could occur, and is now being corrected. I don't think there are any easy answers.

Indeed...it seems that a good chunk of these high-paying manufacturing jobs were the product of union power gone awry. Does someone with only a high school diploma deserve to be making as much as auto workers used to?

ETA: Especially if someone else just as qualified is willing to do the job for less?

[Fokker's Feint]

Let me add another thought. People around here often complain about the sense of entitlement many Americans have. Of course, the targets tend to be the easy ones...people on welfare, etc.

But what about the sense of entitlement people have with regard to jobs in the US? Why should a company hire you if there is someone halfway across the world willing to do the same job at comparable efficiency for a fraction of the cost?

What exactly is it that entitles you to have that job?

[mosquitobite]

Let me add another thought. People around here often complain about the sense of entitlement many Americans have. Of course, the targets tend to be the easy ones...people on welfare, etc.

But what about the sense of entitlement people have with regard to jobs in the US? Why should a company hire you if there is someone halfway across the world willing to do the same job at comparable efficiency for a fraction of the cost?

What exactly is it that entitles you to have that job?

:up: :up:

The same people that play on the internet all day but still want raises and promotions and no risk of outsourcing?

*runs and hides as a guilty party* :lol:

[Ranger]

The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service sector – credit intermediation, health care, social assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and state and local government.

But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss in goods-producing jobs.
Well, while I do think a lot of the service jobs are really the mcjobs with the high turnover rates, the service industry still does include healthcare workers - and those people make good money.

Do engineers and electricians count as service jobs?

As for the manufacturing job losses, I was trying to remember something - a few years ago when Bush did something about the steel tariffs - what did he do exactly and did it hurt the American steel industry?

I think Bush did seem to try make some efforts to protect the U.S. textile and manufacturing industries but places like China and Europe complained pretty loudly and put pressure on Bush to conform to their demands and the wto rules.

[VinVega]

I must say though, that lately I've been QUITE impressed with NPR. Props :up: I can tell a difference in how they are reporting their stories. While the topics are still pretty liberal in nature (environmental stuff, local humanity issues, etc) I can tell they have really started to work at reporting BOTH sides (positive/negative, dem/rep) of a story. It makes it much more enjoyable to listen to lately. Whoever is in charge MIGHT actually get a donation from me this season. ;)
You're just getting soft. You're just a little more sympathetic to liberal causes now. I'll take full credit for that softening. :lol:

[shifrbv]

Let me add another thought. People around here often complain about the sense of entitlement many Americans have. Of course, the targets tend to be the easy ones...people on welfare, etc.

But what about the sense of entitlement people have with regard to jobs in the US? Why should a company hire you if there is someone halfway across the world willing to do the same job at comparable efficiency for a fraction of the cost?

What exactly is it that entitles you to have that job?

It's not just whether someone half-way around the world is willing to work for less. There are many other factors to consider. Is it right for a company to hire cheap labor in China where there are no environmental standards and they export pollution across the Pacific to the rest of the world? The playing fields are not level and it should not be allowed. If China can operate on the same basis as the US and have the same safety, environmental, and social standards and do the job cheaper, more power to them. But the way they currently operate is not acceptible and no where near up to par with other first world countries and more scrutiny should be given to companies that try to operate out of there "on the cheap" in those deplorable conditions.

[DVD Polizei]

Yeah, let's impeach a President who is guilty of nothing more than trying to keep your unappreciative ass safe from a bunch of lunatics who want to kill you.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most terrorists want to fight the US in Iraq, not in the US. Yes, Mr. Bush would have you think the US will fall and crumble if we pull out because that would mean the evil bad ones would see it as a weakness and would attack the US.

Well, not so. :)

Also, the Prez is doing a great job of keeping people safe like making sure the borders are secure. Right? Because borders to a country are the first line of defense. Right?

Oh wait. Not in Bush's world.

[al_bundy]

It's not just whether someone half-way around the world is willing to work for less. There are many other factors to consider. Is it right for a company to hire cheap labor in China where there are no environmental standards and they export pollution across the Pacific to the rest of the world? The playing fields are not level and it should not be allowed. If China can operate on the same basis as the US and have the same safety, environmental, and social standards and do the job cheaper, more power to them. But the way they currently operate is not acceptible and no where near up to par with other first world countries and more scrutiny should be given to companies that try to operate out of there "on the cheap" in those deplorable conditions.

I'm reading Collapse by Jared Diamond. He also wrote Guns Germs and Steel.

He writes that many past civilizations collapsed due to enviromental issues. Since his books have been read by Bill Clinton and other high government officials it's probably safe to say that we are exporting pollution to China with the expectation that one day it will have serious problems for them and keep us safe.

[DVD Polizei]

I'm not so sure we're exporting pollution so it can't affect us. I think we're doing a great job of it ourselves, but we just make laws that hide it, making it seem like something is being done about it. Kind of like Oregon's emission laws. They tell city drivers to get their cars in check, but yet the mass transit system and industrial vehicles which avoid the emissions tests, are by far emitting enough pollution to offset any emissions laws.

[movielib]

I think Buchanan has a number of traditional liberal views - trade is definitely one of them.
But it was not always so.

I remember Buchanan arguing for free trade many times back in the earlier Crossfire days. He went crazy later. ;)

His old Crossfire partner Michael Kinsley attests to Pat's flip-flop:

http://www.kcet.org/lifeandtimes/archives/200410/20041025.php

Michael Kinsley>> Well, sure. One I can think of, although
it's an odd one, is trade. I'm very, very Free Trade, very,
very skeptical of the complaints about out-sourcing. But the
politics of trade keep changing. I spent six years doing this
show, "Crossfire", on CNN, most of it against Pat Buchanan whom
I'm sure your viewers have interesting opinions about.

When we started the show, it was complicating to the producers.
They really didn't like it that I was pro Free Trade because
they thought pro Free Trade is conservative, protectionism is
liberal, and Pat was very pro Free Trade. Then he underwent
this weird transformation which, you know, led him to run for
president and to pick feuds with all his old friends. He came
back from summer vacation one summer as a protectionist and then
the producers were very happy because then they could say that
Free Trade liberal protectionism conservatives.

[X]

It seemed to me at the time that Buchanan became a populist to distinguish himself from GHWB so he could run for president. Not the other way around.

[Xytraguptorh]

Buchanan was referring to this column by (conservative) columnist Paul Craig Roberts:

Jobs News Even Worse Than We Thought
By Paul Craig Roberts

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities—primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is "the envy of the world." Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized "new economy" never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.

In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.

Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs. Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones. Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.

They were wrong.

At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for "free market economists" who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefiting Americans.

Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.

No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camelot writes that there were 7.9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)

The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.

On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005—$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war.

Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression?

Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060211_jobs.htm

[al_bundy]

if IT is so bad than why did I get a lot of responses for my very limited job search last year? A lot of companies are bringing IT jobs back to the US after outsourcing failed.