Layoffs up 26%, Challenger says

[UpInArms]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={AD8D5249-4464-42B0-BA2B-7484E6EA5EBF}&siteid=mktw&dist=bnb

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Announcements of job reductions by U.S. corporations surged 26 percent in January to 117,556, the highest since October, according to a monthly tally by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

"We typically see higher job cuts in January as companies set into motion business plans and employment needs for the new year," said John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement firm.

<snip>

Challenger said outsourcing jobs overseas and increased merger and acquisition activity could boost the number of layoffs this year, even as the economy improves.

"This could be a big year for such transactions as companies try to strengthen their position in the marketplace as the recovery builds momentum," he said.

...more...

[lcordero]

1. "recovery builds momentum"?????

They must mean that the recession builds momentum.

[roscoeroscoe]

2. yikes!

this is scary news.

[bloom]

3. My former employer just

laid off more people yesterday.

(I guess they'll be a part of the February numbers.)

[llmart]

4. So much for the media's

try at convincing Americans that everything was just comin' up roses. Guess they'll all have to stop using all those rosy adjectives about the economy that I've been seeing/hearing everywhere; "sizzling", "blistering", "hot", "booming", "surging". Some of us out here knew it was all smoke and mirrors.

[krkaufman]

36. Not

I'll be surprised if they do. The media all have jobs, so what the hell do they care?

The economy is rebounding; we just had the best productivity in 20 years. This President's economy-related program activities are working.

[bleedingheart]

5. Outsourcing helps to strengthen their position in the market but

screws the employees who can then no longer afford to go to the grocery market.

[Frodo]

6. One post - five replies - and nobody read the article.

"We typically see higher job cuts in January"

January 2004 layoffs were 11 percent lower than January 2003's 132,222 and 53 percent lower than January 2002's 248,475.


December 2000 and January 2001 were 133,713 and 142,208 (respectively), so yes, 117,556 is a substantial improvement. The fact that layoffs are higher in January than December should not come as a surprise. The article could just as easily be titled "layoffs less than half the comparable month two years ago"

[mhr]

7. Frodo, What Is Your Point? For Those Of Us Still Unemployed

any trend in the negative direction is bad.

It matters not that the layoffs were less a year ago or two years ago.

The economy is not creating jobs sufficiently fast enough to absorb new entrants or reabsorb those unemployed.

This article just confirms what we job seekers already know.

Last week I attended a job fair, 3000 people for 300 positions.

Do not to tell me that this is my imagination.

Do not try tell me that that the economy is recovering fast enough to make a difference in my life.

All indications are that it is not!

[Frodo]

9. My point.

My point is that if January 2001 (not Bush, but still a comparison) was 142,208 and January 2002 was 248,475 and January 2003 was 133,713 THEN 117,556 is NOT "any trend in a negative direction". If every January is worse than the previous December, then it isn't "news" that THIS January is higher than December. The question is "is it 'more higher' (ouch) than last January was?


Why do I feel like I need to apologize every time you post on a thread?

Any leads for you lately? I'd hire you myself if I had any need for a pilot... but since you'd make more than I do we'd both be in the poor house pretty quickly.

[Shadder]

28. Those stats really don't tell anything

Keep in mind that a huge chunk of those January numbers are seasonal jobs that everyone knew would be ending in January. In order to prove your point you would hae to first factor in how many seasonal jobs were created in November or early December and eliminate those from the mix. My guess is that you would find that there was a lot less seasonal jobs in 2003 than there was in 2002, and the same for 2001. If thats the case then it does in fact reflect a negative trend.

[Frodo]

29. No, Since I compare January of one year to January of another...

... you'd expect to see seasonal jobs running off in all four of the numbers. That's why January is ALWAYS higher than December. I believe you'll find that there were actually more seasonal higherings this year than in the last two (though I doubt higher than Clinton's last xmas season). it was discussed here a couple times.

[gasperc]

30. what did Jan 94-99 look like?

agreed losing 100,000 jobs last month sucks, but is this typical of post recession years? I'll bet it's not, I bet less than 50,000 jobs were lost in those years AND quickly replaced with new jobs which certainly isn't happening now!

[Frodo]

31. Correct!

The number (or at least as tracked by this firm) only goes back to '93, but 50,000 was a very common number. The November/December/January numbers at the end of the term were record highs. Of course there were no recessions during that time.

[UpInArms]

8. yes, those words were in the article

but does the article address the fact that fewer jobs have been created in the past two years - thus further reductions in workforce have a greater impact on a shrinking labor market?

[bleedingheart]

10. That's like saying "This mace we are hitting you with has less spikes"

no matter what there are a lot of layoffs and with outsourcing and companies set to merge it doesn't look like the economy is going to put those people laid off back to work.

[Frodo]

13. Not quite - it's like saying...

... There are layoffs EVERY month (even in a good economy) - there are FEWER of them today than at the comparable time last year and LOTS fewer than the eyar before.

That doesn't mean that the news is "good". Your point is essentially correct. It doesn't find jobs for those currently out of work. But you also can't read the article as things getting worse.


Compare it to 1998 or 1999... Now THAT shows that there is still a problem (about half as many). But I suspect that if the report had been 58,000 layoffs the posts would have still been the knee-jerk variety despite being an excellent number.

[Yavin4]

20. Frodo, A Question

Could it be that layoffs are dropping off because there are less people to lay off? Just because the total number of layoffs are dropping, it does not necessarily mean that hiring is increasing. They're laying off less people because there are less people to lay off.

Let's say a business had 10,000 employees in 2001 and they laid off 4,000 people in 2001, then laid off 2,500 people in 2002, 1,500 in 2003, and only 500 in 2004. That means they laid off a total of 8,500 people. Sure each year they laid off less people, but they didn't hire more people, and they're getting down to only a hand full of employees.

[Frodo]

22. Great idea! But no.

Remember that the population continues to grow each year, so we can actually have a very similar number of people in jobs while having the "job market" look awfull.

If shrub has nixed 2.5 MILLION jobs it's a bad thing, but it's still only 2% of the jobs out there. It's unlikely that it would have THAT big an effect on who was left to lay off. Your example works great if you assume that layoffs have been 20% or 30% of the job market... not 2%.


BUT I will say that I believe that companies have "succeeded" in getting awfully "thin". They are hiring only what they NEED (and need TODAY). I think it IS a big reason why there isn't much hiring going on.

[Yavin4]

25. Yes, But

If you had 10,000 employees in 2001 and laid off 8,500 over the next three years, without hiring any new people, then it's impossible to layoff another 8,500 because you simply don't have that many people to lay off. Right? Thus, the number of layoffs would decline naturally.

[Blue_Roses]

26. Great point

and it makes perfect sense. Companies are not hiring and those that have a job are darn lucky

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

32. Total Employment Is Lower

Non-Farm Employment in January, 2001 - 132,436
Non-Farm Employment in January, 2002 - 130,578
Non-Farm Employment in January, 2003 - 130,356
Non-Farm Employment in December, 2003 - 130,124

That means nearly 250,000 jobs have been lost during the past year, which the Bush Administration cites as a year of continuing recovery. I suspect he means that his friends are recovering the cost of the campaign contributions courtesy of the Bush Tax Cut.

One could reasonably argue that the reason the layoffs are slowing down is that companies have already cut their payrolls to the bone. Given an always-expanding population, the economy needs to create some 1.5 million jobs annually just to keep pace. Clearly a loss of nearly a half million jobs in the last two years is a giant step in the wrong direction.

The best that can be said about this news is that the boat is not sinking as fast this year as it was last year.

Three cheers, anyone?

[mhr]

33. My Reply Is Not Knee Jerk

I am living the hell of unemployment.

It does not matter one whit to me whet the umbers were in 1990, 1990, 1992 .... or whatever.

For those of us unemployed, unemployed is unemployed.

For those of us still looking for work, sorry no jobs is still sorry no jobs.

That's not knee jerk thats the hard cold truth on the ground!

[Frodo]

34. Personal question for you mhr.

How the heck are you surviving? If I remember correctly it's been three and a half years?

They must have turned off the unemployment insurance with everyone else. Did you have a really healthy savings account?

I've seen how disciplined you've been in your job search... you must be equally disciplined with your finances... how do you do it? I've always tried to "live within my OLD means" (that is, if I get a raise I try not to change my standard of living but put it in savings instead), but I'm always looking for tips on what can be cut back.

You're like a rock of perseverance!

[West Coast Democrat]

12. You just never give up!

Do you work for CNBC by any chance?

[Frodo]

17. What would be the point?

Just correcting poorly understood data. If you were to run around yelling this number "layoffs increase 27%!" How easy would it be for the opposition to pull you down? When it's an improvement from his first two January figures AND the one he "inherited from the previous administration"?

That's the problem with looking at individual months and assuming they MUST support our ongoing thesis that shrub has damaged the economy. "Even a blind pig...um... finds 'something' occasionally"

[West Coast Democrat]

18. But you always pull out occassional positive data

and use it to make the ridiculous argument that Bush's ecomomic plans are creating a wide-scale economic recovery. And this a board for Democrats and their supporters, by the way.

[Frodo]

21. Close, but not quite.

I just tend to post when I disagree with someone. So you will rarely see me say "BOY is THAT right!". Since ALL points here are used to bash the current economy, when I disagree I'm likely to look like I'm saying things are great.

To respond in brief (and you've read it from me before), Shrub's plan is NOT creating a wide-scale economic recovery. We're seeing a MINOR recovery because that's the way the cycle falls... it's been down too long. Further, the tax cuts obviously DO have a positive effect on "the economy" as measured by one year or two year figures like GDP etc. It has a BIG NEGATIVE effect on the long term health of the economy - we just won't see that until well after the election. I predict around 2006-2007.

[West Coast Democrat]

24. Yes, I expect that when we see a REAL economic turnaround

we'll finally see Frodo with a little gold star.

[Blue_Roses]

27. In response to

"Shrub's plan is NOT creating a wide-scale economic recovery," I would say that is the first accurate thing you have said. His tax cut created a "pseudo-stimulus," which was borrowed I might add.

As Clinton noted last week, "It sure is fun while it's happening (tax cuts) but not only is it short-lived, it bites later--bigtime.

It is NOT creating a long-term economic recovery where jobs are going to be created. It's just not gonna happen the way Bush is doing it.

His "so-called" economic plan sucks--and that is a definite.

[mopinko]

19. i get it

some of us get it. there is not sense bashing * with twisted numbers. we just look stupid.
but it sure is not a sign that "the tax cuts are working".

[Frodo]

23. Exactly!

Stick to what we know. Those jobs haven't come back yet - and even if they do it compares poorly to Clinton/Gore.

The deficit is outrageous and WILL hurt us in the future. Use REPUBLICAN quotes from the past to back it up.

Then STAY AWAY from trying to make it look like things are still getting worse... because they aren't. This isn't a binary "things getting much better" or "things getting much worse". They can be getting slightly better BUT not good enough (the current situation)... BUT if we spin that as "getting much worse" they'll make us look like liars.

[retread]

11. So a recovery is now defined to mean increased layoffs?

*

[tlcandie]

14. So, in other words as long as the numbers are fewer than before

everything is coming up smelling like roses? Hmmmm

Well, so when all but a few are laid off and without jobs then there will be no more numbers to pull from the empty barrel will there now?

I guess that means we will be RIDING HIGH on the HOG when that day comes albeit homeless and starving!

Don't look past the THIN veneer folks or your eyes just might pop out of your head!

[mbperrin]

15. Wow! Look at that *Bush job machine go!

There they go!

[Ripley]

16. Unfricking believable!

They always have some asinine excuse...this time it's "We typically see higher job cuts in January as companies set into motion business plans and employment needs for the new year," said John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement firm.

Do they really think we're this stupid? My guess is Smirky's numbers are gonna nose-dive again this week, no matter how many times they show Janet's breast.

On Edit to accomodate Frodo: I don't know how you can call yourself that name when you are clearly on the side of the Big Guy, not the little one.

Just because these numbers are better than last year it doesn't take into account all of the other lay-offs in the months inbetween. There has been no new jobs since last year so it is a downward spiral.

[yellowcanine]

35. Wolfowitz says we are winning against the evil of unemployment!

Using Wolfowitz Iraqi War logic.