79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

[RunInRed 16,454]

Payroll report: 79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

Wednesday July 2, 8:52 am ET

The number of private sector jobs fell by 79,000 in June, according to a payroll report released Wednesday, with the decline exceeding economists' forecasts.

The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row , coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector.

A majority of the production job losses came from the manufacturing sector, which lost 44,000.

Economists polled by Briefing.com had expected jobs to decline by 20,000 in June.

The ADP report measures non-farming private employment based on payroll data.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080702/070208_employment.html

DOW was down another triple digits today on this and record oil (now north of $145/barrell)

[HuntsvilleTiger 0]

Payroll report: 79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

Wednesday July 2, 8:52 am ET

The number of private sector jobs fell by 79,000 in June, according to a payroll report released Wednesday, with the decline exceeding economists' forecasts.

The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row , coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector.

A majority of the production job losses came from the manufacturing sector, which lost 44,000.

Economists polled by Briefing.com had expected jobs to decline by 20,000 in June.

The ADP report measures non-farming private employment based on payroll data.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080702/070208_employment.html

DOW was down another triple digits today on this and record oil (now north of $145/barrell)

the 19th monthly decline in a row

Wow. Let's see...that dates back to November of 2006. Let's go back in history, shall we? What happened in November of 2006? Hmm...wait...the Democrats took control of Congress and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Whatta ya know?

Blame everything on Bush and his policies if you want, but don't look past the fact that since the Democrats have controlled Congress oil prices have skyrocketed while jobs have declined. And there's not even a hint of an answer of how to fix things from them. Any Republican ideas whatsoever are met with only "that won't work" but never with an alternative.

[BamaGrad03 0]

A lot of the job losses are in the Auto industry where truck and suv plants are closing like crazy thanks to slumping sales and oil prices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/business/06auto.html

[RunInRed 16,454]

Payroll report: 79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

Wednesday July 2, 8:52 am ET

The number of private sector jobs fell by 79,000 in June, according to a payroll report released Wednesday, with the decline exceeding economists' forecasts.

The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row , coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector.

A majority of the production job losses came from the manufacturing sector, which lost 44,000.

Economists polled by Briefing.com had expected jobs to decline by 20,000 in June.

The ADP report measures non-farming private employment based on payroll data.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080702/070208_employment.html

DOW was down another triple digits today on this and record oil (now north of $145/barrell)

the 19th monthly decline in a row

Wow. Let's see...that dates back to November of 2006. Let's go back in history, shall we? What happened in November of 2006? Hmm...wait...the Democrats took control of Congress and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Whatta ya know?

Blame everything on Bush and his policies if you want, but don't look past the fact that since the Democrats have controlled Congress oil prices have skyrocketed while jobs have declined. And there's not even a hint of an answer of how to fix things from them. Any Republican ideas whatsoever are met with only "that won't work" but never with an alternative.

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

[BamaGrad03 0]

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Couldn't we ask the same thing about the president?

[RunInRed 16,454]

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Couldn't we ask the same thing about the president?

Yes and we should. This economy is on his watch. Unless you are going to use the whole "cyclical" crap, in which case - what's the point in even having an administration craft economicy policy? BG - my response was to his specific assertion that there was direct correlation between the economic downturn and Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 - now if you believe that, I've got some great ocean front property in...

[Tiger Al 0]

Payroll report: 79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

Wednesday July 2, 8:52 am ET

The number of private sector jobs fell by 79,000 in June, according to a payroll report released Wednesday, with the decline exceeding economists' forecasts.

The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row , coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector.

A majority of the production job losses came from the manufacturing sector, which lost 44,000.

Economists polled by Briefing.com had expected jobs to decline by 20,000 in June.

The ADP report measures non-farming private employment based on payroll data.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080702/070208_employment.html

DOW was down another triple digits today on this and record oil (now north of $145/barrell)

the 19th monthly decline in a row

Wow. Let's see...that dates back to November of 2006. Let's go back in history, shall we? What happened in November of 2006? Hmm...wait...the Democrats took control of Congress and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Whatta ya know?

Blame everything on Bush and his policies if you want, but don't look past the fact that since the Democrats have controlled Congress oil prices have skyrocketed while jobs have declined. And there's not even a hint of an answer of how to fix things from them. Any Republican ideas whatsoever are met with only "that won't work" but never with an alternative.

The election was in Nov of 2006 but they didn't actually take control, in a legislative sense, until Jan of 2007.

[BamaGrad03 0]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/econo...sion=2008070310

Article says its 62k jobs and only 6 straight months of losses.

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/econo...sion=2008070310

Article says its 62k jobs and only 6 straight months of losses.

Hey BG, don't let facts get in the way of the libs talking points.

[RunInRed 16,454]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/econo...sion=2008070310

Article says its 62k jobs and only 6 straight months of losses.

2 different sources, 2 different sets of data. That damn liberal Yahoo Finance Any one care to provide another source - third time is a charm?

[au2004ece 30]

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Couldn't we ask the same thing about the president?

Yes and we should. This economy is on his watch. Unless you are going to use the whole "cyclical" crap, in which case - what's the point in even having an administration craft economicy policy? BG - my response was to his specific assertion that there was direct correlation between the economic downturn and Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 - now if you believe that, I've got some great ocean front property in...

Wow, you are rather hypocritical here.

The democrats have proposed or passed no legislation on anything for this "problem" so they aren't to blame. Yet, Bush is to blame for the "problems" because they were on "his watch". Were the democrats just not watching?

You are also showing that you do not understand economics here. Do you really believe that economics is not cyclical? Do you believe that if the president grafted great economic policy that the economy would always go on an upward trend? Your thoughs do not reflect reality, but do reflect the thoughts of the idiot majority who believes that if things are bad the only person to blame is the president. I bet you think Clinton is the one who should get credit for the great economy of the 90's, and not Reagan and Bush 1 who crafted the economic policy to pull this country away the social welfare state of the 60's and 70's.

[RunInRed 16,454]

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Couldn't we ask the same thing about the president?

Yes and we should. This economy is on his watch. Unless you are going to use the whole "cyclical" crap, in which case - what's the point in even having an administration craft economicy policy? BG - my response was to his specific assertion that there was direct correlation between the economic downturn and Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 - now if you believe that, I've got some great ocean front property in...

Wow, you are rather hypocritical here.

The democrats have proposed or passed no legislation on anything for this "problem" so they aren't to blame. Yet, Bush is to blame for the "problems" because they were on "his watch". Were the democrats just not watching?

You are also showing that you do not understand economics here. Do you really believe that economics is not cyclical? Do you believe that if the president grafted great economic policy that the economy would always go on an upward trend? Your thoughs do not reflect reality, but do reflect the thoughts of the idiot majority who believes that if things are bad the only person to blame is the president. I bet you think Clinton is the one who should get credit for the great economy of the 90's, and not Reagan and Bush 1 who crafted the economic policy to pull this country away the social welfare state of the 60's and 70's.

So in summary, when the economy is good, it's the Republicans who did it. When it's bad, it's a cyclical thing...got it. Thanks for clearing all my economic confusion up

As for legislation - I guess the democrats don't get much credit for the stimulus act (BTW Obama wants another one). Nor do they get credit for trying to force the President into a balanced budget. Nor do they get credit for opposing is tax cuts for the wealthy that we can't afford. Another one...geesh

[au2004ece 30]

So in summary, when the economy is good, it's the Republicans who did it. When it's bad, it's a cyclical thing...got it. Thanks for clearing all my economic confusion up

As for legislation - I guess the democrats don't get much credit for the stimulus act (BTW Obama wants another one). Nor do they get credit for trying to force the President into a balanced budget. Nor do they get credit for opposing is tax cuts for the reach that we can't afford. Another one...geesh

Actually yes but not exactly Republican vs Democrat. When politicians push pro growth policies that makes the economy better than it would have been. When politicians push anti growth policies that makes the economy worse than it would have been.

The stimulus act was stupid and a waste of money. Lowering tax rates would have a much better effect than just spitting out money once or twice.

Anybody who pushes for a balanced budget should get credit, but the democrats have pushed for higher taxes instead of less spending.

They should be slapped for opposing his tax cuts and not voting to prevent them from expiring, we can't afford to have them raised. High government spending is the problem, not taxes that are too low.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Couldn't we ask the same thing about the president?

Yes and we should. This economy is on his watch. Unless you are going to use the whole "cyclical" crap, in which case - what's the point in even having an administration craft economicy policy? BG - my response was to his specific assertion that there was direct correlation between the economic downturn and Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 - now if you believe that, I've got some great ocean front property in...

Wow, you are rather hypocritical here.

The democrats have proposed or passed no legislation on anything for this "problem" so they aren't to blame. Yet, Bush is to blame for the "problems" because they were on "his watch". Were the democrats just not watching?

You are also showing that you do not understand economics here. Do you really believe that economics is not cyclical? Do you believe that if the president grafted great economic policy that the economy would always go on an upward trend? Your thoughs do not reflect reality, but do reflect the thoughts of the idiot majority who believes that if things are bad the only person to blame is the president. I bet you think Clinton is the one who should get credit for the great economy of the 90's, and not Reagan and Bush 1 who crafted the economic policy to pull this country away the social welfare state of the 60's and 70's.

So in summary, when the economy is good, it's the Republicans who did it. When it's bad, it's a cyclical thing...got it. Thanks for clearing all my economic confusion up

As for legislation - I guess the democrats don't get much credit for the stimulus act (BTW Obama wants another one). Nor do they get credit for trying to force the President into a balanced budget. Nor do they get credit for opposing is tax cuts for the reach that we can't afford. Another one...geesh

I'm noticing a trend. When au2004ece makes a valid point or asks a burning question, runshismouth responds with the typical gibberish and nonsense that leads people to believe that all dims are idiots too. And, what's with the bolded part of your "response"? Are you saying that is fact, because no one but you has made that claim? I know you wont answer this question, because you look foolish either way.

[BamaGrad03 0]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/econo...sion=2008070310

Article says its 62k jobs and only 6 straight months of losses.

2 different sources, 2 different sets of data. That damn liberal Yahoo Finance Any one care to provide another source - third time is a charm?

I don't have to provide another source.

1 - The official jobs report didn't come out until today. It NORMALLY comes out on Fridays, but since they are off tomorrow....

2 - The one you cited came out a DAY EARLY which raised my eyebrow yesterday.

3 - The market didn't react this morning (12 hours after your "jobs report")...it waited until the job report that I cited was released (the one the market looks at EVERY jobs report).

4 - No official job report comes out AFTER the market closes.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Your beef then is with Yahoo, not me.

[HuntsvilleTiger 0]

Payroll report: 79,000 private sector jobs lost in June

Wednesday July 2, 8:52 am ET

The number of private sector jobs fell by 79,000 in June, according to a payroll report released Wednesday, with the decline exceeding economists' forecasts.

The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row , coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector.

A majority of the production job losses came from the manufacturing sector, which lost 44,000.

Economists polled by Briefing.com had expected jobs to decline by 20,000 in June.

The ADP report measures non-farming private employment based on payroll data.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080702/070208_employment.html

DOW was down another triple digits today on this and record oil (now north of $145/barrell)

the 19th monthly decline in a row

Wow. Let's see...that dates back to November of 2006. Let's go back in history, shall we? What happened in November of 2006? Hmm...wait...the Democrats took control of Congress and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Whatta ya know?

Blame everything on Bush and his policies if you want, but don't look past the fact that since the Democrats have controlled Congress oil prices have skyrocketed while jobs have declined. And there's not even a hint of an answer of how to fix things from them. Any Republican ideas whatsoever are met with only "that won't work" but never with an alternative.

What specific legislation has the Democrats passed or held up that would have prevented this decline?

Well, Ms. Pelosi has held up the No More Excuses Energy Act (H.R. 3089). She's refused to even allow a vote on the bill. Because of that a discharge petition is the only way to force a vote on it and you have to have 218 signatures (a simple majority, which of course the Repubs dont have) in order to bring the bill to the floor.