Print
Email
Share

Economy loses 95,000 jobs due to government layoffs

Economy loses 95,000 jobs due to government layoffs

Economy loses 95,000 jobs due to government layoffs

by Associated Press

KING5.com

Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:32 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. -  A wave of government layoffs in September outpaced weak hiring in the private sector, pushing down the nation's payrolls by a net total of 95,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s.

The report is the final one before the November elections, which means members of Congress will face voters next month with an economy that is struggling to create jobs.

The private sector added 64,000 jobs, the weakest showing since June.

A net total of 159,000 government jobs were lost in September. Local governments cut 76,000 jobs last month, most of them teachers. That's the largest cut by local governments in 28 years. About 77,000 temporary federal census jobs ended and state governments shed 7,000 jobs.

Nearly 14.8 million people were unemployed last month. That's almost 100,000 fewer than in August.

The weak job market also makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will take additional steps to boost the economy. Most economists expect the Fed to decide at its meeting next month to buy government debt in an effort to lower interest rates and spur more borrowing.

Even areas that were strong are starting to weaken.

Manufacturers cut 6,000 jobs, the second straight month of losses. The sector drove job growth earlier this year, adding 134,000 positions in the first five months of 2010, but factory employment has been flat since then.

Construction firms cut another 21,000 jobs, hampered by weakness in commercial real estate development. Information services lost 5,000 positions.

Other sectors showed job gains: Health care added 32,000 jobs, the leisure and hospitality sector added 38,000, and retailers added 5,700.

Employers, faced with slow sales and a weak economy, see little reason to add to their work forces. The economy expanded at a feeble 1.7 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. Most analysts think the economy will fare little better for the rest of this year.

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has grown 3 percent, according to economists at Deutsche Bank. That's less than half the average 6.5 percent pace in postwar recoveries.

 

Print
Email
Share
 

To add a comment, please register or login.

1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 10 of 10

the_realist said on October 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM

@hologram5 - We have had 9 straight months of positive growth in the Private Sector (good thing), four straight quarters of positive GDP growth (good thing) and the public sector is shedding its fat...err jobs (good thing). As a fiscal conservative myself, I am happy with the progress we are making. While I do not approve of some of the policies the current administration is proposing/enacting, I can't say we have moved backwards. Based on the numbers, we are recovering, albeit much slower than people - especially those without a job, would like. To say, with a straight face, that we are (financially) in worse shape now than we were in 2008, is just straight ignorance. Just because you don't like the Democrats (neither do I), doesn't mean you have to keep your head in the sand just to support the Republicans. If you want to see this country succeed, please use logical reasoning. Be a realist.

53476061
Flag this comment

rnl52 said on October 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM

@ccole, and bush kept those wars "off budget". They were funded through emergency appropriations so his numbers wouldn't look as bad as thy were. Obama had the honesty of actually putting them in the budget, didn't look good but at least it wasn't decietful.

53472844
Flag this comment

ccole said on October 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM

I am no fan of Bush.. but I am just saying he did not have a cup of tea either. He was too Progressive for me. Also.. The Medicare program is a Democrat program that has promised too much. we will not sustain it. It is the primary reason we are going under. WMD's or not. We did have a war, and congress approved it.

53472289
Flag this comment

rnl52 said on October 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM

@hologram5 give me a break, record surpluses in 2000, a ruined economy in 2008. And the repubs. had both houses for 12 years prior to 2006. When the Dems. won in 2006, bush finally started to use his veto (for the first time). You can't have two wars (not paid for), tax cuts for the wealthy (not paid for) and a Medicare part D (not paid for, which precludes by law any discounts like the VA can negociate). Why did the repubs. make the taxpayer pay full retail for medications? Because they are the party of the rich and the corporations. A working man voting for a repub. is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

53471952
Flag this comment

hologram5 said on October 8, 2010 at 2:18 PM

@zaxxon7469: You can point the finger all you like but this economic disaster has been in the making for 2 decades now. Fiat currencies do not an economy make. Bush did his damage that's for sure but we weren't in this much trouble till Obama took the wheel, don't fool yourself.

53468468
Flag this comment

hologram5 said on October 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM

SO much for their so called "stimulus"...

53468376
Flag this comment

zaxxon7469 said on October 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Yes it was bush. I was there for one of the wars, I was stopped loss into it, the nice back door draft. I did not vote for Jr the second term. Though the bucket laws were loosed with Clinton as president, but it was Chenny with help from SR telling Jr it was the right thing to do, letting big business go nuts. Everybody is at fault. Including us, to which would be any one who hellped them selves to easy credit, but forgot to reign in the spending untill it was too late. Unless we discover gold under hanford, or some new mineral that is a super conductor that prpetuates cold fusion, we are hurting.

53462001
Flag this comment

yessir said on October 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Two wars? One of which our nation was intentionally miisled on... still looking for those WMD's cole? Found them yet? Greed is what led to our current economic crisis... Greed of CEO's and corporate heads who, given free reign under the Bush presidency, rode that horse as hard and fast as they could... I don't blame president Bush for the event per say, he was just the folksy spokesman of an administration, but it was an administration that encouraged the climate that led to this. Ironically now I watch nut job bloggers on these news threads blaming it on teachers, police, firefighters, and other public employees. Amazing! Are we truly so dumb that we can once again be led into shooting our own while the true perpetrators of this mess smile and count their billions.

53460429
Flag this comment

ccole said on October 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM

@blankingout ...Thank you sitting president in 2007.... You know that when Bush was president he had his hands tied with a Democrat run congress..He also had 2 wars to contend with and a housing boom that was further driven by a democrt push to loosen restrictions on loaning to lower working class.. Obama has control of both houses and he is making a bigger mess than ever.

53456608
Flag this comment

blankingout said on October 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Thank you sitting president in 2007... You know for the recession to start in 2007 means, since the economy is on a sine wave, that the pulling down must have started months before, possibly into 2006 or 2005.

53447051
Flag this comment