Job growth, unemployment stall in August

How is that even possible? Apparently, worst month since 1945, when the war ended.


54,000 jobs were created in August while 68,000 were considered lost. 45,000 of the jobs classified as lost were just Verizon workers on strike, now back to work, and doesn’t represent real job loss. That makes 54,000 jobs created vs 23,000 jobs lost; a net job increase of 31,000. Not great but certainly better than 0.

So, those people who went on strike had to reapply and be rehired for their jobs?

I know, right, why would he agree to large spending cuts when everyone knows those have negative effects on the economy?

Even in good times, the summer months of July and August are down turns for companies hiring.

It’s during this time that hiring managers take vacations and orders slow down.

I’ve been unemployed in a steady job since March. Since May I’ve been working on a contract basis with a engineering CAD service bureau. I was suppose to be working on a project over the past couple weeks, but because the customers key engineers were on vacation, the project was put on hold.

In a direct job, I would be paid to sit there and do nothing. So, of course the company isn’t going to take me on direct right now.


The zero net jobs created was the first time since 1945 that the figure was zero. There have been many months during recessions where the net jobs number was negative. During the last recession, which is officially over, we had some months in the negative 300,000 range. Because of population growth we need more than 100,000 new jobs per month just to keep, the unemployment rate stable, so this is a really bad number no matter how you look at it.

No, they were taken off Verizon’s payroll for the duration of the strike. Once the strike was over they simply went back to work.

I feel for you, Jim. I’ve been unemployed for a year, since last September. The jobs are few and far between, and since I was diagnosed with delayed post-traumatic stress disorder, the chances of me getting back into law enforcement are nil. Coupled with that is the fact that I am nearly 51 years old, and Michigan has the lowest wages in the country and is third-highest in unemployment, tied with South Carolina.

How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for ya?, as Herman Cain would say…

I understand your dilema in your age. I turn 60 next month.

Who will hire me?

No one.

Heck, they won’t even respond to resume’s.

Fact is, I’ve had two interviews for the hundreds of resume’s I’ve sent out. One was for a security job, which at my age required more physical stamina that I have, and the other was the contract position I’m working on now.

Yet, Massachusetts reported this week, that more jobs were created in the last quarter than in the entire nation. Also, the unemployment rate is below the nation’s average.

Age discrimination is real. It’s why Obama Care they tried to lower the age requirement for Medicare to 55. Too bad the Republicans killed it.


Yeah, that’s where I’m at as well. I respond to the ads and apply for the jobs, but they’re not going to hire me when they can hire a 25-year old kid to do the same job.

Once in a while a factory job opens up south of here, but I know fully well my body won’t handle that…all I have to do is play tug-o-war with the dog for twenty minutes or so, and the next morning I’m just about crippled when I wake up. I have arthritis is my hands, shoulders, neck, and spine, and all sorts of scar tissue and cartilage damage in my chest from old inuries.

I guess the only answer is for somebody to take us out and shoot us. Make us into Soylent Green, or something.

An interesting perspective:

So how exactly could we consider these people unemployed if all they need do is ‘go back to work’?

I don’t but the BLS does because they were not on a company payroll.

I don’t believe this is true. The BLS only considers those who have filed for unemployment benefits as unemployed.

People who are on strike are not eligible for unemployment insurance compensation and therefore not technically considered unemployed.


Can you cite from the BLS where they claim this?

Actually, I am wondering about the claim that they are off of the books.

If that were really the case, then they would have to do much more then just show up at work.
Seeing first hand what data is stored when someone is hired, it seems to me to be an incredible amount of work to take everyone out of the payroll and then re-enter all of them.
More likely they are left in the payroll with a flag attached indicating a strike.

either way, these people cannot be considered unemployed.
They have a job, they just will not do it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit