Two Ways: Grim Job Numbers Suggest Recession Is Here to Stay
The Department of Labor said today the nation lost 467,000 jobs last month, which was significantly above consensus estimates of a loss of 350,000. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate -- already at 25-year highs -- continued to creep higher to 9.5%, but that was slightly below estimates of 9.6%.
Compounding pressures on the consumer, the average work week fell to 33 hours -- a record low, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In a separate report, new jobless claims for state unemployment benefits fell twice as much as expected last week. Continuing claims also declined, a small suggestion that there could be improvement in the labor market.
See Professor John Mauldin’s No End in Sight for Recession for more on the economy.
From the Bull Pen: Interesting response from the fertilizer stocks today. Word of Russia’s largest potash miners raising prices gave a boost to this sector. A week ago, Potash's (POT) stock tanked after the company issued downside guidance. So what we're seeing here is what a company expects versus what other companies are actually doing. I'll let the market decide this one, but bulls who believe the selling is done can consider Potash; a sell stop can be set 2% below entry.
From the Bear Cave: Regarding the jobs numbers, Professor Tom Fant had this to say: “The employment situation continues to deteriorate. I would point out a couple things inside the worse than expected headline number. Net revisions to prior months were essentially flat. Temporary help declined 38,000, which removes the hope we got from the flattish number last month that things might be looking up.
"The dreaded birth/death adjustment added 185,000 jobs (up 12.1% yoy) including 87,000 jobs in leisure/hospitality. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to the feasibility of adding jobs in that industry right now. Also Initial Unemployment Claims topped 600,000 for the twenty-second consecutive week.”
Let your love be your life, Minyans! Have a safe and excellent holiday!
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Here is the issue:
Now all of that might make some sense if we had been spending Stimulus l but so
far official estimates put the money out the door at about 10% of what's been
appropriated. That of course leads one to the conclusion that maybe we need to
rethink the whole thing. If it's that hard for the government to spend money then
perhaps we just need to put it in the hands of people that know how to go about
doing that. I'm referring to the American consumer, of course.
Check out more of this thought at www.theoxengroup.com
David Ristau
President, The Oxen Group
I my opinion, it is never hard for government ("Berries") to spend money. The real problem is they can't tell the difference between spending and investing. And this is because they are listening to lobbyists. Corn based ethanol is a great example.
It would be very easy for other people to come up with an investment list.
For example, we could use:
-About 50+ new nuclear plant
-Thousands of miles of transmission lines
-Roads and bridges that are crumbling, to be fixed
-Money into research and development (energy, biotech, communications, transportation...), to start new industries and new directions within old
-A leaner , meaner financial system
...
Sylvain
Montréal
