Banking

March marks third consecutive month of job losses

According to <i>The New York Times</i>, employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March.

Well, I'm just a font of joy this morning, aren't I? According to The New York Times, employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March alone. This figure is the highest since March 2003, when the labor market was still struggling to recover from the 2001 recession.

From the NYT piece:

Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke has said he is hopeful the economy will improve in the second half of this year, helped by the government's $168 billion stimulus package of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses, as well as the Fed's rate reductions.

Still, even Mr. Bernanke predicted this week that the unemployment rate would rise in the months ahead. Some analysts say it could climb to 5.5 percent or higher by year's end.

If you need me, I'll be in a fetal position underneath my desk.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

3 comments
Interested Amateur
Interested Amateur

Stats Can just released employment rates for this past winter. Canada's employment increased by around 3% every month in the last quarter. It's predicted that the US. recession won't affect Canada's economic growth very much. Perhaps you should look north for employment. BTW, the Canadian dollar is almost at par with the American greenback. Interested Amateur

john.a.wills
john.a.wills

the U.S. was happy with around 10% unemployment, I seem to remember from reading Time. And the EU has something like that now, with around 14% in Germany. We don't realize how lucky we are - although I would not at all like to be unemployed again myself.

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

Unemployment was pretty low in the 1960s, 5% or so, and got even lower as the Viet Nam war ramped up. The voters would have been at the edge of revolution if unemployment had been in double digits. They were unhappy enough to put in Reagan after it got up to 8% under Carter, and went even higher in Reagan's first term. I don't think we've seen 10% unemployment since the 1930s. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/US-UR-50.htm

Editor's Picks