Who “expects” job losses?

The economy lost more jobs than expected last month:

That, plus the larger-than-expected loss of 85,000 jobs in December, put new pressure on the administration to step up job creation.

I know that the economy is bad, but don’t we generally "expect" no job losses? How does one go about deciding what the expected losses will be? And why would they be so far off as to call the number "unexpected"?

And why does the government, given its complete lack of success in stimulating the economy so far, now think that by redirecting tax dollars to green jobs that they can suddenly reverse the trend?

"It’s clear why such an effort is so important. Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future, jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced," Obama said in late-afternoon comments at the White House.

Does anyone believe that by taking money from taxpayers and giving it to other taxpayers that they can solve the problem?

Technorati:

Powered by Bleezer

One thought on “Who “expects” job losses?

  1. I think job loss (and growth) should be somewhat predictable. Employing my terribly bad math skills, if in general the economy is expected to change by x, isn’t there some f(x) that would result in expected change in the number of jobs, be it positive or negative?

    I honestly don’t know and haven’t ever put much thought into it, but it’s never seemed odd to me that there’s a predicted change in the number of jobs. I would expect that sort of thing to be far less accurate than the weather.

    Thanks for the something to think on this morning.

Leave a Reply