Orange County loses 19,400 jobs over the month, 13,000 jobs over the year

graphrix_IHB

graphrix_IHB

New member
Between December 2007 and January 2008, total nonfarm wage and salary employment fell


from 1,511,600 to 1,492,200, a loss of 19,400 jobs.


• There were no overall job gains in any of the major industries over the month as


scattered job gains in some subsectors were offset by larger job losses.


• Trade, transportation, and utilities recorded the largest month-over decline with the loss


of 5,700 jobs. The retail sector accounted for nearly 80 percent of the decrease as


stores began the expected job cutbacks following the holiday shopping season.


• <strong>Professional and business services posted a loss of 4,100 jobs. All of the major groups


had overall job declines. Professional, scientific and technical services declined by 1,200</strong>


jobs; management of companies fell by 200 jobs; and administrative and support and


waste management services lost 2,700 jobs, with the majority of the losses in


employment services, which includes temporary help firms.


• Government reported a decrease of 2,700 jobs, primarily due to job losses in local and


state education.





Ut roh... It looks like all those who said, that the professional and business services sector would save the job market were wrong. A -1.1% decrease for the year looks pretty crappy too.





Finally RE saw a decrease of -1%.





Activities in credit intermediation saw a <strong>-50.5%</strong> YOY.





The civilian labor force decreased by -0.5% YOY, and civilian employment decreased by -1.2%. The last, and only time this has happened? <strong>1991!





<img src="http://img109.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/03/01/janjobs-49or6jyo6.jpeg" alt="" /></strong>
 
Yeah, '91 was an ugly time to live in Orange County, but not as ugly as '92 and '93. That YoY Finacial Activities number is fugly.
 
"Orange County loses 19,400 jobs over the month, 13,000 jobs over the year"



so Jan 2008 job lose was 50% more than the entire job lose of the whole 2007?
 
irvine123,





As much of a bear as I am, the MOM number is stupid for January. There is always a big drop from December to January. The YOY number is still pretty awful, and that is what should be focused on.
 
Lendingmaestro, new bimmers purchased? I think you mean leased. This is the land of the 25 year old receptionist leasing the BMW and buying the LV purse
 
OK, just to be fair to those BMW drivers ( which I am one): there is nothing wrong with buying or leasing if you can afford it. You can argue purchasing is the only way to go, but it is a stupid financial decision if you only want to drive it for 2 or 3 years when there is great money factors offered by the factory. Sticker price often is not a major drive for monthly payments when there is a factory subsidized lease.
 
Just when everyone was saying the health and education sector continues to grow, <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/news/districts-unified-state-1990103-district-million">I find this about the cuts</a>. Looks like there will be more red in the charts I post.
 
<p>All my friends are still working. All my family members still have jobs.</p>

<p>There are always other jobs being added, as we lose them. I have real estate broker friends, two of them.</p>

<p>They are selling car, life, etc insurance now. I dont know if they still make the same amount of money.</p>

<p>But they still have their homes. They still have their cars. They are happy.</p>

<p>Please share your personal experiences of friends that are in trouble. I know that you guys will!</p>
 
Look at the spending per pupil over the last 10 years!





<img src="http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/Graphics/2008/02/schoolcuts.0302.gif" alt="" />





A 5% cut is hardly draconian. Given what looks like about a 7.2% annual increase in spending per pupil over the past decade, the spending cuts look reasonable to me.
 
<p>Winex,</p>

<p>Spending per pupil seems like a dodgy way to justify a budget decision. It could appear to rise with no increase in actual spending if there is a drop in the number of pupils. It could also rise if the student population was steady but there was an increase salaries at the district administration level. As a metric it makes a nice graph, but tells us nothing about how resources are allocated and how well those allocations perform, i.e higher test scores, higher rates of college acceptance, broader curriculum and so on. A 5% cut in teacher salaries and music programs is bound to have a far different effect than a 5% cut in the district administration budget.</p>
 
<p>I think overall, people start to question where all the money is going when they see 30 students in their kids class and know the school is getting $9000 per kid.</p>

<p>Frankly, while I appreciate the efforts to mainstream marginal performers, after we prune the administration for efficiency, we'll need to look at the disporportionate expense all the individual learning plans are costing and the issue of the bizarre student/teacher ratios reported by the schools but unobservable in any mainstream class.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Prune admin exactly how? We're 29th in per pupil spending, and #1 in teachers' salaries.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/BudgetandFunding/CaliforniaEducationSpendingComparison/tabid/183/Default.aspx">http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/BudgetandFunding/CaliforniaEducationSpendingComparison/tabid/183/Default.aspx</a></p>

<p>Salaries and benifits are 80% of the districts' expenditures.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.edsource.org/pdf/QA_budgetfinal.pdf">www.edsource.org/pdf/QA_<strong>budget</strong>final.pdf</a> </p>

<p>And I can tell you that teachers salaries aren't that much higher than they were a decade ago? So where did the difference go (since they spent twice as much as a decade ago?)</p>

<p><em>Insurance.</em></p>

<p>Come on people, think a little bit.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>"Frankly, while I appreciate the efforts to mainstream marginal performers, after we prune the administration for efficiency, we'll need to look at the disporportionate expense all the individual learning plans are costing"</em>





Are you proposing to cut special education programs?
 
<p><em>Are you proposing to cut special education programs?</em> </p>

<p>They're a sacred cow. They need to be looked at for their cost/benefit ratio. Whether cutting is needed or merely a little 'truth' in special-ed. By truth, I mean some of the information I've heard about the population increase of ILPs. Essentially, I suspect the system is being gamed and desire to cut the gamers out while preserving the benefits of the special ed or potentially look for more cost effective solutions.</p>

<p>Frankly, all items with school spending need to be examined many of which are sacred cows: </p>

<p>Teacher's salaries if needed, will need to be cut, but that has a direct impact to students.</p>

<p>Other items, such as illegal aliens, bilingual education, and a wide variety of mandates all need review.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>And you've got absolutely zero tech to back this up.</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/bullshit-bag.jpg" /></p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top