The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on "mass layoffs" yesterday. It also included annual totals and an eleven-year chart of mass layoff history.
A "mass layoff action" involves "at least 50 persons from a single establishment." Since 1988, employers have been required to give 60 days notice of "covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs." The BLS Mass Layoffs report compiles those notices.
Now that 2006 is in the record books, here is that eleven-year chart:
As you can see, the total number of "layoff events" in 2006 came in at the lowest on record (BLS began compiling these statistics during the second quarter of 1995), while the number of people who filed unemployment claims as a result of those layoffs was the lowest in 10 years. On a percentage-of-workforce basis, the number of unemployment claims filers in 2006 was also, along with the layoff events, the lowest in the 11 full years BLS has reported on this information.
Some of those years would include the formerly Mainstream Media's favorite period for reporting good news about the economy, namely 1997 through 2000. Well, it so happens that the number of employees filing claims as a result of mass layoffs during that media-perceived Golden Age (6.72 million) is barely less than the comparative number (6.78 million) for the "Greatest Story Never Told" economy of 2003 through 2006. As with the single-year comparison in the previous paragraph, the 2003-2006 percentage of the workforce affected by mass layoffs was lower than the percentage so affected during 1997-2000.
A Google News search on "mass layoffs" (in quotes) at about 11PM last night only had about 15 stories on the latest mass layoffs report, all relating to coverage of individual states by business weekly newspapers.
A search on the "My Way" business-news pages (Associated Press, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times, USA Today, and MarketWatch) a few minutes later also had no coverage.
The failure to report good economic news by the formerly Mainstream Media's business press would explain why American Research Group's monthly poll about the economy continues to show people believing that it is not in good shape, or being handled well:
When news of favorable developments like the record low in mass layoffs is totally ignored, why would anyone expect a different result?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just wait
January 25, 2007 - 07:52 ET by ecnirPJust wait. The economic news reporting will get a lot more positive as soon as the media can tie it to the new Democrat majority in Congress. But without a passed bill expanding the role of government or raising taxes (I know, redundant), it would be premature to roll out the positive stories.
Money Magazine has decided th
January 25, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Mica the MagnificentMoney Magazine has decided that the Bush economy will be called the 'anxiety economy.' Why? Because although the economy is great and unemployment is at a record low, people feel anxiety that they could lose their jobs and it could all end tomorow.
Lets look at the record:
1980's - (Reagan) "Decade of Greed"
1990's (Clinton) "A decade where everyone shared in the prosperity"
2000 (Bush) "Anxiety Economy"
2009 (Clinton) "Bushes Fault Economy"
Isn't it amazing that we have the power to convince the American people that the economy is BAD! Hive five! - Old MSM Proverb
How does this relate to une
January 25, 2007 - 11:02 ET by JDWHow does this relate to unemployment?
What do you have to say about these administrations other than dem regurgitation? How does the 'anxiety economy' in any way displace the fact that unemployment is what it is?
Do lower fuel prices irritate you?
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Not sure I understand your qu
January 25, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Mica the MagnificentNot sure I understand your questions. Are you asking Money Magazine or me?
If you're asking me, I am simply bringing to your attention what Money Magazine claimed in their latest issue. The 'decade of' stuff is actual history.The '09 economy prediction is meant to show what that economy will be called when the dems and President Hillary botch it and we're in a depression, her economy will be blamed on Bush.
Geez! Do I really have to explain it? Where are my hand puppets?
If you were asking Money Magazine, please disregard the comments above.
Oh, c'mon! Who hasn't driven home and found documents from the National Archives in their shorts? - Old Sandy Berger Proverb
You present yourself in a v
January 25, 2007 - 14:15 ET by JDWYou present yourself in a very ambiguous fashion. I have read other posts and they support the same. I remain confused as to what your point is let alone the relevance.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
I'll agree not to read your p
January 25, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Mica the MagnificentI'll agree not to read your posts if you agree not to read mine.
Life's too short.
It is never politically correct to ask to see the condition of a Habitat for Humanity house five years after it is given to a family. - Old liberal proverb
JEDI MIND TRICK!
January 25, 2007 - 08:08 ET by blackrain4xmasThese aren't the statistics you're looking for
These aren't the statistics we're looking for
The sky is falling
The sky is falling
George W Bush is the cause of all the world's woes
George W Bush is the cause of all the world's woes
Only Democrats can save us
Only Democrats can save us-wait a sec! How?
....shhhhh
economy
January 25, 2007 - 10:39 ET by iveseenitallThe economy is roaring. So are the liberals--with lies about the economy.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Let's summarize it for the media..
January 25, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Gary HallLet's summarize it for the media..
The story goes:
During the period of the economic bubble - the last 5 years of the Clinton era - the numer of human beings (people with children to feed) being laid off each in mass layoffs each year steadily increased. Following the historic crash in 2000, this steady increase topped out in 2001 as the final act of the Clinton recession. The new Bush administration then jumped on the bandwagon, immediately enacting economic policies to reverse this massive lost of jobs, thus beginning an immediate recovery and turn around in mass layoffs, which has continued to 2006. Today, we see mass layoffs at the lowest level in ten years.