the numbers of jobs lost is in the millions, the projected losses higher.

Corporations hid the data but verified are > 500k in tech jobs (GS) and 2.5 million manufacturing jobs (EPI) from 2001-2003.

Corporations hide the data plus the DOL and Congress refused to do anything about obtaining data (and put out a very bogus report). Even with a bogus report the House Science Committee had to go to war to even get the copy (they refused to release it).

In the "reads" section of EP, go to "studies" and read Alan Blinder's estimates, it's very objective. Then Haas School U.S. Berkley estimated 14M jobs offshored by 2015, Forester Research had 3.5M in white collar jobs alone offshore outsourced.

And if you don't believe that, look at India's GDP, which is now about ~3.7% from pure labor arbitrage, that's the BPO sector, i.e. offshore outsourcing....direct job transfer.

In the 2001 time frame, 50% of all tech workers in Silicon valley were pushed out of their careers, permanently.

In 2000, it's no surprise either we had a mass exodus of manufacturing jobs to China since the China PNTR trade agreement kicked in.

Now, in terms of offshore outsourcing, the focus is on advanced skill set jobs, i.e. R&D. The pharmaceutical companies massively fired their U.S. researchers and offshore outsourced R&D, happened in 2006 period extensively. The same is true in advanced technology.

While GM hemorrhaged money, few noticed the billions they had spent in R&D facilities, plants in India, China, Brazil.

It's so incredible, it didn't even make a blip that as Citigroup received $25 B in U.S. taxpayer funds, they signed a $2 billion offshore outsourcing deal to take to India what was left of jobs inside Citigroup. That's every single tech job that wasn't nailed down (and if anyone notices, we're having some funky stuff pop up on financial trading software now, just wait! that's only going to get worse!)

On the other hand, some corporations are seeing data come in from their "offshore outsource every division as fast as you can" internal corporate mantras/memos and are discovering it's not the "bang for the buck" they thought, productivity is much lower, the quality is lower, costs have additional layers.

That said, as we speak the outsourcers are talking with Hillary Clinton and believe me, they are after even more U.S. jobs to be traded. (Hillary has delivered for them too!)

So, I do not believe we will have a mass exodus of more jobs at this point, they already offshore outsourced them...

I think what is left of U.S. manufacturing is the unpicked fruit, left to rot on the vine.

Now they are not firing Americans, but simply starting new divisions, new plants, new research centers abroad, so those invisible "lost" jobs never come under the U.S. radar for they were never in the U.S. in the first place....

i.e. MNCs are still in the business of selling to Americans and moving Americans ability to earn a living offshore.

But that cash cow, funneling middle class income out of the country, might be a well run dry.

What we get from Obama is the same crap we heard from Clinton and Bush II, somehow Americans need education and training. It's pure bunk. There are plenty of Americans available with advanced training and skills working at Wal-mart or way below their skill levels. Also, in the past firms themselves trained workers and that is from manufacturing to PhD level training and investment.

Now corporations just want a fresh boatload of "immigrants" where all of that worker investment, i.e. education, training has been done offshore plus they want to throw workers away once a particular project or whatever is completed.

Training, education now (like many hidden expenses, i.e. retirement) is dumped onto the worker, they are supposed to pay out of pocket when it used to be the corporations cost and responsibility.

So, with that....I don't see any "V" because we do not have a housing bubble, or the ability to take on even more consumer debt to generate low paying construction and retail jobs....we do not have anything to replace the lost jobs with.

Until the Obama administration gets serious, as well as Congress about manufacturing policy, incentives for advanced manufacturing to be started in this country, for U.S. corporations to hire U.S. workers first and foremost and doing something about bad trade policy...

I hypothesize that the economy will just drivel along...

Their great green jobs are a case in point. They were immediately offshore outsourced, as I warned on EP.
IBM just as an example, should be plain banned from having any state, federal contract for they do not create local jobs....and are gutting their workforce, offshore outsourcing as fast as they can (or creating jobs in India)...G.E. also does this...

yet these sorts of companies are getting the Stimulus contracts PLUS are getting these "green jobs" initiatives.

Other countries, all over, put their workers first, U.S. policy puts U.S. workers last. We're even up for trade via Hillary Clinton.

We need much more than a WPA in other words, we need a host of policy changes and legislation, esp. focused on manufacturing, trade. We have right now VCs in Silicon valley who are more Patriotic in what they are doing than the Obama administration (and they also happen to know advanced innovation isn't something to labor arbitrage on! but even so, you can bet the manufacturing of that innovation will be offshore outsourced, i.e. fabless startup).

Sorry but the Obama administration has a day trader mentality when it comes to real economic growth.

But as much as I wish we would see a "V", I don't see anything that is going to create real jobs with real middle class income and benefits happening. Even worse, our taxpayer dollars are being used to create jobs.....offshore....so until I see some sort of activity, something, some sector that would create real job growth...
I'm a sideways "L", i.e. |________.

(note, all of this comment needs to be packed up with labor, occupational stats, graphs, i.e. what is the percentage of GDP of the housing boom, the occupational areas of jobs from 2001-2008 created, the occupational areas of jobs lost now (it's across the board last I saw but in 2008 was finance, construction, i.e. affiliated housing bubble jobs), then also how many of those jobs were held by illegal labor, guest workers, etc. who get counted along with Americans in the unemployment stats)

I agree with you because when those two terms are used together, it's an oxymoron. Like George Carlin's Jumbo Shrimp.

The reason I'm so down, from a public relations, marketing, messaging view, on using keyword recovery with high unemployment rates is it takes the focus away from the middle class, most of America. The elites of America have been living high on the hog when the rest of America is going down the chute. And on this score, the data is irrefutable. We have a growing gap between rich and poor, the rich and the rest of America, less social mobility, increases in people below the poverty line, 30 years of wage declines....

So when they say "recovery" it discounts who the economy is really for. It should be for the nation, for everyday Americans, not a few select super rich or multinational corporate earnings.

Bringing out U6, the # falling off of UI, the fact that less than half the unemployed can even qualify for UI is a very good thing.

But I also believe unemployment is so severe this time, it might very well affect overall GDP.

Maybe the administration can see morning but not most people see something that looks like dawn or dusk. Nothing clear, nothing bright.

In the world of investing you have the fundamentalists and technician. The problem with the technician is they will look at their charts and not look outside the window. To a technician the chart is reality and nothing else matters. They'll say, technically the stock is to go up but are confused when the stock tanks.

The only thing I believe is what I see in the real world and in the real world, unemployment is increasing, people aren't going into debt to buy the next big screen TV.

The old way of having an economy humming based in 70% of the economy as consumer spending is OVER. Hell it was a false economy anyhow. Now we must move forward and accept the debt based economy was smoke and mirrors, start building things and move forward.

This is not going to end soon and we may never (in my lifetime) see such a balloon-based economy. With a slower economy, I think I'll be seeing more time to play my 5 guitars.

Harley Davidson reported that the net income for the last quarter was off by 91%. Ouch! As an American icon it is a big ouch!

I'll stick with the offhand remark of dropping instead of dropped because the Rockefeller report only goes to Q1, 2009.

Then, a couple of things, most of the tax revenues are from W2, wages I noticed, so unemployment is still increasing, hence I expect tax revenue drops to continue.

Then, Bush "tax cuts", might have a little effect on the 2002 graphs, this is when budget deficits started growing so I wouldn't be surprised, then we had the housing bubble, with a lot of construction and property re-evaluations (property taxes).

But bottom line, this is an Instapopulist so to really see what's going on with tax revenues, history, etc. we need a longer time frame analysis, i.e. a blog post, much more research.

But the headline "worse on record" is a Q1 drop, I believe that's Q1 '08 to Q1 '09, so quarter to quarter slope.

The report has is long, I put this more up for others to read it, lots of graphs, analysis, but I did not pull any of it out of the report into this post, but there is a lot of material to deal with to put together a real longer term tax revenue analysis.

There has always been a disconnect between what economic indicators are saying and what people are feeling on the streets.

A "recovery" does not have the same meaning in economic and in the street (not Wall St.). I am not saying anything profound.

My favorite disconnect is "stabilizing". To many "stabilizing" implies improving. But not necessarily. A trend can stabilize from not cliff diving anymore but still could be historically low.

Just trying to calm the heated rhetoric.

Remember this: "So tell us NDD, what is out there that's going to take us out of the recession?" Instead of arguing a point, you made a personal attack on me.

Now you are upset that I fired back. How's the shoe feel on the other foot?

You say the burden of proof is on those who see a change in trend. So, the trend was booming house prices, increased jobs and increased income in 2006. What were you saying then? Did you put the same burden on those (like me) who said the trend was going to change, or did you trumpet the continuation of the trend?

And substantively, as to "what's going to lead us out of the recession," LEI just went up again 0.7% (almost exactly as I predicted), and coincident indicators are now beginning to look like they are bottoming too.

I'm sure a couple of years ago you were saying the same thing about the housing boom and job increases, and praising Larry Kudlow about "the greatest story never told." Weren't you?

Not at all. I was working to elect a Democrat to office in 2002.

For much of the Great Lakes region, the "recovery" never really happened.

I worked my way through school, only two find myself holding down three part time jobs for a year after I graduated until I could find something full time. I didn't need to be told that the economy was shit. I saw it everyday. What were you doing in 2002?

This pattern of yours: launching into ad hominen attacks when someone challenges what you have to say isn't pretty. And frankly if if continues, should be grounds for giving you and EP timeout so that you can learn to play well with others.

I supported my argument that state tax collections, especially YoY, are a coincident to lagging indicator. You decided to change the subject to what pulled us out of the recession in 2002.

Well, I don't have to do your homework for you. If you want to find out what pulled us out of the recession in 2002, here's a place to start your education: http://www.research.stlouisfed.org

You might want to start by looking up manufacturing, durable goods, housing starts, and money supply on a month to month basis in 2002.

BTW, as to your preaching that those who believe the trend is changing have the burden of proof, I'm sure a couple of years ago you were saying the same thing about the housing boom and job increases, and praising Larry Kudlow about "the greatest story never told." Weren't you?