> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, AUGUST 30, 2001:
>
> RELEASED TODAY: In July 2001, there were 2,108 mass layoff actions by
> employers as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits
> during the month, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single establishment, and
> the number of workers involved totaled 272,308. In January-July 2001, the
> total number of events, at 11,615, and initial claims, at 1,401,054, were
> higher than in January-July 2000 (8,803 and 984,523, respectively).
>
> Whose job is it to lift the economy? asks the Christian Science Monitor
> (David R. Francis, Staff Writer,
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0830/p1s1-usec.html). It has become almost
> an article of faith that the Federal Reserve Board would take care of any
> steering the U.S. economy needed, the author says. But after seven
> interest rate cuts in 8 months, the economy still isn't responding much to
> the Fed's actions. Consequently, pressure is growing, particularly on the
> White House, to consider other options to keep the factories of America
> stamping out automobile fenders and silicon wafers. At the end, the
> lengthy story directs its readers to several websites, among them
> "Industry at a Glance Bureau of Labor Statistics". That website contains
> profiles of the nine major industry groups in the order of the number
> employed by each industry in 1999. The industries are: services, retail
> trade, government, manufacturing, finance, insurance, and real estate;
> wholesale trade, transportation and public utilities, construction, and
> mining. The vignettes include e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of
> BLS staff the article says have "expert knowledge" of these industries and
> industry data
>
> The overly romantic faith in a new economy has already done plenty of
> damage But recent revisions in the productivity data reported by the
> Bureau of Labor Statistics show how thin the new economy thinking has been
> all along. First, the revisions cast doubt on a central new economy
> argument by the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and others. They
> argued that accelerating productivity gains in 1999 and 2000 were evidence
> that the computer revolution was at last providing a foundation for more
> rapid economic growth in the long run. Those gains, however, turn out
> mostly to have been the product of a counting error. The long-term trend
> of productivity, if properly measured, looks significantly slower than was
> thought only a couple of months ago -- and contrary to some reports,
> remains well below historical rates of growth (Jeff Madrick, editor of
> "Challenge" magazine, who teaches at Cooper Union College, in "Economic
> Scene", The New York Times, page C2).
>
> The nation's manufacturing workforce has declined by 4.5 percent since
> July 2000, largely because of an overvalued dollar and high energy costs,
> the National Association of Manufacturers says in a new report.
> Manufacturing employment has fallen by 837,000 jobs in the past year,
> according to the report. More than half of those jobs -- 561,000 -- have
> been in companies that produce durable goods (Daily Labor Report, page
> A-4).
\
> The American economy grew more slowly in the second quarter than at any
> time in 8 years, the Commerce Department reported yesterday. Still, the
> new numbers suggested to many economists that if consumers continued to
> spend at their present level, the nation could avoid a recession (Louis
> Uchitelle, The New York Times, page A1).
>
> Job cuts at U.S. dot-coms fell to one-year lows in August, while the
> number of companies closing more than doubled, according to outplacement
> firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Internet firms cut nearly 50 percent
> fewer jobs in August than in the previous month, with layoffs totaling
> 4,899. This is the lowest monthly figure since August 2000, when dot-coms
> cut 4,193 jobs. (Reuters, Los Angeles Times).
>
> DUE OUT TOMORROW: International Comparisons of Manufacturing Productivity
> and Unit Labor Costs in 2000
>
application/ms-tnef
