Sorry, got the wrong title on the last one, trying again...
New report says more jobs at risk in city
In a report released Thursday, the Independent Budget Office gave a grim forecast, estimating that 243,000 jobs will be lost in the current recession.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090108/FREE/901089977/1097/newsletter11
The deepening recession will cost the city 243,000 jobs and create gaping budget gaps of $4.3 billion and $7 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to a report released Thursday by the New York City Independent Budget Office.
The job loss estimate is 40% higher than the dire forecast made just a few months ago by the state comptroller. It also puts the projected losses higher than during the last recession in the city, when more than 222,000 jobs were lost.
“We have a problem,” said Ronnie Lowenstein, director of the IBO, a public agency that operates independent of the mayor’s office.
The 243,000 job losses will be spread across every sector, except education and health services, the report said. Financial activities will be hit particularly hard, with 82,300 jobs disappearing, including 48,900 in securities alone, the report said.
The projected fiscal 2009 budget gap would represent more than 10% of city-funded revenues, and the gap for 2010 would be nearly 16%. The forecast comes as the city grapples with Wall Street’s recent collapse. For the first time ever, the report predicts, business tax revenues will fall three years in a row. The cumulative revenue drop off will total $2.3 billion, or 38%, through fiscal 2010.
The gap for fiscal 2009 is projected despite the fact that the city has prepared for budget problems over the last two years.
“We still have a $4.3 billion gap for the fiscal year that starts literally in six months, despite the fact that the city has foreseen this problem for some time,” said Ms. Lowenstein. Three rounds of programs to eliminate gaps have failed to solve the problem. And as further rounds of cuts become necessary, it becomes more difficult to avoid eliminating services, Ms. Lowenstein said.
“It’s hard to believe they could spare services and that’s been a major focus of the city,” she said.
In the city’s economic outlook released in November, Mayor Michael Bloomberg floated the idea of an across-the-board income tax increase and a sales tax hike.
James Parrott, an economist at the liberal Fiscal Policy Institute, said the mayor’s on the right track in recognizing that the city can’t cut its way out of the problem, though he said he’d rather see a progressive tax like the one being considered on the state level.
“Even with the downturn on Wall Street and the prospect of capital losses and declines in bonuses, the incomes at the top are still going to be a lot greater than they were at the top of the expansion in 2003,” he said.
[less]
Response by hotproperty
about 17 years ago
Posts: 277
Member since: Nov 2008
%u201CEven with the downturn on Wall Street and the prospect of capital losses and declines in bonuses, the incomes at the top are still going to be a lot greater than they were at the top of the expansion in 2003,%u201D he said.
Is that a positive?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by waverly
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1638
Member since: Jul 2008
NYC - I do think the jobs situation will be tough for sure. Is this the same report that said the job loss projections, while still not good, were less than the number of jobs lost in 2001/2002 downturn or was that another report?
I thought that I read that yesterday and that was some good in all of the bad.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 17 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
"the incomes at the top"
Not if they don't get bonuses.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by waverly
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1638
Member since: Jul 2008
Yeah, it seems a bit odd to anticipate the top earner to make more in 2009 than in 2003, not only because of what has happened already but because you have no idea what could happen tomorrow, next week or next month to impact them negatively.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
and they bonuses they get will be primarily restricted stock. That is much, much worse than 2003.
And, hell, 2003 prices would be 50% down, I believe...
Here is another way to look at it.... wall street salaries (median) increased 50% 2001 to 2008. Just a 33 reduction (which it seems we already have) takes 'em right back there...
"Is this the same report that said the job loss projections, while still not good, were less than the number of jobs lost in 2001/2002 downturn or was that another report? "
Man, we passed 2001 problems a LONG time ago...
"This crisis is much worse than 2001 and we don't know how long it's going to last," said Jo Bennett, a partner at executive search firm Battalia Winston International in New York. Job cuts "could be more than 100,000 in a few years."
and that quote was from March..
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
"Yeah, it seems a bit odd to anticipate the top earner to make more in 2009 than in 2003, not only because of what has happened already but because you have no idea what could happen tomorrow, next week or next month to impact them negatively."
Actually, I think we know for sure this is crap. The guys that run the shops get no bonuses. Hedge funds can't make any less than they are (20% of 0).
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by waverly
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1638
Member since: Jul 2008
""This crisis is much worse than 2001 and we don't know how long it's going to last," said Jo Bennett, a partner at executive search firm Battalia Winston International in New York. Job cuts "could be more than 100,000 in a few years."
I think this statement was in regards to the financial services industry and the statement that I read yesterday was in regards to the overall NYC job losses. It indicated that the overall losses were anticipated (like they can tell anything today) to be less than 2001/2002 losses.
Let me see if I can find it.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by waverly
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1638
Member since: Jul 2008
Correction, it was a touch more than 2001, but less than 1988. This is it:
The total job loss will be 242,700 by Dec. 31, 2010, the office said, a 6.4 percent decrease from a peak total of 3,774,800 people employed in the city in the first quarter of 2008.
Compared with previous periods of economic decline, that’s greater than the 228,100 positions the city lost in 33 months starting in January 2001, but less than the five-year loss of 368,100 that began in January 1988, the office said.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EastVillager
about 17 years ago
Posts: 55
Member since: Jan 2009
So they think this recession is going to be easier on NYC than 1988? Can't say I agree with that. They will keep revising this upward.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
" It indicated that the overall losses were anticipated (like they can tell anything today) to be less than 2001/2002 losses. "
Yeah, that ship sorta sailed.
I can also find you articles that say Manhattan will avoid the housing crisis.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
BTW, see what happens when you do it with chance in city INCOME.
Wall Street was 30% of city income.
Its not like this is 1988 and we're losing manufacturing jobs. The stuff we're losing left and right is the high end.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
Actually, there it is...
> The cumulative revenue drop off will total $2.3 billion, or 38%,
Obviously tax rates differ at high end, and there are a couple other sources... but we're talking about a greated than 30% drop in income likely.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 17 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
Also, that projection is through 2010, which would only be about 28 or so months of losses (for nyc). There's no evidence that it will stop there. The 2001 figures spanned 33 months, 1988 five years.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by w67thstreet
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9003
Member since: Dec 2008
yeah.... but you'ze all forgetting the mariahci players...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 17 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
Is your band hiring? What are the costumes like? It's got to be better than the polish polka group I'm with now.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by w67thstreet
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9003
Member since: Dec 2008
aboutready... I'm sorry but we've got too many applicants already. There's some really interesting people with diverse backgrounds... but the one with porn/RE broker and some connection with a Ingrid Bergman movie catches my eye :)
nyc10022... happy new year btw ( sorry missed that post). I think the correct comparison to 2001 and 1998 can only be made after this storm has passed... right now we are still in 2nd inning.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
about 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
Well, the overall number says worst layoffs since 1945.... so much for 2001 and 87 and all that...
%u201CEven with the downturn on Wall Street and the prospect of capital losses and declines in bonuses, the incomes at the top are still going to be a lot greater than they were at the top of the expansion in 2003,%u201D he said.
Is that a positive?
NYC - I do think the jobs situation will be tough for sure. Is this the same report that said the job loss projections, while still not good, were less than the number of jobs lost in 2001/2002 downturn or was that another report?
I thought that I read that yesterday and that was some good in all of the bad.
"the incomes at the top"
Not if they don't get bonuses.
Yeah, it seems a bit odd to anticipate the top earner to make more in 2009 than in 2003, not only because of what has happened already but because you have no idea what could happen tomorrow, next week or next month to impact them negatively.
and they bonuses they get will be primarily restricted stock. That is much, much worse than 2003.
And, hell, 2003 prices would be 50% down, I believe...
Here is another way to look at it.... wall street salaries (median) increased 50% 2001 to 2008. Just a 33 reduction (which it seems we already have) takes 'em right back there...
"Is this the same report that said the job loss projections, while still not good, were less than the number of jobs lost in 2001/2002 downturn or was that another report? "
Man, we passed 2001 problems a LONG time ago...
"This crisis is much worse than 2001 and we don't know how long it's going to last," said Jo Bennett, a partner at executive search firm Battalia Winston International in New York. Job cuts "could be more than 100,000 in a few years."
and that quote was from March..
"Yeah, it seems a bit odd to anticipate the top earner to make more in 2009 than in 2003, not only because of what has happened already but because you have no idea what could happen tomorrow, next week or next month to impact them negatively."
Actually, I think we know for sure this is crap. The guys that run the shops get no bonuses. Hedge funds can't make any less than they are (20% of 0).
""This crisis is much worse than 2001 and we don't know how long it's going to last," said Jo Bennett, a partner at executive search firm Battalia Winston International in New York. Job cuts "could be more than 100,000 in a few years."
I think this statement was in regards to the financial services industry and the statement that I read yesterday was in regards to the overall NYC job losses. It indicated that the overall losses were anticipated (like they can tell anything today) to be less than 2001/2002 losses.
Let me see if I can find it.
Correction, it was a touch more than 2001, but less than 1988. This is it:
The total job loss will be 242,700 by Dec. 31, 2010, the office said, a 6.4 percent decrease from a peak total of 3,774,800 people employed in the city in the first quarter of 2008.
Compared with previous periods of economic decline, that’s greater than the 228,100 positions the city lost in 33 months starting in January 2001, but less than the five-year loss of 368,100 that began in January 1988, the office said.
So they think this recession is going to be easier on NYC than 1988? Can't say I agree with that. They will keep revising this upward.
" It indicated that the overall losses were anticipated (like they can tell anything today) to be less than 2001/2002 losses. "
Yeah, that ship sorta sailed.
I can also find you articles that say Manhattan will avoid the housing crisis.
BTW, see what happens when you do it with chance in city INCOME.
Wall Street was 30% of city income.
Its not like this is 1988 and we're losing manufacturing jobs. The stuff we're losing left and right is the high end.
Actually, there it is...
> The cumulative revenue drop off will total $2.3 billion, or 38%,
Obviously tax rates differ at high end, and there are a couple other sources... but we're talking about a greated than 30% drop in income likely.
Also, that projection is through 2010, which would only be about 28 or so months of losses (for nyc). There's no evidence that it will stop there. The 2001 figures spanned 33 months, 1988 five years.
yeah.... but you'ze all forgetting the mariahci players...
Is your band hiring? What are the costumes like? It's got to be better than the polish polka group I'm with now.
aboutready... I'm sorry but we've got too many applicants already. There's some really interesting people with diverse backgrounds... but the one with porn/RE broker and some connection with a Ingrid Bergman movie catches my eye :)
nyc10022... happy new year btw ( sorry missed that post). I think the correct comparison to 2001 and 1998 can only be made after this storm has passed... right now we are still in 2nd inning.
Well, the overall number says worst layoffs since 1945.... so much for 2001 and 87 and all that...
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/09/2009-01-09_unemployment_jumps_to_72__worst_year_for.html