This notion always amazes me. People get laid off because the money isn't there and will not likely be there in the future to cover their salary, if the money wasn't there in the past how did their employer manage to pay them?

You're not serious are you JD?

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

So when job losses were outpacing GDP decline in June/July was that because of what was going on in June/July or because of employers fears about the future?

First, the govt figures are always lagging indicators (GDP specifically) but you have it right. Employers will plan for the future based on what they see in their business environment. If their forecasts do not bode well for current staffing needs, they will make those adjustments now rather than later if they can. Unfortunately, even when it appears to be getting better, employers will wait until it is a must that they hire additional staff, making their current staff just work a little harder until then. Uncertainty is bad for business. It costs a great deal of money to hire new employees so you don't want to do it if you are not sure you will need them for the long haul.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.