Unemployment lowest since 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Is the information about who has announced future layoffs accurate, or not?

I can't tell because there is a huge political slant on every topic across the top, my eyes blurred before i could even get to the meat of the article. -Wall Street journal or some credible news source would be a better option, not piling on you CE, but I think I can speak for many and say we're just tired of the political rhetoric and now that the election I over I hope politics isn't injected into every little detail of American life. Edit to add: It's not personal, wasn't aimed at just you so don't take it that way.

 

[Sam Quentin]

College degree folks-Unemployment is under 4%, that is almost full capacity. I have really stopped caring about this number, why can't folks focus on other things? If you personally get laid off, come in here and cry, we'll help you map out a game plan but this constant bickering over who is working and who isn't. I'm guilty of it in the past but the only people who should worry are low wage folks and they all voted for Obama so obviously they aren't concerned so why should we?How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

By the laws of supply and demand, a larger supply of available labor and a lower demand lowers the price of labor - which means your salary. High unemployment is economically regressive.

 

[TPW]

The American coal mining industry is finished.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Mind you, this is all by design.

 

[Sam Quentin]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

 

[ffldrew]

Not looking good going forward.

My link.

this explains a lot.

Companies announcing layoffs - Research in Motion? No #### Sherlock

 

[bigbottom]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Who says government spending doesn't create jobs? We should just double government spending so we can employ people in a whole buch of industries.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's some help for you if you'd like to get some context and think critically about the tripe you read/posted: In September 2012, a month in which the overall national unemployment numbers improved significantly there were 1,316 mass action layoffs (more than 43 a day) resulting in 122,416 lost jobs (4000+ a day). Data

Those number also show that the teenage unemployment rate dropped dramatically, and show a dramatic increase in the number of part time jobs. Probably a reflection of more college kids using part time jobs to pay for school this new school year, instead of relying on student loans, given the student loan crisis that is looming.So while the net unemployment rate improved, it was NOT a good sign for middle class jobs. It was a loss of middle class jobs and a gain of part time jobs.

 

[The Commish]

employment will be stagnant at best until the fiscal matters are addressed...and that's not even taking into account geo-political factors.Times will not be getting easier, you don't put a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

You need to get out on that soapbox and yell a little louder. About 116,000,000 people think you do.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's some help for you if you'd like to get some context and think critically about the tripe you read/posted: In September 2012, a month in which the overall national unemployment numbers improved significantly there were 1,316 mass action layoffs (more than 43 a day) resulting in 122,416 lost jobs (4000+ a day). Data

Those number also show that the teenage unemployment rate dropped dramatically, and show a dramatic increase in the number of part time jobs. Probably a reflection of more college kids using part time jobs to pay for school this new school year, instead of relying on student loans, given the student loan crisis that is looming.So while the net unemployment rate improved, it was NOT a good sign for middle class jobs. It was a loss of middle class jobs and a gain of part time jobs.

If you want to parse the September drop in the unemployment rate to take some wind out of it (even though things pretty much stayed the same in October), have at it. I don't particularly care to get into that. The larger point is that there was nothing unusual about the # of layoffs in the 48 hours following Obama's win, despite what the idiots quoted in that link say. My issue is with people posting complete nonsense to further their political agenda and other people believing them, not with the actual unemployment statistics.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's some help for you if you'd like to get some context and think critically about the tripe you read/posted: In September 2012, a month in which the overall national unemployment numbers improved significantly there were 1,316 mass action layoffs (more than 43 a day) resulting in 122,416 lost jobs (4000+ a day). Data

Those number also show that the teenage unemployment rate dropped dramatically, and show a dramatic increase in the number of part time jobs. Probably a reflection of more college kids using part time jobs to pay for school this new school year, instead of relying on student loans, given the student loan crisis that is looming.So while the net unemployment rate improved, it was NOT a good sign for middle class jobs. It was a loss of middle class jobs and a gain of part time jobs.

If you want to parse the September drop in the unemployment rate to take some wind out of it (even though things pretty much stayed the same in October), have at it. I don't particularly care to get into that. The larger point is that there was nothing unusual about the # of layoffs in the 48 hours following Obama's win, despite what the idiots quoted in that link say. My issue is with people posting complete nonsense to further their political agenda and other people believing them, not with the actual unemployment statistics.

Oh, I COMPLETELY agree with you about the last 48 hours. Because first of all the direction we are going in was already in place well before Tuesday night. And second of all the direction would not have changed at all based on who won Tuesday night. What is going on has very little to do with the president, but the president will be expected to deal with it.

 

[Mile High]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Who says government spending doesn't create jobs? We should just double government spending so we can employ people in a whole buch of industries.

Boeing Co (BA.N) posted stronger-than-expected results for the third quarter on Wednesday as its defense business improved and commercial aircraft deliveries surged, and the company raised its full-year forecast for the third time this year.

Defense revenue fell slightly from a year earlier but margins in that business improved. This showed Boeing's ability to be "very aggressive" in cutting costs at a time when defense spending is contracting in the United States and Europe, said Ken Herbert, an analyst at Imperial Capital LLC.

"They're ahead of the curve compared with their peers," the analyst said.

Boeing earned $1.0 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 billion, $1.46 a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose to $20.0 billion from $17.7 billion.

 

[bigbottom]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Who says government spending doesn't create jobs? We should just double government spending so we can employ people in a whole buch of industries.

Boeing Co (BA.N) posted stronger-than-expected results for the third quarter on Wednesday as its defense business improved and commercial aircraft deliveries surged, and the company raised its full-year forecast for the third time this year.

Defense revenue fell slightly from a year earlier but margins in that business improved. This showed Boeing's ability to be "very aggressive" in cutting costs at a time when defense spending is contracting in the United States and Europe, said Ken Herbert, an analyst at Imperial Capital LLC.

"They're ahead of the curve compared with their peers," the analyst said.

Boeing earned $1.0 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 billion, $1.46 a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose to $20.0 billion from $17.7 billion.

Right, they're cutting costs in the defense division due to declining U.S. defense spending. Cutting costs (which involves layoffs) allows them to maintain corporate profits.

 

[Mile High]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Who says government spending doesn't create jobs? We should just double government spending so we can employ people in a whole buch of industries.

Boeing Co (BA.N) posted stronger-than-expected results for the third quarter on Wednesday as its defense business improved and commercial aircraft deliveries surged, and the company raised its full-year forecast for the third time this year.

Defense revenue fell slightly from a year earlier but margins in that business improved. This showed Boeing's ability to be "very aggressive" in cutting costs at a time when defense spending is contracting in the United States and Europe, said Ken Herbert, an analyst at Imperial Capital LLC.

"They're ahead of the curve compared with their peers," the analyst said.

Boeing earned $1.0 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 billion, $1.46 a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose to $20.0 billion from $17.7 billion.

Right, they're cutting costs in the defense division due to declining U.S. defense spending. Cutting costs (which involves layoffs) allows them to maintain corporate profits.

Weren't business going to take their profits and create jobs?

 

[jonessed]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Who says government spending doesn't create jobs? We should just double government spending so we can employ people in a whole buch of industries.

Boeing Co (BA.N) posted stronger-than-expected results for the third quarter on Wednesday as its defense business improved and commercial aircraft deliveries surged, and the company raised its full-year forecast for the third time this year.

Defense revenue fell slightly from a year earlier but margins in that business improved. This showed Boeing's ability to be "very aggressive" in cutting costs at a time when defense spending is contracting in the United States and Europe, said Ken Herbert, an analyst at Imperial Capital LLC.

"They're ahead of the curve compared with their peers," the analyst said.

Boeing earned $1.0 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 billion, $1.46 a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose to $20.0 billion from $17.7 billion.

Right, they're cutting costs in the defense division due to declining U.S. defense spending. Cutting costs (which involves layoffs) allows them to maintain corporate profits.

Weren't business going to take their profits and create jobs?

They laid people off to maintain profits. Essentially, they have become a slightly smaller corporation. Why would this process be expected to create jobs?

 

[The Commish]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

The latest excuse...

 

[jon_mx]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

How much training does it really take to get someone qualified for a manufacturing job?

 

[Henry Ford]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

How much training does it really take to get someone qualified for a manufacturing job?

About a year of trade school for skilled manufacturing is my understanding.

 

[Godsbrother]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

The latest excuse...

Perhaps but I can tell you that most of the college kids we hire in software development are not US-born citizens. Most of our entry level hires are graduates from local colleges but are from India and Asia. Not sure if we're unique or not but I've been telling my friend's kids for years that I can easily find them jobs in software development and IT if they get computer science degrees.Of course none of them (like my own kids) listened to me and end up with degrees in education or business...

 

[Ministry of Pain]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

 

[Stinger Ray]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Where did you get the number that 92% of people in this country are employed?

 

[Sarnoff]

stupid MOP math

 

[The Commish]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

How much training does it really take to get someone qualified for a manufacturing job?

Depends on the job I suppose. In the example last night, the people needed to know trigonometry, be able to read blue prints etc. These folks are operation machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are making pieces for larger products that cost millions of dollars. They need to know what the hell they are doing. I often times wonder when I hear questions like this if people aren't still equiating manufacturing jobs to those back in the 50s.

 

[The Commish]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

The latest excuse...

Excuse for what? Not hiring? Hell, we've been through about 100 applicants in the last 6 weeks trying to find basic system analysts or programmers. Most of them are young, right out of school and can't spell Java or turn on a server. Are you expecting companies to hire them anyway? What kind of ### backward sense does that make?

 

[The Commish]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

 

[Henry Ford]

Anyone see the 60 minutes piece last night? It was focused on a couple companies in manufacturing, but the exact same thing applies to the tech industry as well. There are over 3 million jobs out there that people aren't qualified to do.

How much training does it really take to get someone qualified for a manufacturing job?

Depends on the job I suppose. In the example last night, the people needed to know trigonometry, be able to read blue prints etc. These folks are operation machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are making pieces for larger products that cost millions of dollars. They need to know what the hell they are doing. I often times wonder when I hear questions like this if people aren't still equiating manufacturing jobs to those back in the 50s.

Even in the 50s there were machinists. Manufacturing isn't just putting pieces together - someone has to make those pieces, and a skilled machinist is a job that requires training and expertise. You wouldn't hire a carpenter to make cabinets for your kitchen who'd never had any training, and I wouldn't expect a car company to hire someone to fabricate the pieces for my car to within .25mm of specifications who hasn't had any training.We expect mechanics to be trained in how to fix cars, but people seem to think that those who actually build them can just be swapped in and out without training.

 

[jonessed]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

The real unemployment rate is around 20% I believe and if you are talking "Americans" in general you add in all of those that aren't looking for work or can't work. That number probably isn't too far off.

 

[Politician Spock]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

From the BLS

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

 

[Politician Spock]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

 

[The Commish]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

 

[Politician Spock]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

It gives a good representation of the ratio of takers to makers. But I understand why people want that to be an insignifant statistic.

 

[The Commish]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

It gives a good representation of the ratio of takers to makers. But I understand why people want that to be an insignifant statistic.

You have to use a very broad brush for it to represent this.

 

[Politician Spock]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

It gives a good representation of the ratio of takers to makers. But I understand why people want that to be an insignifant statistic.

You have to use a very broad brush for it to represent this.

The only non-working people on that list who aren't takers are the people who are being educated without government funds, people living of the wages of a significant other (like a non-working spouse), and the retired people who reject social security payments. Given how few students there are that don't depend on government financing in one way or another for their education, how stay at home spouses are at historical lows (and even the few that there are still give their wage earning spouse another tax deduction), and how few retired people could afford to reject social security (if any do at all), I fail to see how it takes a "broad brush" for the non-employed represented on that statistic to be a good reprentation of the takers.

 

[The Commish]

How about this...92% of Americans are employed!!! That sounds much better.

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

It gives a good representation of the ratio of takers to makers. But I understand why people want that to be an insignifant statistic.

You have to use a very broad brush for it to represent this.

The only non-working people on that list who aren't takers are the people who are being educated without government funds, people living of the wages of a significant other (like a non-working spouse), and the retired people who reject social security payments. Given how few students there are that don't depend on government financing in one way or another for their education, how stay at home spouses are at historical lows (and even the few that there are still give their wage earning spouse another tax deduction), and how few retired people could afford to reject social security (if any do at all), I fail to see how it takes a "broad brush" for the non-employed represented on that statistic to be a good reprentation of the takers.

I know you do and I'm really not interested in trying to show you. I've seen you go down this road with others.

 

[Politician Spock]

closer to 58% but keep trying

Where do you get that number from? Seriously? 1 in 2 are unemployed in this country?

Sam's using the entire population of the county...including kids not allowed to be employed, people in college etc.

You are half right. It only includes working age adults.

Well... 16 year olds could be called by some to be kids... but The Commish is blatently wrong that the number is produced using kids "not allowed to be employed".

Fair enough. I was considering the source and his past and made an assumption based of that. I didn't look into the number because the number really has no significance IMO.

It gives a good representation of the ratio of takers to makers. But I understand why people want that to be an insignifant statistic.

You have to use a very broad brush for it to represent this.

The only non-working people on that list who aren't takers are the people who are being educated without government funds, people living of the wages of a significant other (like a non-working spouse), and the retired people who reject social security payments. Given how few students there are that don't depend on government financing in one way or another for their education, how stay at home spouses are at historical lows (and even the few that there are still give their wage earning spouse another tax deduction), and how few retired people could afford to reject social security (if any do at all), I fail to see how it takes a "broad brush" for the non-employed represented on that statistic to be a good reprentation of the takers.

I know you do and I'm really not interested in trying to show you. I've seen you go down this road with others.

Says the guy who claimed that the 58% number required counting people who can't legally work. There's nothing for you to show me in those numbers. You didn't even believe the number was real earlier today.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

 

[The Commish]

Says the guy who claimed that the 58% number required counting people who can't legally work. There's nothing for you to show me in those numbers. You didn't even believe the number was real earlier today.

I already said I was assuming that was what jon was doing It wasn't an assertion on my part. At least get the event correct. I know there's nothing to show you. You've already made up your mind. Keep fighting the good fight

 

[The Commish]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Don't bother with historical evidence. It's much easier to assume all recessions are the same and compare them accordingly to bag on the other side's group of politicians. I attempted to bring up the difference between a financial recession and other industrial recessions in a previous thread. No one wanted to hear it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Don't bother with historical evidence. It's much easier to assume all recessions are the same and compare them accordingly to bag on the other side's group of politicians. I attempted to bring up the difference between a financial recession and other industrial recessions in a previous thread. No one wanted to hear it.

The bold isn't really fair Commish. I'm fairly certain those of us who follow this stuff closely are well aware that there are significant differences and agree with Silver's take and the argument you were making earlier in the thread.And I'm fairly certain who the folks who didn't want to hear it are. Funny how it seems like it's the same folks over and over and over again who don't like facts.

 

[The Commish]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Don't bother with historical evidence. It's much easier to assume all recessions are the same and compare them accordingly to bag on the other side's group of politicians. I attempted to bring up the difference between a financial recession and other industrial recessions in a previous thread. No one wanted to hear it.

The bold isn't really fair Commish. I'm fairly certain those of us who follow this stuff closely are well aware that there are significant differences and agree with Silver's take and the argument you were making earlier in the thread.And I'm fairly certain who the folks who didn't want to hear it are. Funny how it seems like it's the same folks over and over and over again who don't like facts.

I'll edit it to: "Most didn't want to hear it"....that's the best you'll get out of me

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'll edit it to: "Most didn't want to hear it"....that's the best you'll get out of me

We're making progress. I look forward to the day when you get over your "both sides do it exactly the same amount" false equivalency game. Over under is another 2 years.

 

[The Commish]

I'll edit it to: "Most didn't want to hear it"....that's the best you'll get out of me

We're making progress. I look forward to the day when you get over your "both sides do it exactly the same amount" false equivalency game. Over under is another 2 years.

That's not my game My game is "both sides are going down the same hill via different paths". The net result is still the same destination. That won't change until their actions change. So far, the Dems are in the lead just simply by talking about a balance of cuts and revenue increases. We'll see if their actions follow suit. For the most part, both parties still suck and I still believe 116 million people wasted a vote on the 6th if their goal was any sort of real change.

 

[LHUCKS]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Really

 

[Rich Conway]

I'll edit it to: "Most didn't want to hear it"....that's the best you'll get out of me

We're making progress. I look forward to the day when you get over your "both sides do it exactly the same amount" false equivalency game. Over under is another 2 years.

I look forward to the day when you get over your "my side good, other side bad" mantra. I'm not going to hold my breath on it, though.

 

[humpback]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Don't bother with historical evidence. It's much easier to assume all recessions are the same and compare them accordingly to bag on the other side's group of politicians. I attempted to bring up the difference between a financial recession and other industrial recessions in a previous thread. No one wanted to hear it.

Historical evidence of what? You can look at other recessions in other countries in other time periods all you want, but the reality is every situation is unique- none of those were all that representative of our latest situation. They were more similar than other recessions, but trying to extrapolate much from any of them isn't a good idea.The main point I get out of MT's post is something I've believed for a long time- all of these "predictions" are pretty meaningless, even after the fact. It doesn't stop people from using it as "proof" that some policy succeeded or failed however, and then compounding that by thinking those policies would lead to the same results under very different circumstances.

 

[The Commish]

Kinda disappointed that I had to dig for this thread on the latest employment news

 

[Politician Spock]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

Speaking of slower recoveries, according to the chart found here the recovery of each of our last four recessions has been slower... and slower.... and s l o w e r....

 

[Sam Quentin]

41% is the true unemployment rate

That number isn't going to get better for a long time.

Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday.

I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels.

Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows.

 

[The Commish]

So we can all agree that this increase in unemployment claims is a good thing right?