Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are a HELL of a lot better off now than 12 months ago. Many of us saw it playing out pretty much as it has,
Sure, if by "we" you means "bankers". But otherwise, in what sense are "we" (people in general) better off now than we were 12 months ago? The unemployment rate has increased by around 2.6% since then, does that make it "hell of a lot better"?
Sure, if by "we" you means "bankers". But otherwise, in what sense are "we" (people in general) better off now than we were 12 months ago? The unemployment rate has increased by around 2.6% since then, does that make it "hell of a lot better"?
A rather baffling statement...really.
We're better off in the sense that we're no longer in freefall. We may be poised for at least a modest improvement, rather than the whole bottom falling out. So in that sense, we're better off, but you're right that when it comes to the hard numbers of people out of work, we are worse off than a year ago.
I was talking about the combined rate of unemployment and underemployment.
So you're talking about something else entirely. Probably you have in mind U-6, but that includes more than this and is currently around 17%. But even during good times its around 10~11%. Furthermore, this measure is hardly the "true rate" of unemployment. Well not unless you consider a pot head living in his moms basement who never looks for a job but "would like one" legitimately unemployed. Now if you are referring to U-6, then there is of course the irony about suggesting that the changes in methodology cause under-reporting yet calling U-6 the "true rate".
Now, it is certainly true that the methodology has changed over time but the idea that it is a "fact" that the changes caused the government to under report unemployment is accurate. I mean, if true wouldn't you expect a big shift in the unemployment rate? Have you bothered to look to see if there was such a shift? Of course not, you've got your conspiracy theories to guide you.
Let's face it, the "true rate" is whatever you want to pull out of your rear.
So you're talking about something else entirely. Probably you have in mind U-6, but that includes more than this and is currently around 17%. But even during good times its around 10~11%. Furthermore, this measure is hardly the "true rate" of unemployment. Well not unless you consider a pot head living in his moms basement who never looks for a job but "would like one" legitimately unemployed. Now if you are referring to U-6, then there is of course the irony about suggesting that the changes in methodology cause under-reporting yet calling U-6 the "true rate".
Now, it is certainly true that the methodology has changed over time but the idea that it is a "fact" that the changes caused the government to under report unemployment is accurate. I mean, if true wouldn't you expect a big shift in the unemployment rate? Have you bothered to look to see if there was such a shift? Of course not, you've got your conspiracy theories to guide you.
Let's face it, the "true rate" is whatever you want to pull out of your rear.
You've expended a lot of energy over two words that I wrote. I hope it was worth it for you...
We're better off in the sense that we're no longer in freefall.
We aren't? Why is that because the government has been able to temporarily manipulate the markets?
The idea that we are better off now vs 12 months ago because its possible that in the future there are real improvements makes no sense. That some potential existed 12 months ago....but it was of course not realized. Will it be this time? Time will tell.
I think it's interesting that all of the naysayers who were posting 6 to 12 months ago and telling us how the sky was falling are now silent. Remember the folks who gave us such tidbits as "the Dow is going to 4000" and the people who proclaimed we were in "a depression" .... where are they?
As I said I would do, I think I'll go back over those threads and post some excerpts for us all to see. With 5.7% GDP growth in Q4 CY2009, I guess we know who was right and who was wrong.
Hope you've got a fork and a knife cuz there's a pretty good chance you'll be eating those words.
Sure, when someone farts in the room its hard to ignore.
Speaking of hard to ignore, I'm seeing a lot of people in their early 60s who would love to keep working being laid off and deciding to retire when their unemployment benefits run out.
Does the government count involuntary retirement in the official figures?
I consider the U-6 to be a better rate to use when comparing to historical numbers because its methodology is much better aligned. When I see the MSM comparing U-3 at 10% with 1982 UE rates and concluding that things are not as bad as it was then, well, I have a problem with that. And U-6 in some areas like Detroit, Oregon, parts of CA etc are at GD I levels.
To Neil--if your employer pre-announces a round of layoffs, and you tighten your belt and spend less, then you indeed get laid off and you run up your credit cards to six figures, spending more money than you did when you were preparing for a possible layoff, are you more productive or in a better long-term position as a result of spending all that borrowed money? Because that's what's happening in the economy. Think about it, a $2 Tn deficit added to a $12.4 Tn national debt is an over 16% increase in one year alone. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of exponential math should be positively frightened by these numbers and their implications.
I think the worst of the train wreck is still ahead, and that as a result of our desperate attempts to manipulate our way out of trouble we're going to hit the wall even harder and faster than we would have otherwise.
Another potentially giant crack in the dam is starting to appear now...I think the foreclosure crisis is going to take another ugly turn downward as the number of people electing for "strategic default" to escape an underwater mortgage goes parabolic. This fundamental shift in borrower ethos and behavior alone could easily put the banks right back to where they were in Sept 08. Listen carefully to attorney Mary Kinsley describing the change in the nature of foreclosure-related consultations from 2007-08 to now:
Speaking of hard to ignore, I'm seeing a lot of people in their early 60s who would love to keep working being laid off and deciding to retire when their unemployment benefits run out.
If they decide to retire and are no longer looking for work even causally then as far as I know they won't be counted. Though if they are receiving unemployment benefits they would be included as part of receiving those benefits is the idea that you are looking for a job!
But this happens all the time, often its an external event that pushes people into retirement. Once you're in the 60's its often not worth trying to get a new job especially if you have the money to retire (or qualify for social security, etc). I think its pretty common, regardless of the economic situation, for people in their 50's/60's to continue working while its available but retire if/when they get laid off or the work becomes less desirable (perhaps a pay cut, etc). The reason is pretty simple, often they are getting paid near the top of the pay scale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
