Ohio's November Unemployment Rate (Cleveland, Kent: credit, house, school)

[ciceropolo]

John Williams Shadowstats.com has better comprehensive data as he compiles unemployment data as it has been done historically. I wouldn't trust any data reported by the US version of 'Soviet pravda' - especially in an election year. Especially telling is total people employed has hit lows not seen since 1981. Those people coming off unemployment I believe simply transitioned to other social programs, and those finding jobs I bet 80-90% found employment that pays less.

The more telling stats are that since 2000 mean hhold income has decreased 7 percent in 2010 dollars and 40% in loss of buying power. Doesn't matter the region/metro the majority of productive working americans are getting slowly consumed in a monetary squeeze due to systemic policy of "socialize the risk (to taxpayer) and privatize the benefits to the few" (bankers, corporations, "too big too fail") by pouring money into banks (QE1, QE2, QE3, etc...) that would be insolvent if they had to, 'mark to market', the value of assets (Residential & Commercial property) they hold on their books.

[WRosado]

Originally Posted by ciceropolo

John Williams Shadowstats.com has better comprehensive data as he compiles unemployment data as it has been done historically. I wouldn't trust any data reported by the US version of 'Soviet pravda' - especially in an election year. Especially telling is total people employed has hit lows not seen since 1981. Those people coming off unemployment I believe simply transitioned to other social programs, and those finding jobs I bet 80-90% found employment that pays less.

The more telling stats are that since 2000 mean hhold income has decreased 7 percent in 2010 dollars and 40% in loss of buying power. Doesn't matter the region/metro the majority of productive working americans are getting slowly consumed in a monetary squeeze due to systemic policy of "socialize the risk (to taxpayer) and privatize the benefits to the few" (bankers, corporations, "too big too fail") by pouring money into banks (QE1, QE2, QE3, etc...) that would be insolvent if they had to, 'mark to market', the value of assets (Residential & Commercial property) they hold on their books.

I am not going to trust anything from a website where a guy's name is plastered all over it. Haven't you heard, anyone can create a blog these days...

Didn't you learn in college, some of the few sources you can trust are either BLS/census bureau related. This thread isn't political, no matter how much you want it to be. I believe there is a political forum. The point is, Ohio is doing better than a majority of states in the country.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ciceropolo

John Williams Shadowstats.com has better comprehensive data as he compiles unemployment data as it has been done historically. I wouldn't trust any data reported by the US version of 'Soviet pravda' - especially in an election year. Especially telling is total people employed has hit lows not seen since 1981. Those people coming off unemployment I believe simply transitioned to other social programs, and those finding jobs I bet 80-90% found employment that pays less.

The more telling stats are that since 2000 mean hhold income has decreased 7 percent in 2010 dollars and 40% in loss of buying power. Doesn't matter the region/metro the majority of productive working americans are getting slowly consumed in a monetary squeeze due to systemic policy of "socialize the risk (to taxpayer) and privatize the benefits to the few" (bankers, corporations, "too big too fail") by pouring money into banks (QE1, QE2, QE3, etc...) that would be insolvent if they had to, 'mark to market', the value of assets (Residential & Commercial property) they hold on their books.

First, conspiracy theories don't belong in threads like this. While unemployment rates are never going to be exact, if people were really manipulating them heavily to influence elections, why wouldn't they rise or fall more than a few tenths of a percentage point over several months time? On the national scale, they've been between 8.1% and 8.3% for awhile now.

Second, the unemployment rate is coming off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, let alone 1981. So I would think unemployment rates and other factors would still be reflecting that to some degree. It's a slow recovery and probably will be for some time regardless of who's in office, no matter what any political hack has to say about it otherwise.

Third, the 2000s went through two separate recessions, the second of which, as I mentioned, was very severe. It's no surprise that median income went down. You don't have to agree with every policy regarding the recovery, just to recognize that the conditions we're in right now were inevitable given decades of building up bubbles like housing and subsudizing the suburban American Dream.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by ciceropolo

John Williams Shadowstats.com has better comprehensive data as he compiles unemployment data as it has been done historically. I wouldn't trust any data reported by the US version of 'Soviet pravda' - especially in an election year. Especially telling is total people employed has hit lows not seen since 1981. Those people coming off unemployment I believe simply transitioned to other social programs, and those finding jobs I bet 80-90% found employment that pays less.

If it was the "Soviet Pravda," the rate would be 4.5%. The U3 unemployment number is the way that unemployment is reported in a general sense since a little after WW2 as it is an aggregate and one of the more accurate numbers. The rest (U4-U6) rely on a lot of assumptions.

And, yes, beware of the know-it-all conspiracy theorists who have nothing better or profitable to do with his time than author a blog.

The more telling stats are that since 2000 mean hhold income has decreased 7 percent in 2010 dollars and 40% in loss of buying power. Doesn't matter the region/metro the majority of productive working americans are getting slowly consumed in a monetary squeeze due to systemic policy of "socialize the risk (to taxpayer) and privatize the benefits to the few" (bankers, corporations, "too big too fail") by pouring money into banks (QE1, QE2, QE3, etc...) that would be insolvent if they had to, 'mark to market', the value of assets (Residential & Commercial property) they hold on their books.

I'm not in disagreement with some of what you stated. However, you need to keep in mind that the recoil from the 2008 disaster is far from finished. Also, buying power loss has a direct and noticeable effect on consumer prices. Inflation on most goods has slowed to a crawl. You can't simply compare money valuation from 10-12 years ago to today like so many of the doomsdayers do. You also have to ask yourself why, with this supposed glut of paper on the supply side, there has been relatively stable reaction to it in the market.

[a flag of honor]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio Jobless Rate Drops to 8.5 Percent | WOSU News - WOSU Public Media

Nice downward jump. I like how it stated that the biggest gains did not seem to be associated with temporary seasonal work for the holidays. Ohio is below the national rate now and we should see decent corresponding drops in all Ohio's major metros.

Under obama administration i'm hearing ohio favors him in polls.. How can that be? We have 23 million unemployed in our country and he grants amnesty that will take more jobs..and over 1 million a year foreclosures.. Whats your take on this?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by a flag of honor

Under obama administration i'm hearing ohio favors him in polls.. How can that be? We have 23 million unemployed in our country and he grants amnesty that will take more jobs..and over 1 million a year foreclosures.. Whats your take on this?

My take is that Ohio has unemployment a point below the national average. The state has gained more jobs the past year than 46 others. It has benefitted from the auto bailout, the tentative return of domestic manufacturing and the shale boom. The state is the perfect logistics state. It's cities and metro areas are rising past the Rust Belt era fairly quickly. It's tax burden has dropped and business-friendly policies have improved. The housing market is recovering quickly. Etc, etc.

The fact is that Ohio is doing well, at least better than the national picture certainly. This benefits Obama. So does Romney being a terrible candidate.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by a flag of honor

Under obama administration i'm hearing ohio favors him in polls.. How can that be? We have 23 million unemployed in our country and he grants amnesty that will take more jobs..and over 1 million a year foreclosures.. Whats your take on this?

People also remember where we were 4 years ago. The economy was an absolute mess. It's now relatively stable and, much to the dismay of an obstructionist congress, slowly improving. GOP strategists, Fox noise writers, and other right-wing disciples may have short memories but most people seem to remember the economy falling off a cliff in 2008 and that it could be much, much worse right now.

And, yes, Romney is a terrible candidate.

[Natural510]

There is also the concept of the "New Normal", where the majority of the general public now (rightfully) realizes we won't be where we were during the dot-com boom or housing bubble anytime soon, with the current reality of outsourcing and permanent decline of manufacturing (which has been in the works for the past 40+ years). They've learned to live on what they have, even if what they have is only enough to pay the bills this month and have to drive their current car a few more years than they would've in the past.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Natural, that is true -- but I wouldn't say that it's a majority of the general public. As you have already pointed out, this is a 40+ year old phenomenon. This president is no more responsible for it than the last one is. The majority of people realize that and have moved on. The realization now is that blue-collar work, while exceedingly necessary, doesn't pay like it used to. So, everyone is sending little Johnny and Susie off to college. I predict that this will come full circle in about a decade (i.e., college educations will be replaced by trade school). It's either that or societal implosion. The infrastructure knows no politics.

As for the unemployment numbers: This is the perfect political hot potato because it is so open for suggestion. In 2004, the GOP was singing its own praises because the U3 (aggregate and most widely used) unemployment rate was around 5.5%. However, the U6 rate was about 4.7% higher at 10.2%. Today, after the worst recession since the 1930's, the U3 is 8.1%. This, of course, is only 2.6% higher than what was, at the time, being called "full" employment. Therefore, they have decided to latch on to the more sensational U6 number which I believe is 14.2%. The problem is, that number relies on "feeling" much more than it does hard data. This morning, I heard Glenn Beck pronounce that nearly 82 million people are either unemployed or "under"-employed. This would of course mean that the U6 would be over 50%. This is, of course, a flat out lie. But, it makes for great lemming feed.

The real fact of the matter is that, when your economy falls off a cliff and breaks both of its legs, it's hard to bring it out of traction quickly. Most intelligent people get that. They also understand that both the U3 and the U6 rates are declining precipitously (an average of about 1% per year for the U6). This means that, since the worst of times, people are regaining employment not only by simply getting a "job" but also in the career of their choice and at a commensurate salary. That's bad news if you're trying to run on repairing the economy because, by and large, the mend is not only occurring, it is visible.

[ciceropolo]

Some other recent bits of data: source Financial Times
US Median hhold income in 2011 $50,054 was $570 less than its median hhold income in 1989. It's 111.4 million private sector jobs are about as many as there were 12 years ago.

Where did all the other expanding workforce in the last 12 years disappear? Or are they just conveniently not counted?


Check out:
The Real Deal on Jobs
Global Economic Intersection