U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,186,791 times
Reputation: 4343

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Like I said "wages" have failed to keep pace with inflation.
Right...and that isn't accurate. There was a boom in real wages in the 60's and 70's but overall real wages have been pretty flat over the last 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._1964-2004.gif

Also, looking at wages instead of total compensation makes no sense. The benefits an employees would have to be paid out of their wage it if wasn't part of their compensation...


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
If anything is dishonest, it is the government’s statistics using fabricated birth/death rates and dropping anyone who is unsuccessful in finding work from their unemployment rates.
The unemployment rate is determined by a statistical model, that doesn't make it "fabricated". The government only collects actual birth/death information every 10 years, everything else is an estimate....like the birth/death model used to determine the unemployment rate.

Regardless, people that are unsuccessful from finding work aren't dropped only people that stop looking for work are dropped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
The participation rate is the closest thing we have to a honest statistic where unemployment is concerned.
The participation rate is no more "honest" than the unemployment rate, both use similar statical methodologies. Also, they tell you rather different things, yet you are using the number to try to indicate that unemployment is high. That is...entirely dishonest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
The argument was that housing prices were going to go up. The only thing that has driven housing prices in the past was bubbles. If you think they can pull off another nationwide artificial economic bubble then go ahead and buy, personally I think they have shot their wad in that area.
What part of "you can profit from the boom and bust" did you not understand? An investor can profit when a booming is forming and can similarly profit as the bubble collapses, of course this assumes that the investor has recognized the event as a bubble.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,624,776 times
Reputation: 5180
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Right...and that isn't accurate. There was a boom in real wages in the 60's and 70's but overall real wages have been pretty flat over the last 50 years:

File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Do you have a attention deficit? My original statement was that wages have failed to keep up with inflation for the past 30 years. You attempted to stretch the time period to 50 years and say my statement was not accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Also, looking at wages instead of total compensation makes no sense. The benefits an employees would have to be paid out of their wage it if wasn't part of their compensation....
It makes perfect sense because a smaller percentage of top wage earners receive lavish benefits that skew the overall picture.
If a CEO gets use of a private jet, thousands a month in expense accounts and stock options worth 10's of millions, those are all benefits, it means nothing to the average worker who gets nothing but UI and a small employer contribution to his health insurance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The unemployment rate is determined by a statistical model, that doesn't make it "fabricated". The government only collects actual birth/death information every 10 years, everything else is an estimate....like the birth/death model used to determine the unemployment rate.

Regardless, people that are unsuccessful from finding work aren't dropped only people that stop looking for work are dropped..
The numbers are made up, they are estimates, and not very accurate ones, that makes them fabricated. To say someone is not looking for work because they have dropped off the UI roles is dishonest in an economy where there are 4 people for every job opening.



Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The participation rate is no more "honest" than the unemployment rate, both use similar statistical methodologies. Also, they tell you rather different things, yet you are using the number to try to indicate that unemployment is high. That is...entirely dishonest. .
Yes it is, it tells you the exact percentage of the working age population that is out of work. As you yourself admitted, women entering the workforce has accelerated greatly since the 70's which hurts your case even more. To attempt to say that we have a 9% unemployment rate in an environment where 40% of the working age population is out of work and nearly all women work is a position only an idiot would try to defend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
What part of "you can profit from the boom and bust" did you not understand? An investor can profit when a booming is forming and can similarly profit as the bubble collapses, of course this assumes that the investor has recognized the event as a bubble.
I understand completely because I have done it several times. The caveat to doing so though is that you need both to make it work. It is being able to buy cheaply in bad times that make it profitable to sell high in the good.
If you are looking at several decades without "good times”, it really does not matter that you bought low because market do not increase. That is the most likely scenario for RE going forward.
It is going to be very unlikely that another bubble will be able to be blown as bubbles depend on borrowed money, and the consumer is by and large incapable of servicing the debts they already have.... Check Mate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:55 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,818,320 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
The numbers are made up, they are estimates, and not very accurate ones, that makes them fabricated. To say someone is not looking for work because they have dropped off the UI roles is dishonest in an economy where there are 4 people for every job opening.
I read an article last winter that quoted the unemployment rate and the pay out rate for two months. Nov of 2010 and November of 2007. Did some math and they are paying out for over 17% unemployment and calling it 9.8% at the time. Every month from when to doo doo with the fan the months prior unemployment numbers were revised downwards. The cumulative error is large. the unemployment rate is understated by over 50% now. The real rate is over 100% higher than the published numbers. These numbers are in part used to justify our credit rating as a nation and so they are fraud.

They are saying that people that are still getting checks aren't unemployed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,186,791 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
My original statement was that wages have failed to keep up with inflation for the past 30 years. You attempted to stretch the time period to 50 years and say my statement was not accurate.
Umm....yeah....and if you looked at the graph you'd see that over the last 30 years (that would be 1981~2011) real wages have been essentially flat. The only period that saw growing real wages was further back, hence why it was mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
It makes perfect sense because a smaller percentage of top wage earners receive lavish benefits that skew the overall picture.
If a CEO gets use of a private jet, thousands a month in expense accounts and stock options worth 10's of millions, those are all benefits, it means nothing to the average worker who gets nothing but UI and a small employer contribution to his health insurance.
Is this a serious response? Private jets, expense accounts, etc are not considered "benefits" here. Those are business expenses and are known as "fringe benefits" and are not part of the governments determination of total compensation.

But even if you weren't mistaken here, the reasoning makes no sense. Why would you accept wage data but not total compensation data? Both would be skewed by those top CEOs, etc.

Looking at wages instead of total compensation makes no sense. People receive a larger share of their "income" in benefits than wages today than in the past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
The numbers are made up, they are estimates, and not very accurate ones, that makes them fabricated.
Made up? Like some guy in the BLS just guesses some number? No...that is ridiculous. The series is based on a rigorous methodology, but its a statistical estimation so the monthly numbers are noisy.

Not very accurate? According to what exactly? What alternate measure does a better job and what is the evidence of such?



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Yes it is, it tells you the exact percentage of the working age population that is out of work.
Again, dishonesty. The participation rate tells you the number of people that are participating in the work force, its dramatically different than the unemployment rate. The majority of the ~40% that aren't participating in the workforce have no intention on doing so, they are retired folks, disabled folks, housewives, college students, etc.

Its mysterious why you are even mentioning the participation rate, other than the fact that the 40% is a lot higher than 9%....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
it really does not matter that you bought low because market do not increase. That is the most likely scenario for RE going forward.
It is going to be very unlikely that another bubble will be able to be blown as bubbles depend on borrowed money,
Again, I said you can profit from both the boom and the bust and now you're talking about whether the real estate bubble is going to be re-inflated?! The real estate bubble has collapsed and one can profit from that......

Now, in terms of profiting from real estate right now, hello?!?! appreciation is not the only way you can profit from real estate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 12:00 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,818,320 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
No....just another wacky blog that speaks to the choir.
He broke the story that Lehman brothers was going belly up as well as bear strens. He does really good quality work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 11:21 AM
 
11,004 posts, read 10,598,855 times
Reputation: 35311
Quote:
I read an article last winter that quoted the unemployment rate and the pay out rate for two months. Nov of 2010 and November of 2007. Did some math and they are paying out for over 17% unemployment and calling it 9.8% at the time. Every month from when to doo doo with the fan the months prior unemployment numbers were revised downwards. The cumulative error is large. the unemployment rate is understated by over 50% now. The real rate is over 100% higher than the published numbers. These numbers are in part used to justify our credit rating as a nation and so they are fraud.

They are saying that people that are still getting checks aren't unemployed.
So, than according to you the US Government and all the hundreds of people who work in the Bureau of Labor Statistics who measure and keep unemployment statistics are engaged in a great fraud or conspiracy to keep Americans from knowing the truth?

Unemployment is high right now with an official rate of 9.1%. That should not be minimized. The greater problem though is "underemployment". There are many people working at jobs far beneath their level. The problem shouldn't be minimized. However, it shouldn't be distorted or exaggerated the way some angry people choose to do so on this forum.

What you don't realize is that keeping this kind of a thing secret in the USA with hordes of reporters working for various networks and newspapers would be an impossibility. The way that something is measured certainly determines rates and one could take issue with some of the ways unemployment is calculated. However, BLS has calculated unemployment the same way for decades and decades. In other words, if the exact rate is not correct than it would be equally true that unemployment was that much correspondingly higher five years ago, or ten years ago.

For anyone who is interested in knowing how unemployment is measured and calculated, I suggest you consult the sources below. They are more truthful than tales of alien abduction and black helicopters.

Some people will choose not to believe this no matter how well documented it is. That's just a function of their anger and the way their minds work. The rest of those here would do well to read these articles.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Current Population Survey (CPS)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,186,791 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
He broke the story that Lehman brothers was going belly up as well as bear strens. He does really good quality work.
Broke the story? Yes nobody knew about this until some blogger broke the story....geez...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:58 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,818,320 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
So, than according to you the US Government and all the hundreds of people who work in the Bureau of Labor Statistics who measure and keep unemployment statistics are engaged in a great fraud or conspiracy to keep Americans from knowing the truth?
In short the numbers don’t match. They use to now they don’t. So two things could be happening, one more pay out per unemployed person by a factor of 2 or twice as many unemployed people as stated. Every month from when the dodo hit the fan the month’s prior unemployment number was revised downwards. The cumulative error is large.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 02:11 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,818,320 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Broke the story? Yes nobody knew about this until some blogger broke the story....geez...
He said it several months in advance. Investment research | The Anatomy Of A European Bank Run: Look At The Banking Situation BEFORE The Run Occurs! | Reggie Middlet Here is one of his pieces on the unfolding bank crisis in the EU. He crunched the numbers on Lehman brothers (found they were insolvent) and published them. He made a lot of money on the resulting collapse. He is in the process of doing the same thing with a French bank.

Ridicule away he had a 400% return on a 50% cash position over 2.5 years.

//www.city-data.com/forum/busin...end-eu-we.html here is some more reading. After he said that there was a french bank that was in trouble he had a 820% return on his position at one point.

Again ridicule away.

The numbers don't add up they are paying out for about double the publishes unemployment rate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,186,791 times
Reputation: 4343
I guess you didn't get the point of my post.....many talked about the problems at Lehman Brothers well before the company went bankrupt.

Just as people were talking about the problems in Europe years ago....people picking up on Euro problems just now are really late to the party....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top