It's August 2020, the unemployment rate has gone down since April what do you predict for 2021 ? (percentage, benefits)

[tickyul]

An environment that continues to push prices in the stock and housing markets up and up.

Continued lowering of unemployment rates.

[augiedogie]

8.4% unemployment today announced. I dont see it moving much lower until the Covid panic is over. That recovery is going to be slow. A lot of people are still terrified of getting sick. So they are not want to stay in a hotel or fly on a plane or board a ship or go to an event where there are a lot of people. Thats also a huge drag on just restaurant business.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

8.4% unemployment today announced. I dont see it moving much lower until the Covid panic is over. That recovery is going to be slow. A lot of people are still terrified of getting sick. So they are not want to stay in a hotel or fly on a plane or board a ship or go to an event where there are a lot of people. Thats also a huge drag on just restaurant business.

it will go up as furloughed workers brought back to skirt the 60 day warning the warn act requires are terminated .

you can not be furloughed more than 6 months . you must be terminated at 6 months .. so large companies are required to give a certain amount of notice when going from furloughed to terminated if they have x-amount of employees being terminated .

the large companies have been bringing back just enough furloughed workers to not have to give months advance notice ... they can terminate all they can of those still furloughed without notice and then next month terminate those brought back to skirt the law .

all legal . ....

[skeddy]

two of my adult children started new 6 figure jobs this summer. Not a good time to be unskilled, but even in good times that's a grind. I see unskilled people continuing to struggle. Those jobs will be the last to fill.

BLS says there are approximately 6 million job openings in the United States right now.

[txfriend]

US jobless claims drop sharply because the government changes counting method.

[Ltdumbear]

One-World (digital) currency is coming.

How we (the 'little people') react to mass-vaccination will determine how (or whether or not) the 'effete-elites' push-forward with their plans to move the rest of the world's population AWAY from paper/coin-currency...

...and there's a good reason why mass-vaccinations are directly connected to this plan...if you don't know why, I'd suggest waking-up and taking a serious look into it, before it's too late.

Everything we've all been going through since the 08' cra$h has been moving us in this direction.

Deep down inside (where the truth is really known) you've ALL sensed it coming...

What are YOU prepared to do ? ? ?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by txfriend

US jobless claims drop sharply because the government changes counting method.

No it hasn't. The way the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment has not changed since the 1980s.
I think what you are confusing at is that there are different permutations of the official rate: U1, U2, U3....
A politician uses whatever rate is more favorable, likewise the other party uses whatever rate is more unfavorable or....if needed, creates there own "unofficial" rate. This has been happening since the beginning of politics, and both parties do this.
However, the BOL "counting method" has not changed at all.

[MrRational]

I predict... that the large swath of nearly unemployable in the bottom half/third will continue in that status,
and that a fair few of those marginally above them, mostly just cluttering up offices and shops,
will be doing a lot less of less of that.

When this second group tries to get one of the jobs they USED to do (jobs which would require displacing
the best of the bottom half/third implied above to be employed) all hell will break loose all over the place
as the "too many people for too few jobs" problem comes into clear focus for them all.

[lchoro]

Originally Posted by TimAZ

So, S&P 5K?

Seriously, current economics remind me of the zeitgeist of the late ‘90s. Alan Greenspan was fearful of Y2K and he added over $1T of liquidity to head off any issues in the markets should there be a disruption from what we know in hindsight was a non-event. Greenspan’s hot money juiced the markets and we saw all kinds of crazy on display: watches that showed “internet” time, Home Depot’s open 24/7, WSJ articles about the “end of work”, etc., etc.

The parallel today is the knee-jerk pandemic stimulus spending, the majority of which ended up in the accounts of people and businesses who didn’t need it for consumption. Couple that with legislated forbearance on rents, student loans, and mortgages and we have the perfect setup chaotic spending patterns. I’d be willing to bet that many of the furloughed workers have already landed another WFH job while at the same time they collect their PUA and state UI benefits. Illegal? Of course but will the states ever investigate and know? Not going to happen.

We will not know the true unemployment numbers of this chaotic period for another 6-12 months. In the meantime the “markets” will continue to rally on the fairy tale.

The big spending was the trillion dollars spent by CLECs to build out networks to rival the RBOCs and the spending by startup companies to take advantage of telecom and energy deregulation. They all started running out of cash in 1999-2000 but the party went on a little longer as the telecom equipment vendors started accepting stock from the local-exchange carriers and other telecom service providers and fronting them cash to keep them alive. This was a vendor financing scheme, which was also done with housing in the 2000's.

The similarity today is the big buildout of duplicate advanced technology capabilities by China. They've been stockpiling equipment and raw materials in anticipation of a trade war. That's why Ciena took such a big hit and the techs followed.

It's harder to predict today's bubble on top of bubbles because the governments are the main culprits behind the vendor financing scheme with foreign governments buying US treasures and equities to prop up US consumption. This was also done in the 1990's and 2000's, but not to this degree.

[Mircea]

Leave it to Forbes (which hasn't been relevant for 70 years) to muck everything up.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

1. An unemployment rate of 10.2% is worse than the nadir during the Great Recesseion.

The causal factors are different. Too bad the idiot Sherman isn't smart enough to figure that out.

There's a huge difference between government shutting down jobs and jobs being lost for other reasons.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

2. The job growth rate has significantly slowed and, without fiscal stimulus, could fall further.

And, pray tell, what is the job growth rate?

When the US Census Bureau conducts the monthly CPS (Current Population Survey) it does not distinguish between people returning to work and new jobs that never before existed.

How stupid is Sherman not to know that?

For the record, the CPS does ask if you have been recalled from lay-off, but BLS does not maintain data on recalls. You're simply labeled as "employed."

Originally Posted by jonbenson

3.Unemployment among Whites was 9.2%. For Blacks, 14.6%. Asian, 12.0%. Hispanics, 12.9%. Adult women’s unemployment of 10.5% is heavier than the 9.4% of men. There are some huge disparities, and probably perceptions, of impact.

Well, gosh, what businesses were heavily impacted by the government-mandated closures?

That would be restaurant, bars, retail and hospitality where women and Blacks are heavily employed.

Again, how stupid is Sherman not to know that?

Does Sherman think that the government should have closed manufacturing facilities?

Here's Sherman running government:

We're shutting down your factory in order to make the number of unemployed men equal to the number of unemployed women and everyone can feel good about themselves.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

4.The number out of work from 15 to 26 weeks shot up from 1.9 million in June to almost 6.5 million in July (increase of 4.6 million). The number unemployed from 5 to 14 weeks dropped from 11.5 million to 5.2 million (decrease of 6.3 million). That suggests the majority moved to being out of work for even longer—at least four months. (How well would most people do if out of work for that long?)

Sherman lied.

The percentage of persons unemployed for 27 weeks or more was 18.7% in January 2020 and 19.1% in February 2020.

It was 11.9% in August up from 9.3% in July.

The point being that 11.9% is clearly better than 19.1%.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

5.The number of unemployed is still 10.5 million higher than in February.

According to the CPS, there were 158,017,000 employed in February. There are now 147,224,000 unemployed.

That's actually 10.7 Million.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

6. About a third of the additional jobs came in leisure and hospitality, and those are the ones likely to get hit hard again as big states that have seen virus resurgence find themselves having to reclose businesses.

Those are not "additional" jobs. Those are employees being recalled.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

7. The broader U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes such people as those working part-time but not of their volition and people who have given up, is at 16.5%.

The number of persons discouraged over job prospects decreased from 701,000 in July to 551,000 in August (See LNU05026645).

The number of persons working part-time due to slack work decreased from 7,280,000 in July to 6,106,000 in August (See LNU02032196).

Shocking how someone can get it so wrong.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

8.There were about as many people who had permanently lost jobs in both months, so no increase, but also no decline.

That information cannot be determined from the data.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

9. People who usually work part-time increased by 803,000 to 24.0 million.

The number who usually work part-time was 23,294,000 in July and 23,605,000 in August which is not 800,000+.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

10.The household survey that establishes unemployment rates had a response rate of 67%—up a bit from June but still well off the average 83% for 12 months before the pandemic. When response rates significantly drop, chances are good that results are less accurate.

I would not disagree, which is why we examine the CES (Current Employer Survey) which consistently gets 98%+ response.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

11. Many people were categorized as on temporary layoff rather than unemployed. Reclassifying them as out of work would mean official unemployment more than 11%.

False.

There is no category for "temporary lay-off."

The determination as to whether one is "unemployed" is based on the definition of "unemployed" for which all of the following must be true:

1) You must be available to work; and
2) You must want to work; and
3) You must have sought work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey.

A retiree who is available to work but does not want to work is Not in Labor Force.

A woman who wants to work but is not available to work because she is attending school, or caring for family is Not in Labor Force.

A man who is available to work and wants to work but has not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey is Not in Labor Force.

It's not Nuclear Physics in spite of what Sherman thinks.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

12.Department of Labor unemployment insurance (UI) statistics show that as of July 18, 31.3 million people were claiming UI, compared to 30.8 million the previous week.

Not relevant. States set the rules for eligibility for unemployment benefits for their State, and not other States or the entire US and the rules vary.

Originally Posted by jonbenson

13.The BLS count says that 16.3 million are unemployed, or 14.5 million fewer than the ones getting UI.

Again, not relevant.

States require persons to be unemployed for 2-4 weeks before they may apply for benefits.

When an employee is laid off, some States require the lay-off be 4-6 weeks before you can apply for benefits.

Also, with respect to lay-offs, some States require the lay-off period to be anticipated to exceed 30-90 days.

Nearly all States are overwhelmed with unemployment claims and there are extreme delays in awarding benefits, so UI data is not even worth looking at, because the data is inaccurate.