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.
Again, your lack of comprehension is telling.
Initial unemployment claims are NOT New Layoffs - they are 2 DIFFERENT things. The new unemployment claim numbers come out every Thursday, while the "Layoff" number come out either once a month or twice a month (I can't recall right now) on Fridays.
And who is the government entity in charge of "Lay Off Numbers" Ken? Exactly who's job is it to contact every single employer in the country once a week and ask them how many people they have laid off? Now there is statistics on "Mass Layoffs" that do not include any companies with less than 50 employees, which by the way make up the majority of companies in the country. But I guess we can just ignore them, right?
The only reliable numbers we have on the employment situation is unemployment filings. Layoff numbers, nice try.
Many times when folks are laid off - especially in mass layoffs - they get severance package
This is meaningless, the numbers of people who get severance are such a small percentage of the overall workforce I doubt it has much affect statistically.
PS - BOVE is taking the absolute worst case (NOT the MOST LIKELY case) in regards to bank failures.
Well if you do not like his numbers you will defiantly not like these just released. They are much worse
FDIC problem bank list hits 416, but recovery eyed - Yahoo! News (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1121213 - broken link)
The only thing I have problems comprehending is how some people can look at the facts, decide to ignore them and choose to live their own fantasies.
Another indication that unemployment will ease next year:
"NEW YORK - More than half the employers in a new poll say they plan to hire full-time employees in the next 12 months, according to research released on Tuesday that could spell relief for unemployed U.S. workers.
Four in 10 employers plan to hire contract, temporary or project workers, and another four in 10 will be hiring part-time employees, according to the survey conducted for Robert Half International, a staffing company, and CareerBuilder.com, an online career site."
contract, temp and project workers? That helps, but those are not full time positions. It's better than nothing, but not a true sign of anything. They just need to fill the gap of the full time employees they let go in order to get work done or the company doesn't get paid.
contract, temp and project workers? That helps, but those are not full time positions. It's better than nothing, but not a true sign of anything. They just need to fill the gap of the full time employees they let go in order to get work done or the company doesn't get paid.
Again READ what was written - MORE THAN HALF of the companies plan on hiring FULL TIME workers, plus FOUR IN TEN plan on hiring the contract, temp and project workers (which are generally full time and can be long term (depends on the contract)). The article then goes on to say that in addition to that FOUR IN TEN plan on hiring part time workers.
And do you also forget how QUICKLY the balance of the almighty National Debt was reduced during the Clinton Years when the Feds ran a fiscal surplus?
The National Debt was never reduced, the deficit was.
Wrong, the absolute size of the National Debt was reduced because the Treasury bought back and retired some of that debt using the fiscal surplus that took place for several years running under Clinton.
Unfortunately, by the time employment picks up again, many will have lost places to live, have gone into debt so far that their credit ratings are trashed (many companies do credit checks to hire employees), and won't have access to the tools necessary to apply for these jobs if and when they arrive. Homeless shelters don't always make for a good address on one's resume. Of course, the elites in Washington think that it's no big deal to go for a year or two without income of any kind. I mean, doesn't everyone make anything from 200K to 6 million dollars a year? Doesn't everyone have access to a lobbyist friend that can "set them up" in a cushy job until this whole thing blows over? Besides, food stamps and limited unemployment benefits (if you can get them) will take care of the mortgage and all the food necessary for a family of three after you've gone through all of your savings right?
Again READ what was written - MORE THAN HALF of the companies plan on hiring FULL TIME workers, plus FOUR IN TEN plan on hiring the contract, temp and project workers (which are generally full time and can be long term (depends on the contract)). The article then goes on to say that in addition to that FOUR IN TEN plan on hiring part time workers.
Again, your lack of comprehension is telling.
Initial unemployment claims are NOT New Layoffs - they are 2 DIFFERENT things. The new unemployment claim numbers come out every Thursday, while the "Layoff" number come out either once a month or twice a month (I can't recall right now) on Fridays.
And who is the government entity in charge of "Lay Off Numbers" Ken? Exactly who's job is it to contact every single employer in the country once a week and ask them how many people they have laid off? Now there is statistics on "Mass Layoffs" that do not include any companies with less than 50 employees, which by the way make up the majority of companies in the country. But I guess we can just ignore them, right?
The only reliable numbers we have on the employment situation is unemployment filings. Layoff numbers, nice try.
Again - you are betraying your massive ignorance. Nobody in the government contacts all those companies. Companies that do the mass layoffs REPORT it to the government - as they are REQUIRED to do by LAW.
In regards to the New Unemployment Claims numbers - where did I ever say we can IGNORE them? I simply stated that they cannot be used as an accurate measurement of the current number of layoffs - for the simple reason that you don't really know WHEN those people were actually laid off. Where they laid off last week with no severance - or were they laid off 6 months ago with a severance? There is NO WAY to tell. Mass layoffs have dropped to 1/3 of what they were in January. New Unemployment claims have dropped about 20% from their peak
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Many times when folks are laid off - especially in mass layoffs - they get severance package
This is meaningless, the numbers of people who get severance are such a small percentage of the overall workforce I doubt it has much affect statistically.
You doubt it based on what - your opinion?
LOL
Just because YOU have a lousy job that doesn't pay severance doesn't mean OTHER don't get one. Get clue - then get a BETTER job! Many many large companies offer a severance of some kind - and these are EXACTLY the types of companies that tend to report Mass Layoffs (so all those companies that did Mass Layoffs early in the year (there were 700,000+ such layoffs in January) are affecting the New Unemployment Claims numbers NOW (and have been for the last few months)). It's really not that hard to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
PS - BOVE is taking the absolute worst case (NOT the MOST LIKELY case) in regards to bank failures.
Well if you do not like his numbers you will defiantly not like these just released. They are much worse
FDIC problem bank list hits 416, but recovery eyed - Yahoo! News (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1121213 - broken link)
Sure - but typically only about 15% of the banks on the "troubled" list actually fail. That is part of the reason why the FDIC stated that they didn't need additional funds for now - only a small percentage of the "troubled" banks actually fail. Keep in mind too that 2,900 banks failed after the Savings and Loan business was deregulated and the fallout for that took place. The number of banks failing this time around is MUCH LESS. The FDIC handled THAT situation and it can handle this one as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The only thing I have problems comprehending is how some people can look at the facts, decide to ignore them and choose to live their own fantasies.
It sure doesn't seem that way.
First off you didn't understand the difference between layoffs and new unemployment claims, then you had no clue about how mass layoffs are reported and what their impact is DOWN THE LINE (rather than immediately), then you think that because 400 banks are on the "troubled" list that means that all 400 banks are going to fail.
Get an education, buddy - maybe you'll be able to get a better job (one that actually pays severance).
Again - you are betraying your massive ignorance. Nobody in the government contacts all those companies. Companies that do the mass layoffs REPORT it to the government - as they are REQUIRED to do by LAW.
In regards to the New Unemployment Claims numbers - where did I ever say we can IGNORE them? I simply stated that they cannot be used as an accurate measurement of the current number of layoffs - for the simple reason that you don't really know WHEN those people were actually laid off. Where they laid off last week with no severance - or were they laid off 6 months ago with a severance? There is NO WAY to tell. Mass layoffs have dropped to 1/3 of what they were in January. New Unemployment claims have dropped about 20% from their peak
You doubt it based on what - your opinion?
LOL
Just because YOU have a lousy job that doesn't pay severance doesn't mean OTHER don't get one. Get clue - then get a BETTER job! Many many large companies offer a severance of some kind - and these are EXACTLY the types of companies that tend to report Mass Layoffs (so all those companies that did Mass Layoffs early in the year (there were 700,000+ such layoffs in January) are affecting the New Unemployment Claims numbers NOW (and have been for the last few months)). It's really not that hard to understand.
Sure - but typically only about 15% of the banks on the "troubled" list actually fail. That is part of the reason why the FDIC stated that they didn't need additional funds for now - only a small percentage of the "troubled" banks actually fail. Keep in mind too that 2,900 banks failed after the Savings and Loan business was deregulated and the fallout for that took place. The number of banks failing this time around is MUCH LESS. The FDIC handled THAT situation and it can handle this one as well.
It sure doesn't seem that way.
First off you didn't understand the difference between layoffs and new unemployment claims, then you had no clue about how mass layoffs are reported and what their impact is DOWN THE LINE (rather than immediately), then you think that because 400 banks are on the "troubled" list that means that all 400 banks are going to fail.
Get an education, buddy - maybe you'll be able to get a better job (one that actually pays severance).
Geeze!
Ken
It is a wonder your head does not implode from the vacuum between your ears. No one cares about your mass lay off numbers; they do not represent any meaningful unemployment number. They are as irrelevant as your opinion.
You have no idea what I do for a living, or if I have severance pay or not, you are simply a coward hurling insults while you hide behind the safety of a computer screen. As the economy continues to deteriorate I can only hope it takes your hopes, your dreams, and what little money you have with it.
It is a wonder your head does not implode from the vacuum between your ears. No one cares about your mass lay off numbers; they do not represent any meaningful unemployment number. They are as irrelevant as your opinion.
You have no idea what I do for a living, or if I have severance pay or not, you are simply a coward hurling insults while you hide behind the safety of a computer screen. As the economy continues to deteriorate I can only hope it takes your hopes, your dreams, and what little money you have with it.
Actually I've done VERY WELL over the last 6 months. My 401K is up a strong 6 figures (no decimal) - and it didn't get that way by me moaning and groaning about all the doom and gloom.
And yeah - I have a pretty good idea about your severance (or lack of it actually) - your ignorance on the subject was very telling.
Ken
PS - And yeah people DO care about the mass layoff numbers (especially economists (or those directly affected of course)). YOU don't care because YOU don't like what those declining numbers say about the layoffs ending.
Ken, I have no doubt about your intelligence in the area; you also have a good grasp on how to communicate your stance - I hope that you are right. But my concern is that "next year" will be too late for many people. They will have gone into a hole that many will never be able to dig themselves out. I have several friends that are about to lose everything they own. Their credit is ruined, they have no income to speak of, and have looked at jobs from cleaning houses to those in their professions. This economy is the worst I've seen in my life. My own wages are 50% of what they have been for the last ten years and where I work they are talking about laying off more people. They've already cut back on our hours severely. What's next?
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.
I simply stated that they cannot be used as an accurate measurement of the current number of layoffs - for the simple reason that you don't really know WHEN those people were actually laid off. Where they laid off last week with no severance - or were they laid off 6 months ago with a severance? There is NO WAY to tell. Mass layoffs have dropped to 1/3 of what they were in January. New Unemployment claims have dropped about 20% from their peak
