On The 'Good' Unemployment Rate

[Kathianne]

http://blog.american.com/2011/12/nov...till-terrible/

As anyone that's been looking for work in the past 3 years can tell you, things haven't changed much. Perhaps the good news would be that fewer people hope for a better position so they aren't looking any longer. Fewer people clamoring for the few good jobs?

...1. The red flag here is the sharp drop in the size of the labor force versus October. The participation rate fell from an already low 64.2 percent to 64.0 percent. In a strong jobs recovery, that number should be rising as more people look for work. If the labor force participation rate were back at its January 2009 level, the U-3 rate would be 11.0 percent.
2. As it is, the broader U-6 rate — which includes part timers who wish they were full timers — is still a sky-high 15.6 percent, down from 16.2 percent last month.
3. The broadest measure of employment is the employment/population ratio and it rose to 58.5 percent from 58.4 percent. But as MKM Partners notes: “The employment/population ratio has averaged 58.4 since December 2009, meaning there has essentially been no real progress on employment in two years’ time. … In other words, we are not growing fast enough to reduce the so-called output gap/labor market slack.”
4. The workweek was flat, at 34.3 hours in November, but aggregate hours worked actually fell 0.1 percent after two months of relatively strong gains. (MKM)
5. Nominal wages also slipped in November for the first time since August. MKM: “The product of hours worked and wages paid is a proxy for nominal income, and it has decelerated to a 2.6% annualized rate over the last six months from just over a 4% rate this summer (prior to the sharp tightening in financial conditions). … While the economic data have been better of late, we remain concerned that we are seeing a bounce back from a series of supply shocks earlier in the year that may not be sustained against the foliage of tighter financial conditions, a deep recession in Europe and a sharp slowdown in China and emerging-market countries.”
6. We may not have seen the last of the unemployment 9-handle given a likely growth slowdown next year. As IHS Global Insight notes:

...

[Psychoblues]

Instead of following the incessant cries of doom, gloom and the skies are falling why don't you do a little research for a more balanced view, Kath? Here's a few articles that differ a bit on the take you seem to have:

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/econo...-27474358.html

http://economics.about.com/od/helpfo...employment.htm

Lots more out there and many perspectives. The American economy has been improving ever since President Barack Hussein Obama implemented his stimulus packages and the only ones that don't recognize that are those with their own agendas or those that are misinformed or deliberately ignorant. There's probably not much can be said or done to help those that will not seek truth or more information on their own.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

The American economy has been improving ever since President Barack Hussein Obama implemented his stimulus packages...

Improving? Arguable. Held back by said's stimulus and other policies? Undoubtedly.

[ConHog]

Instead of following the incessant cries of doom, gloom and the skies are falling why don't you do a little research for a more balanced view, Kath? Here's a few articles that differ a bit on the take you seem to have:

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/econo...-27474358.html

http://economics.about.com/od/helpfo...employment.htm

Lots more out there and many perspectives. The American economy has been improving ever since President Barack Hussein Obama implemented his stimulus packages and the only ones that don't recognize that are those with their own agendas or those that are misinformed or deliberately ignorant. There's probably not much can be said or done to help those that will not seek truth or more information on their own.

Psychoblues

I have to wonder what you're attempting to do here because there is absolutely positively no argument that the economy hasn't been improving since Obama took office. Which leads one to wonder if you are

A) Stupid and can't recognize that fact

or

B) A liar who knows he's lying

Again, there is no valid argument that economy is improving. Now true there have been small ebbs either way, but to say that there has been any great improvement.

[Psychoblues]

I have to wonder what you're attempting to do here because there is absolutely positively no argument that the economy hasn't been improving since Obama took office. Which leads one to wonder if you are

A) Stupid and can't recognize that fact

or

B) A liar who knows he's lying

Again, there is no valid argument that economy is improving. Now true there have been small ebbs either way, but to say that there has been any great improvement.

Your opinion makes me neither stupid nor a liar. But in good keeping I also regard much the same of you. Here is an article from the New Yorker and written by an individual far smarter and well informed than either of us. Perhaps you care to argue with some of the points that he is sharing with us?

The Financial Page

Second Helpings

by James Surowiecki

When President Obama unveiled an array of new tax-cut and spending proposals last week, one word was noticeably missing from his speeches: “stimulus.” Republicans, meanwhile, energetically set about decrying the plan as “more of the same failed ‘stimulus’ ” and as simply a “second stimulus”—as if the word itself were a damning indictment. The idea of using countercyclical fiscal policy to help get a weak economy moving is hardly radical. But in Washington stimulus has become the policy that dare not speak its name.

This wouldn’t be surprising if we were talking about a failed program. But, by any reasonable measure, the $800-billion stimulus package that Congress passed in the winter of 2009 was a clear, if limited, success. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it reduced unemployment by somewhere between 0.8 and 1.7 per cent in recent months. Economists at various Wall Street houses suggest that it boosted G.D.P. by more than two per cent. And a recent study by Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, economists from, respectively, Moody’s and Princeton, argues that, in the absence of the stimulus, unemployment would have risen above eleven per cent and that G.D.P. would have been almost half a trillion dollars lower. The weight of the evidence suggests that fiscal policy softened the impact of the recession, boosting demand, creating jobs, and helping the economy start growing again. What’s more, it did so without any of the negative effects that deficit spending can entail: interest rates remain at remarkably low levels, and government borrowing didn’t crowd out private investment........................................ .................................................. .

read lots more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...#ixzz1fWVeSAjf

[ConHog]

Your opinion makes me neither stupid nor a liar. But in good keeping I also regard much the same of you. Here is an article from the New Yorker and written by an individual far smarter and well informed than either of us. Perhaps you care to argue with some of the points that he is sharing with us?

The Financial Page

Second Helpings

by James Surowiecki

When President Obama unveiled an array of new tax-cut and spending proposals last week, one word was noticeably missing from his speeches: “stimulus.” Republicans, meanwhile, energetically set about decrying the plan as “more of the same failed ‘stimulus’ ” and as simply a “second stimulus”—as if the word itself were a damning indictment. The idea of using countercyclical fiscal policy to help get a weak economy moving is hardly radical. But in Washington stimulus has become the policy that dare not speak its name.

This wouldn’t be surprising if we were talking about a failed program. But, by any reasonable measure, the $800-billion stimulus package that Congress passed in the winter of 2009 was a clear, if limited, success. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it reduced unemployment by somewhere between 0.8 and 1.7 per cent in recent months. Economists at various Wall Street houses suggest that it boosted G.D.P. by more than two per cent. And a recent study by Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, economists from, respectively, Moody’s and Princeton, argues that, in the absence of the stimulus, unemployment would have risen above eleven per cent and that G.D.P. would have been almost half a trillion dollars lower. The weight of the evidence suggests that fiscal policy softened the impact of the recession, boosting demand, creating jobs, and helping the economy start growing again. What’s more, it did so without any of the negative effects that deficit spending can entail: interest rates remain at remarkably low levels, and government borrowing didn’t crowd out private investment........................................ .................................................. .

read lots more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...#ixzz1fWVeSAjf

Oh please. That jackass can write whatever he would like. I am looking at actual facts, you know people who have lost their homes because they don't have jobs, people on welfare because they don't have jobs, unemployment benefit rosters, that sort of thing. As I said, there have undoubtedly been upswings here and there, but by and large NO ONE can with a straight face say we are seeing a recovery of any sort.

[Missileman]

Your opinion makes me neither stupid nor a liar. But in good keeping I also regard much the same of you. Here is an article from the New Yorker and written by an individual far smarter and well informed than either of us. Perhaps you care to argue with some of the points that he is sharing with us?

The Financial Page

Second Helpings

by James Surowiecki

When President Obama unveiled an array of new tax-cut and spending proposals last week, one word was noticeably missing from his speeches: “stimulus.” Republicans, meanwhile, energetically set about decrying the plan as “more of the same failed ‘stimulus’ ” and as simply a “second stimulus”—as if the word itself were a damning indictment. The idea of using countercyclical fiscal policy to help get a weak economy moving is hardly radical. But in Washington stimulus has become the policy that dare not speak its name.

This wouldn’t be surprising if we were talking about a failed program. But, by any reasonable measure, the $800-billion stimulus package that Congress passed in the winter of 2009 was a clear, if limited, success. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it reduced unemployment by somewhere between 0.8 and 1.7 per cent in recent months. Economists at various Wall Street houses suggest that it boosted G.D.P. by more than two per cent. And a recent study by Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, economists from, respectively, Moody’s and Princeton, argues that, in the absence of the stimulus, unemployment would have risen above eleven per cent and that G.D.P. would have been almost half a trillion dollars lower. The weight of the evidence suggests that fiscal policy softened the impact of the recession, boosting demand, creating jobs, and helping the economy start growing again. What’s more, it did so without any of the negative effects that deficit spending can entail: interest rates remain at remarkably low levels, and government borrowing didn’t crowd out private investment........................................ .................................................. .

read lots more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki





Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...#ixzz1fWVeSAjf

The CBO arrives at its conclusions using the bullshit numbers provided to it. You can tell for sure it's a bullshit conclusion because you can't prove a negative. They can no more say for sure what might have happened without the stimulus than you can tell the truth when it come to Obama.

[Psychoblues]

Oh please. That jackass can write whatever he would like. I am looking at actual facts, you know people who have lost their homes because they don't have jobs, people on welfare because they don't have jobs, unemployment benefit rosters, that sort of thing. As I said, there have undoubtedly been upswings here and there, but by and large NO ONE can with a straight face say we are seeing a recovery of any sort.

We are seeing recovery in every economic equation that counts, they are studied, stated, observable, measurable and you can't demonstrate or in any way truthfully prove otherwise. And your blathering about people not having jobs, losing homes, on welfare and unemployed, just what single day in American history can you name that none of these things existed and if you can't name a single day then when do you expect to see a single day when none of those things that you seem to be so concerned about will no longer exist? Or are you still feeling like just so much of a liar and a simpleton?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

The CBO arrives at its conclusions using the bullshit numbers provided to it. You can tell for sure it's a bullshit conclusion because you can't prove a negative. They can no more say for sure what might have happened without the stimulus than you can tell the truth when it come to Obama.

You don't have to just believe the CBO, Mm. There are many economic entities that reflect much the same. Something good for certain happened at precisely the time the stimulus began. If you want to attribute that to something or someone else then I will not argue if you can demonstrate the validity of your claim. At this time I am left only with the successes of the stimulus to satisfy my inquiring mind. In your case, I'd simply suggest that you read the article that I posted and linked to.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

You don't have to just believe the CBO, Mm. There are many economic entities that reflect much the same. Something good for certain happened at precisely the time the stimulus began. If you want to attribute that to something or someone else then I will not argue if you can demonstrate the validity of your claim. At this time I am left only with the successes of the stimulus to satisfy my inquiring mind. In your case, I'd simply suggest that you read the article that I posted and linked to.

Psychoblues

Unemployment rose 2%...color that anyway you like.

[Psychoblues]

Unemployment rose 2%...color that anyway you like.

The rapid and devastating downward spiral of the gwb economy was reversed simultaneously with the implementation of the President Obama stimulus packages any color you want to paint it. Everyone that was anyone from all political sides were forecasting depression possibly and probably worse than the one in '29. The perfect economic storm was upon us and the world in 2006, 2007, 2008 and early 2009. Most of us are still reeling from that, no doubt, but we are improving, each day, in every way.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

The rapid and devastating downward spiral of the gwb economy was reversed simultaneously with the implementation of the President Obama stimulus packages any color you want to paint it. Everyone that was anyone from all political sides were forecasting depression possibly and probably worse than the one in '29. The perfect economic storm was upon us and the world in 2006, 2007, 2008 and early 2009. Most of us are still reeling from that, no doubt, but we are improving, each day, in every way.

Psychoblues

The stimulus succeeded only in wasting a trillion dollars and adding the same amount to our debt.

[Psychoblues]

The stimulus succeeded only in wasting a trillion dollars and adding the same amount to our debt.

Soooooooo,,,,,,you're saying the forecast depression just straightened itself out? You're saying the unpaid for gwb wars were free flukes of American ingenuity? You're saying the unpaid for gwb tax cuts were also free and have no effect on any debt or deficit? And the prescription drug benefit, also free, no child left behind, free? How does all that make you feel, Mm? The Obama stimulus is working better than ever imagined and it's benefits will be felt for decades. That and the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act assures that President Barack Hussein Obama will go down in American history as one of the greatest presidents and ending the longest wars in American history may cause him to capture the distinction as being the very greatest president in all of our history.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Your opinion makes me neither stupid nor a liar. But in good keeping I also regard much the same of you. Here is an article from the New Yorker and written by an individual far smarter and well informed than either of us. Perhaps you care to argue with some of the points that he is sharing with us?

Why do I try?

more jobs were lost in the first seven quarters of the 2001 recession than were lost in the first seven quarters of this recession. How is that possible? How could job losses have been worse in 2001 but unemployment so much higher now? Weak job creation. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics data show that employers have created 8.6 million fewer new jobs this time around than they did almost a decade ago.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/07/...imulus-failed/

And the stimulus package cost per job is (low end) of $185,000 which would be minimum 3 times the average US wage. Money well spent? No.

[Missileman]

Soooooooo,,,,,,you're saying the forecast depression just straightened itself out? You're saying the unpaid for gwb wars were free flukes of American ingenuity? You're saying the unpaid for gwb tax cuts were also free and have no effect on any debt or deficit? And the prescription drug benefit, also free, no child left behind, free? How does all that make you feel, Mm? The Obama stimulus is working better than ever imagined and it's benefits will be felt for decades. That and the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act assures that President Barack Hussein Obama will go down in American history as one of the greatest presidents and ending the longest wars in American history may cause him to capture the distinction as being the very greatest president in all of our history.

Psychoblues

There's some typical LIB think for ya. A tax cut that's unpaid for? Are you really that dense? The deficit and debt are solely the result of SPENDING, PERIOD. As for Obamacare, it will die it's horrible, unconstitutional death as soon as the Supreme Court gets ahold of it. Obama will go down in history as worse than even Carter. He's a one-term mistake that is soon to be remedied.