Unemployment numbers just released.

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Buried in Yahoo's article in this is that 450K were taken off the rolls as "unemployed but no longer seeking work", and thus not counted in the 6.7% rate.

buried in the NYT article as well.

Why do I get the feeling that we, as readers and the general public, aren't supposed to put the big picture together?

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Buried in Yahoo's article in this is that 450K were taken off the rolls as "unemployed but no longer seeking work", and thus not counted in the 6.7% rate.

As earlier alluded to in this thread, I think these are the people whose unemployment benefits have run out. As far as the government number crunchers are concerned since they haven't found a job yet they are no longer looking for work. They are reclassified as SOL.

 

[First]

Unemployment numbers have always included those who have stopped seeking work, that has been the case for many years. The figure is just higher now that the economy is worsening, unfortunately. Cyclical unemployment will do that. We'll probably see 9% (perhaps noticeably worse) soon.

 

[Ozoned]

Simple, guaranteed, 2 pronged solution.

1.) Round up all illegal aliens.
2.) Deport them.

 

[nergee]

What about the self-employed, or small mom-n-pop buisnesses, a whole class of workers that don't even qualify for unemployment.
I don't have numbers but they must be hurting and many going tits up at what must be an alarming rate.

Evan, I agree...9% in 2009. Given that unemployment is a lagging indicator, it is likely to continue rising into 2010.
However, Obama may have different ideas with his job stimulus packages that he will sign within days of being inaugurated......

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: nergee
What about the self-employed, or small mom-n-pop buisnesses, a whole class of workers that don't even qualify for unemployment.
I don't have numbers but they must be hurting and many going tits up at what must be an alarming rate.

Evan, I agree...9% in 2009. Given that unemployment is a lagging indicator, it is likely to continue rising into 2010.
However, Obama may have different ideas with his job stimulus packages that he will sign within days of being inaugurated......

afaik those business's are still supposed to pay unemployment insurance taxes. If they go belly up the owner should be able to qualify for unemployment benefits. Provided they paid themselves a salary.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Evan
Unemployment numbers have always included those who have stopped seeking work, that has been the case for many years. The figure is just higher now that the economy is worsening, unfortunately. Cyclical unemployment will do that. We'll probably see 9% (perhaps noticeably worse) soon.

Agree with all points.

An unfortunate argument people always make with these is that the "real" figure is much higher, so we're really screwed, but as long as the "real" figure has always been based on the same criteria, or similar criteria, the official number is still meaningful.

I cannot envision a reality in which unemployment does not hit at least 8% next year, and really that's a likely best-case. It could very well peak 10% before this is all done, and potentially worse, but nobody could really guess how much higher.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Buried in Yahoo's article in this is that 450K were taken off the rolls as "unemployed but no longer seeking work", and thus not counted in the 6.7% rate.

buried in the NYT article as well.

Why do I get the feeling that we, as readers and the general public, aren't supposed to put the big picture together?

Maybe because if we did, the fear is, we'd get the pitchforks and the torches and start marching on Washington.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: nergee
..."The loss of 533,000 payroll jobs was much deeper than the 320,000 job cuts economists were forecasting.
The rise in the unemployment rate, however, wasn't as steep as the 6.8 percent rate they were expecting."...

Does anybody really believe that the real rate is only 6.7%? The Government would never lie to us, would it?
Next month will be worse......

I've tried to search this out, but can't find it. I seem to remember that some time back, (could even be a decade or more ago) that the government changed the way they determined the unemployment rate. The crux of it was that once your benefits ran out, you were no longer counted. I'm pretty sure this was a federal thing and not a state thing.

I wish I could find the information, but it was a long time ago.

Nope, that's still the case. Once your benefits are gone, so are you.

My neighbor just retired from the Kalheeforneeya EDD. We were just talking about it yesterday. Our unemployment rate here is ~12%, and at least one of the neighboring counties is higher.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The loss of 533,000 payroll jobs was much deeper than the 320,000 job cuts economists were forecasting.

And remember, we also need about 150,000 new jobs every month merely to keep pace with our nation's explosive rate of population growth. So that 533,000 figure is really closer to 683,000 when population growth is factored in.

 

[BarneyFife]

Just wait until March when the February numbers are released. All the seasonal employees at retail stores will be laid off and tens of thousands of retail employees will be laid off because of poor holiday sales. I'm guessing 7.7% by March.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: nergee
..."The loss of 533,000 payroll jobs was much deeper than the 320,000 job cuts economists were forecasting.
The rise in the unemployment rate, however, wasn't as steep as the 6.8 percent rate they were expecting."...

Does anybody really believe that the real rate is only 6.7%? The Government would never lie to us, would it?
Next month will be worse......

I've tried to search this out, but can't find it. I seem to remember that some time back, (could even be a decade or more ago) that the government changed the way they determined the unemployment rate. The crux of it was that once your benefits ran out, you were no longer counted. I'm pretty sure this was a federal thing and not a state thing.

I wish I could find the information, but it was a long time ago.

Nope, that's still the case. Once your benefits are gone, so are you.

[/q

wrong the unemployment rate has always been calculated by survey. They do count the total number of unemployment roles, but that is a different stat.

 

[NoShangriLa]

The US lost 500,000 jobs in November, and Canada shed 71,000 jobs (population 1/10 of US) that is well over the government/economist speculation for this quarter of 23,000 jobs lost.

Brutal arrival of recession in Canada

At this rate everyone isn't going to be able to fill their tank even if gas down to $1.00 a gallon.

 

[Wheezer]

So we have a shitty economy, record unemployment, people spouting off about a "depression"
and yet numbers of people line up to get the latest and greatest Blackberry device...ok then.

So I guess that means in the 21st century a depression is not when people stand in lines for food, but when they have to line up for a goddamned phone.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So we have a shitty economy, record unemployment, people spouting off about a "depression"
and yet numbers of people line up to get the latest and greatest Blackberry device...ok then.

So I guess that means in the 21st century a depression is not when people stand in lines for food, but when they have to line up for a goddamned phone.

Wow! So much angst.

May be you couldn't remember or weren't around, but a similar down turn of the early 80s languished many countries economy till the present day (eg. Japan, UK, Mexico, much of Central America & South America, etc...)

The effect doesn't hurt the majority of the population but the ones that it beaten down have difficulty to get back up. And, it is the main contributor to the widening of the have & have not.

Enjoy it now while you have it, because you could be the next middle class that drop down to the lower class....

... I mean working poor

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So we have a shitty economy, record unemployment, people spouting off about a "depression"
and yet numbers of people line up to get the latest and greatest Blackberry device...ok then.

So I guess that means in the 21st century a depression is not when people stand in lines for food, but when they have to line up for a goddamned phone.

Then how do you account for so many companies laying off left and right? Is that what businesses typically do during a boom? And once a person is unemployed, do you think that they hop into line for the latest, most expensive cell phone?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So we have a shitty economy, record unemployment, people spouting off about a "depression"
and yet numbers of people line up to get the latest and greatest Blackberry device...ok then.

So I guess that means in the 21st century a depression is not when people stand in lines for food, but when they have to line up for a goddamned phone.

fail

That's like saying Somalia is not in a bad way because some well-funded thugs are able to buy new SUVs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So we have a shitty economy, record unemployment, people spouting off about a "depression"
and yet numbers of people line up to get the latest and greatest Blackberry device...ok then.

So I guess that means in the 21st century a depression is not when people stand in lines for food, but when they have to line up for a goddamned phone.

A little perspective to where we are at

Yes this looks like bad employment numbers, it is not however record setting yet.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

The fucknuts at the top better be careful, because if enough middle class people drop into poverty, there will be blood in the streets. Not enough of my rich friends believe that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
The fucknuts at the top better be careful, because if enough middle class people drop into poverty, there will be blood in the streets. Not enough of my rich friends believe that.

The middle class may be shrinking, but it has been shrinking because more people are moving up, not down.