SnyderShrugged Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 A jobless recovery is when Wall Street is happy and Main Street isn't. Just noticed this insightful comment! excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 If unemployment is above 10 next Nov, the GOP may very well take back both houses. Which would be a stunning turn of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 If unemployment is above 10 next Nov, the GOP may very well take back both houses. Which would be a stunning turn of events. and ironic since the GOP mutually supports big business that sent millions of jobs overseas :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 and ironic since the GOP mutually supports big business that sent millions of jobs overseas :doh: Unemployment was at 4 percent when the GOP last controlled both houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonian Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It seems the Fed has painted itself into a corner. It can either continue to keep interest rates at zero and destroy the value of the dollar, or it can raise interest rates and bring on even worse recession. The politically popular decision will be to keep rates low. The painful, but necessary decision will be to raise rates, much like Volcker did in the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Unemployment was at 4 percent when the GOP last controlled both houses. hmm... wasn't it around 10% for a whole year during the first Reagan admin? And in the 8's and 9's for a couple more years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 hmm... wasn't it around 10% for a whole year during the first Reagan admin? And in the 8's and 9's for a couple more years? Do you think anyone voting next Novemeber will use that as a reference point when deciding which lever to pull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 No but it is relevant to the thread title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Unemployment was at 4 percent when the GOP last controlled both houses. And yet if you ask a huge % of this country, they will say the GOP controlled both houses until 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Robots are the problem. They take jobs. SnyderShrugged - you have a thing going where you drop bombs from the right and claim that you are not a Republican. You know what differentiates you from what you think is a Republican. Other people may not. It is reasonable for them to align you with Republicans if you do not present a balanced point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Robots are the problem. They take jobs.SnyderShrugged - you have a thing going where you drop bombs from the right and claim that you are not a Republican. You know what differentiates you from what you think is a Republican. Other people may not. It is reasonable for them to align you with Republicans if you do not present a balanced point. I'm so over it. I know what I believe, I also know that my posts here clearly portray what I believe. I feel no urgent need to further clarify how I'm not a republican of the current neo-con mold. If others here want to pin an inaccurate lable on me, feel free. No skin off my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 SnyderShrugged - you have a thing going where you drop bombs from the right and claim that you are not a Republican. You know what differentiates you from what you think is a Republican. Other people may not. It is reasonable for them to align you with Republicans if you do not present a balanced point. Not balanced but consistent... he is Libertarian big L to my lil l. He makes republicans look like Kerry in the bunny suit. Go look up his normal 1 paragraph thread "starts" and tell me most of the "republicans" on this board don't put him in the crazy right category. Not religious crazy right, Ron Paul crazy right category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Not balanced but consistent... he is Libertarian big L to my lil l.He makes republicans look like Kerry in the bunny suit. Go look up his normal 1 paragraph thread "starts" and tell me most of the "republicans" on this board don't put him in the crazy right category. Not religious crazy right, Ron Paul crazy right category. LOL, I'm not sure if I should thank you or be mad! BTW, definitely not a Big L libertarian. Not even certain if libertarian even fits me cleanly. Mainly I would call myself a minarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 And yet if you ask a huge % of this country, they will say the GOP controlled both houses until 2008.Or ask a huge % of the people at this site.It just seems to me that unemployment stats are always skewed to make it appear that employment is higher than it really is. So while I'll bet the rate has been 10% for quite some time, the fact that it is announced at 10% probably means it's really at 15%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Or ask a huge % of the people at this site.It just seems to me that unemployment stats are always skewed to make it appear that employment is higher than it really is. So while I'll bet the rate has been 10% for quite some time, the fact that it is announced at 10% probably means it's really at 15%. I think I read that the true numbers are up over 17%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 All depends on whether you count the ubder employed, those looking for full time work who settle for part time. Some job is better than no job, but are the under employed better counted in the unemployed or employed? We're a country that likes our black and white distinctions. As a society we don't deal well with shades of gray especially in our numbers. From what little I know, the 17% includes the under employed. On the purely anecdotal side, I will say this weekend was one of the first times I've seen help wanted signs (Models anda few other stores in Arrundel Mills) and not seen people looking to interview. Also when getting tires at Costco in Columbia, I was waiting outside with a new hire on her first day waiting for them to open the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/12/news/economy/initial_claims/index.htm Some "good news" on the employment front. The initial jobless claims down to lowest point since january 3rd week. From what I've read though it needs to get down to around 200k to300k before we start to feel like full employment again. Still, these things don't happen overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/12/news/economy/initial_claims/index.htmSome "good news" on the employment front. The initial jobless claims down to lowest point since january 3rd week. From what I've read though it needs to get down to around 200k to300k before we start to feel like full employment again. Still, these things don't happen overnight. Isnt it strange how every time the "initial jobless" figures drop, unemployment still goes up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 Still, these things don't happen overnight. So your saying the Obama eco Fed and the California Bank Fed and World Bank are wrong? And it should start going down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 This has nothing to do w/ economic policy. It is very simple. Unless there is a drastic decrease in the average wage of Americans, it isn't practical to export from the US to other countries for most goods, and American cosumerism alone can't keep all American employed. Large American employment only occurrs when there is a large amount of exporting, and that won't happen now essentially unless there is a new technology that can only be manufactured in the US, and the rest of the world wants (which of to itself will only be temporary because in all cases as technology "ages" it becomes more easy to export it to other countries and carry it out there using cheaper labor, leading to another boom and likely another bust). Unemployment will stay high as compared to recent history until there is a new development of desired technology in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 SS, There is a tipping point. We are losing jobs less fast than we were. You never want the initial jobless rate at 0 or new employers couldn't find people to do the work. You need what is generally referred to as "frictional unemployment," or those people between jobs. When I said the 200k to 300k is around optimal, I meant from what I've read that number would be about as close to full employment for an economy our size as we could reasonably get. The total number of unemployed is still going up because even with less people losing jobs, there are still more losing than getting jobs. It's a curve. The happy point is we are seeing more evidence of having passed an inflection point. The 4 week moving average is heading in the correct direction. Sorry if I'm or the articles are misleading. Happen overnight? Where did Obama, the Fed, the California Bank, or the World Bank say they thought unemployment should be better tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 SS,There is a tipping point. We are losing jobs less fast than we were. You never want the initial jobless rate at 0 or new employers couldn't find people to do the work. You need what is generally referred to as "frictional unemployment," or those people between jobs. When I said the 200k to 300k is around optimal, I meant from what I've read that number would be about as close to full employment for an economy our size as we could reasonably get. The total number of unemployed is still going up because even with less people losing jobs, there are still more losing than getting jobs. It's a curve. The happy point is we are seeing more evidence of having passed an inflection point. The 4 week moving average is heading in the correct direction. Sorry if I'm or the articles are misleading. Happen overnight? Where did Obama, the Fed, the California Bank, or the World Bank say they thought unemployment should be better tomorrow? You arent being misleading at all! I enjoy speaking with you on this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 And yet if you ask a huge % of this country, they will say the GOP controlled both houses until 2008. So you are essentially saying that a huge % of this country is just plain stupid. Well I guess we saw evidence of that with the 2008 election cycle, picking crappy candidates and a worthless trainee President. I guess you are right then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 SS,There is a tipping point. We are losing jobs less fast than we were. You never want the initial jobless rate at 0 or new employers couldn't find people to do the work. You need what is generally referred to as "frictional unemployment," or those people between jobs. When I said the 200k to 300k is around optimal, I meant from what I've read that number would be about as close to full employment for an economy our size as we could reasonably get. The total number of unemployed is still going up because even with less people losing jobs, there are still more losing than getting jobs. It's a curve. The happy point is we are seeing more evidence of having passed an inflection point. The 4 week moving average is heading in the correct direction. Sorry if I'm or the articles are misleading. Happen overnight? Where did Obama, the Fed, the California Bank, or the World Bank say they thought unemployment should be better tomorrow? You are partially correct, when companies are hiring, having a 200 - 300K people losing their jobs is not hat big a deal because they are likely to find something else. The problem we are facing now is that 200-300K newly unemployed people is still growing the pool of total unemployed. When companies are hiring, having 200-300K newly unemployed is simply part of the cycle of refreshing the talent pool. As for your closing question, Obama and his Democrat House and Democrat Senate said his wasteful "Stimulus" bill would curb unemployment, but that is at best a dubious claim as unemployment has accelerated under his watch instead of slowed or gotten better. I do place less blame on our incompetent POTUS than I do on the fools in the House and Senate, but he is not completely blameless either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I, for one, appreciate the honesty and candor. There are a lot of factors contributing to unemployment, many of which the government can't do anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.