Welcome to PatsFans.com

Unemployment soars to 6.7%

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Dec 5, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    November: Most jobs lost in 34 years

    Payrolls shrink by 533,000, bringing 11-month decline to 1.9 million. Unemployment soars to 6.7%

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/jobs_november/index.htm?postversion=2008120508

    For those who thought our economic crisis was based in lack of confidence, think again. Our rate of unemployment is accelerating rapidly as is the economic stability of this nation.

    Sadly, our only reaction to this news is to throw billions of printed money at the problem. Keep in mind this action is only to simmer the fear of the masses in our nation. Our gov't knows a lot more about just how bad our future looks, but all they are going to tell us is how they will spend billions upon billions in an effort to fix it.

    This despite the fact that too much money is what got us into this mess. The sooner we all face this truth, the better chance we have of escaping complete collapse.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    RI is about 9.4%
  3. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Here's some additional information...

    Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years - Yahoo! Finance

    Job losses in September and October also turned out to be much worse. Employers cut 403,000 jobs in September, versus 284,000 previously estimated. Another 320,000 were chopped in October, compared with an initial estimate of 240,000.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    Your right...initial reports are always re-adjusted. Thre is too much information to accurately calculate the real unemployment rate 4 days after a month ends...and the real rate typically ends up higher during recessionary times like these.
  5. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    Soars to 6.7%?

    Sure that's a lot of jobs lost and I feel for those people that need to support their families, but 6.7% isn't too bad relative to other economic recessions. On the positive side, I think many companies are taking their lumps now. Hopefully proactive job cuts now will help keep the downturn shallow and short.
  6. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    if the rate of unemployment continues rising up next year, we are officially in DEPRESSION because the country doesn't make any money if not many people go to work.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    6.7% is getting to the "Huge" level on historical levels. What is not accounted for is the difference in the ways our workforce has changed over the years. In the great depression, unemployment was at 25% but they counted those in prison and child labor. Also, women were really not in the workforce back then, so it was basically 25% of American men not working. Now that women are in the workforce, a 10% unemployment rate would be similar to the 25% during the great depression because it would be 10% of all men & women and it would not count people in prison.

    Experts now say that if we get much over 10% unemployment, we'll be in a depression.
  8. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    We have a long way to go to get to 10% unemployment. And one does not need to go to the depression area for a comparative in unemployment rates. We had over 7% unemployment as recently as 92-93 and numerous times prior to that since the 60's. Relatively speaking, 6.7% is on the higher side but not outrageously so. Of course, it could get worse.
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    It all depends on the economic environment we're in. A year ago, we had 4.5% unemployment and by January it could be over 7%.

    Keep in mind that November was THE WORST monthly employment repost in US history....not "one of the worst" but the top of the chart, king of all bad employment reports ever. And records have been kept for 125 years.
  10. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

  11. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    Actually, the headline you posted said the worst in 34 years and that is pure numbers. Since there is a much larger workforce today due to population growth and women in the workforce, as a percentage it probably isn't that bad.

    I am not trying to say that this unemployment figure isn't a big deal. It is. But there is no reason to paint a bad period as anything worse then it really is. Relatively speaking the early 90s were worse but I don't remember so much doom and gloom back then.
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    I heard a guy on CNN testifying before congress that the labor market was the worst in US history. The 34 year comment came from my original post. So the man from the US Labor Dept. could have been describing the overall outlook.

    Since women are now counted, a 7% unemployment rate is like a 14% rate back in the 30's. 7% of all men & women would be double 7% of just men who were the only ones counted in the 30's.

    I'm an economist for my commpany....where we are headed is far worse than anything I will have seen in my 49 years on this earth. The reality is that we are headed into doom & gloom. If you're basing your perception only off the unemployment rate, then you're not seeing the big picture.

    Look are real estate, the stock market, unemployment, the financial & banking industries, the factory order reports and international shipping and then look at all these on a world-wide scale happening all at once. Then you'll have reality.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    BSR...here's the way things look for the US economy from Fortune Magazine;

    "The bottom line is that we are set for a sharp rise in the unemployment rate over the December-January period to above 7%. We should be looking for the unemployment rate to hit at least 8% over the next six to nine months, but the actual peak in the rate will likely be higher still in this cycle, as it is generally considered a lagging indicator, meaning that it continues to rise even after the economy starts recovering from a recession.

    To complete the picture of a uniformly bleak outlook, the employment data contained a very sizable decline in total hours worked last month (-0.9%), which will have a strong connection to fourth-quarter GDP. It now looks like the economy will contract at a rate of as much as 5% in this quarter, which underscores that point that can no longer be ignored: This is not a run-of-the-mill recession but a historic event."


    Dark signs in the jobless numbers - Dec. 5, 2008
  14. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The unemployment rate ONLY includes those who are ACTIVILY seeking, and I believe those who were LAST activingly seeking a month or 2 prior.

    IOW-those who have been sitting around and doing nothing for quite some time, they're not included in this group.

    Considering how workforces are cutting jobs left and right, there are alot of discouraged people out there who've all but thrown in the towel.
  15. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    You said this before and I am not really sure I follow the logic. Can you please explain further. Even if we assume that every houshold has two people in the labor force, which they don't, that would mean that you would need to have two jobs lost for a household to be without any earnings. In other words every job lost is a .5 household job loss not a 2x job loss as in your comparison. I guess a 7% unemployment could theoretically be effecting 14% of the households, but that is much different then saying its equivalent to a 14% unemployment in the 30's since it isn't.

    I am not looking at just unemployment. In the early 90s banks were failing, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, inflation was high, real estate was in the tank, the stock market droped 20% over the course of 3 months. Its been a while but what we are experiencing right now is not unprecedented by any means. Could it get worse? Sure. But I am not sure we are seeing anything yet that hasen't been seen before, other then the panic that is. In a way that could be the thing that makes it worse then all those in the past and gives it the momentum it needs to really put is in the tank.
  16. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    It doesn't include those that have come off of unemployment. For the most part, those that have lossed their jobs in this downturn are still on unemployment since it hasn't even been a year yet.
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    It now looks like the economy will contract at a rate of as much as 5% in this quarter, which underscores that point that can no longer be ignored: This is not a run-of-the-mill recession but a historic event." -Fortune Magazine December 5, 2008

    Tell me when the last time our economy contracted 5%.

    I can assure you as fact that nothing that happened in the 90's came close what's happening now....nothing.

    Why do you think fortune magazine says what we are experiencing is a recession of historical proportions? You don't understand enough about the cause & effect of economic indicators to get a realistic picture.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  18. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    What does an historic event mean? Everything is an historic event. The 70's gas crisis, the 80's recession, the 90's recession, the internet bubble burst in 2001. They are all historic events. So what is he trying to say? Its the worst of all time? Worse then the great depression? What? I don't want to deal in hyperbole.
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    You're debating against ALL expert opinion and even what our government is telling us...are you in deep denial? Believe what you want, but you lack the knowledge to understand economic analysis...yet you persist.
  20. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    The last time the GDP contracted at least 5% was 1982 when it contracted 6% in a quarter. Before that in 1980 when it contracted 7% in a quarter. Of course then we had double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment to go along with it.

    As for the 90's, you are right, it wasn't 5% although there was a 3% drop one quarter followed by a 2% drop the next marking the official recession at that time.

    As for understanding thee cause & effect of these economic indicators, please tell me. I am willing to listen.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>