114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:01 pm
The "official" unemployment rate for November comes out tomorrow at 8:30 am. 10.2% in October. I am betting on 10.1% for November.
A lot of folks have been hired to play Santa Claus and the Elves.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:18 pm
@realjohnboy,
The "official" total employment for November comes out tomorrow at 8:30 am. A lot of folks have been hired to play wealth redistributionists and coveters. But nevertheless, I'm expecting less total employment for November than for October.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:22 pm
@ican711nm,
you guys are quitters, you're talking about America, the country you all say is the greatest country in the world, i'm hoping you guys can make 75%, get a respectable number on the board, 10.3% is a loser number, bump it up
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:34 pm
@djjd62,
(ican predicted 10.3% but deleted that post with only you and me seeing it. With all them known coveters out there, I am surprised he did not bump it up a lot).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:35 pm
@realjohnboy,
And those photo sites to take pictures with Santa in most shopping malls.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 07:35 pm
@realjohnboy,
he's tricky that way
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 08:12 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

you're talking about America


They are talking about the Obamination that was once America.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:04 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The "official" unemployment rate for November comes out tomorrow at 8:30 am. 10.2% in October. I am betting on 10.1% for November.
A lot of folks have been hired to play Santa Claus and the Elves.

I don't see how it could drop, but who knows nowadays with folks cooking climate data, so why not unemployment data? I think 10.3 or 10.4%.

I noticed this morning Obama is blaming business for not hiring more people and instead turning it into profits. The guy really is clueless, and seems to have admitted he doesn't know what to do. The elephant in the room is uncertainty with a president that is not pro free enterprise, not pro capitalism. One of the biggest dampers on the business world is uncertainty. In other words, why would any smart business make investment or growth plans if they think next week or next month or next year the president or Congress is going to institute some new regulation or tax that will blunt or nullify whatever decision made into a bad decision. What we need is a clear playing field that will stay static for the foreseeable future, in other words stability, we need stability and a set of ground rules that are business and consumer friendly. What we need is a president that actually understands the basics of economics, and one that believes it will not be government but the people that will get us out of this recession. And for people to do it, government should not be standing there with threats of more regulation, higher taxes, and changing groundrules.

Just some of the things that are included in what I am talking about in the above are capital gains tax rates, income tax rates, and inheritance tax rates. The government needs to make these things friendly to the people that invest and are the producers in this country, the people that provide jobs, and we should have more stability instead of a moving goalpost or threats of moving goal posts. Uncertainty and instability are killers to economic health and production.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:06 pm
@okie,
Oh my god! Some businesses are showing profit, and Obama is clueless!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:16 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I don't see how it could drop, but who knows nowadays with folks cooking climate data


what is the number 250K new jobs required per month to keep the employment rate the same? The unemployment rate is a figment of imagination because is zero's out people who have given up. The unemployment number is now useless, we need to switch over the the employment number in combo with the hourly earnings reports.

I doubt that we have added 250K jobs in the last month, if we have not then our condition is worse than last month.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, just so I understand how the numbers are obtained, is it a survey of businesses and people? In other words, they do not actually use the numbers of people applying for unemployment, etc., and the data that might be more encompassing or more precise, do they? Is it more like a poll, so could it be compared to a political poll as opposed to an actual election, with the unemployment rate based upon something like a poll rather than actual hard numbers?

I admit to being unclear as to how they get the numbers, so if anyone can enlighten me here, I would appreciate it.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:30 pm
@okie,
Here is what I thought it was, I will post a portion of the link. What is troubling to me is that this seems like something that could be manipulated by changing the manner in which the survey is conducted, even in very slight ways could affect the outcome in my opinion, so can we trust it very highly, I am skeptical:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#why

Where do the statistics come from?Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate"which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed"receive wide coverage in the media.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted"just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. For instance, beginning in 1994, the CPS estimates reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey. (For more information on the CPS redesign, see Chapter 1, "Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey," in the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey.

.....
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:31 pm
@okie,
Other people know more than I about this. However, my understanding is the employment numbers come from looking at who is paying income tax, where as unemployment numbers come from looking at the case log of state unemployment insurance offices.

the employment number ignores the illegal (underground) economy, the unemployment numbers ignore those who have given up looking for work. In a recession I think that the employment number is the better, more true, number.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think I found the answer. See my above post.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's about how I see our country's employment/unemployment picture. The real "Unemployment" numbers are over a few million, and not the 190,000 job loss in November. They stop counting the unemployed after they run out of unemployment insurance.

I heard on the radio today that about 20,000 more people seek food assistance every day, because people are losing jobs, and many are getting their wages cut through reduced hours.

This administration still hasn't addressed the jobs issue after spending over a trillion dollars in TARP and stimulus plan. They have made claims that they have saved over 600,000 jobs, but it doesn't take more than simple math to figure out that losing over 100,000 jobs every month when 250,000 new jobs are needed to keep everybody working proves they are lying through their teeth.

Job loss have slowed down, but we still haven't turned the corner in adding jobs to all the lost jobs.

Washington needs to get off their butts and start worrying about creating jobs over spending all this time on the two wars in the Middle East and universal health care that increases our deficit. The deficit only grows bigger, and creates a huge handicap for our economy to grow in the future.

Greenspan's loose money policy got us to this point, and Bernanke isn't helping by throwing money at failed businesses. They've penalized savings long enough, and did nothing to control the cost of credit for consumers; They should be doing the exact opposite with money policy. Reward savers with higher interest rates, and charge lower interest rates on credit to stimulate our economy. Lenders must be more diligent in lending to consumers who can pay back the loans.

Both Greenspan and Bernanke gets an "F."
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:51 pm
@okie,
Quote:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys[30] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[31] The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:[32]

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[33]

The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.[34] This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

OK, so I was wrong, the data comes from sampling. The gist is right though, as employers are not going to admit to illegal workers, and those who are working illegally and thus not paying taxes are not going to inform the government of this fact.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 11:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
OK, so I was wrong, the data comes from sampling. The gist is right though, as employers are not going to admit to illegal workers, and those who are working illegally and thus not paying taxes are not going to inform the government of this fact.

Good points about the illegal workers, etc. hawkeye, when I look into this stuff, and I think if most people looked into this stuff as you also do, I am firmly convinced that the federal government has let us down, they are failing us, they are not doing their jobs, and essentially the politicians have failed to perform their constitutional duties to uphold and protect the constitution and the country. They cannot even identify who is working and who is in this country legally or not. Yet we can track a cow with mad cow disease halfway around the world, but we cannot keep track of what we need to keep track of. The government is a bloated, inefficient collection of agencies that duplicate functions but cannot even perform functions in a minimally acceptable manner. And on top of this, the current flunkies in office want us to believe health care is an emergency to pass immediately to add yet more bureaucracies to a growing list of failed bureaucracies, for which they have no clue what the cost will be or how they will pay for it.

If they run health care like they do employment data, they will have to call us up with a bunch of questions, but not all of us, just a sample of households to find out if we are sick and what doctor we went to and how much it cost us, so that they can post their figures of how much their program is costing, meanwhile all the bureaucrats will be sitting around in their cubicles playing computer games, watching pornography, or sending emails to all of their friends, on our tax dollars no less.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 12:04 am
@okie,
Quote:
Here is what I thought it was, I will post a portion of the link. What is troubling to me is that this seems like something that could be manipulated by changing the manner in which the survey is conducted, even in very slight ways could affect the outcome in my opinion, so can we trust it very highly, I am skeptical:


Spot on. 'Adjustments' could make a huge difference, and they DO adjust it from time to time. I have long been suspicious of these figures as well.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 06:21 am
http://ic2.pbase.com/u47/yippee1999/large/30261667.IMG_0652.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 04:38 pm
Odd how Democratic administrations have been so much more successful growing jobs than Republican ones...

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/privatejobgrowth.png

Source: BLS data

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2024 at 04:39:32