[luke warm]

we were told, i seem to recall, that 8% was the max after the stimulus... this is close, i guess

[jdonn]

Yes, it's distorted. Oh my gosh, things got worse than expected. What news!

I love how the fact everyone did a terrible job predicting how bad things would get is supposed to be an argument against the stimulus. As though the particular jobs that have been created and saved don't exist. Would 11% or 12% be better?

I also love how the RNC pushes so hard on Obama having said 8%, but refers to his "created or saved" (as opposed to their preferred and fictional 'created') as some sort of lame talking point. Granted that saved jobs are much harder to measure, but a large amount clearly exist. You could even argue saving a job is better than creating one while another gets lost.

Didn't we just have a thread on this a month or two ago anyway? Or do we need to repeatedly re-troll the same issues into the ground?

[Winstonm]

This is not about Republicans or Democratics - this is about the U.S. becoming a Banana Republic but no one admitting that it has happened; instead, our proletariat has tried to whistle past the graveyard by borrowing against ephemeral assets to support a lifestyle that was sold out to the lowest bidder 30 years ago.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 6 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Didn't we just have a thread on this a month or two ago anyway? Or do we need to repeatedly re-troll the same issues into the ground?

no "we" don't have to... just those who are interested... btw, would it be okay to mention it when (if) it hits that 11% or 12% you spoke of?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Didn't we just have a thread on this a month or two ago anyway?

That's because it is a monthly report - today's report showed double-digit unemployment for the first time since 1983. Seems a reasonable starting point for a thread - I happen to disagree with Jimmy Fox, here, who seems to think everything is Obama's fault, but the thread topic is fine.

Just because the Republicans controlled Congress since 1994 and built the most ludicrous business and tax environment since the roaring 20's, watched the economic collapse start on their shift, then handed the Great Recession off to Obama and he hasn't been able to fix it in 10 months is a mortal sin, don't you know.

[Winstonm]

Some quick thoughts from Barry Ritholtz on today's report:

Quote

The data today was pretty ugly — 10.2% Unemployment rate, 17.5% under employed, the highest on record.

The recession that began in December 2007 has now shed over 7.3 million jobs. Out of the total numbers, 5.6 million are out of work six months or longer — a record.

Just 58.5% of adults are working, the lowest since 1983 (down from~63% 2 years ago).

We remain at record lows in weekly hours worked at 33. Consider what that does to future hiring — its devastating to job growth. Why bring on a new body (with all its associated costs) when we can simply add hours to our underutilized work force?

How can you argue with all those RECORD numbers? Where is Wide World of Sports when you need Jim McKay to explain the thrill of buying with debt and the agony of an over-extended reality?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 6 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 6 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Didn't we just have a thread on this a month or two ago anyway? Or do we need to repeatedly re-troll the same issues into the ground?

no "we" don't have to... just those who are interested... btw, would it be okay to mention it when (if) it hits that 11% or 12% you spoke of?

I can't stop you but it won't exactly be more enlightening.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Nov 6 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Yes, it's distorted. Oh my gosh, things got worse than expected. What news!

I love how the fact everyone did a terrible job predicting how bad things would get is supposed to be an argument against the stimulus. As though the particular jobs that have been created and saved don't exist. Would 11% or 12% be better?

I also love how the RNC pushes so hard on Obama having said 8%, but refers to his "created or saved" (as opposed to their preferred and fictional 'created') as some sort of lame talking point. Granted that saved jobs are much harder to measure, but a large amount clearly exist. You could even argue saving a job is better than creating one while another gets lost.

Didn't we just have a thread on this a month or two ago anyway? Or do we need to repeatedly re-troll the same issues into the ground?

There's nothing fictional about created jobs. Just like you don't get a fictional paycheck.

Case in point. A local school district got a $1.0 MM and change from the stimulus (recovery and reinvestment act or whatever its called). My sister in law is a teacher there. Naively I asked, what capital improvements did the district do with the money? A new library, some HVAC's?

She said, no, the district was able to avoid layoffs for about 20 teachers or so.



I wonder what will happen next year.

Seems like I've said this before somewhere else. Sorry if I repeated myself.

[Phil]

Winstonm, on Nov 6 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Some quick thoughts from Barry Ritholtz on today's report:

Quote

The data today was pretty ugly — 10.2% Unemployment rate, 17.5% under employed, the highest on record.

The recession that began in December 2007 has now shed over 7.3 million jobs. Out of the total numbers, 5.6 million are out of work six months or longer — a record.

Just 58.5% of adults are working, the lowest since 1983 (down from~63% 2 years ago).

We remain at record lows in weekly hours worked at 33. Consider what that does to future hiring — its devastating to job growth. Why bring on a new body (with all its associated costs) when we can simply add hours to our underutilized work force?

How can you argue with all those RECORD numbers? Where is Wide World of Sports when you need Jim McKay to explain the thrill of supply side and the agony of reality?

In California there is a program where an employer can furlough employees one day a week. The employee gets unemployment on the day he doesn't work.

I heard about this from a friend who is a civil engineer. He's been able to avoid laying off people during the downturn. He mentioned he doesn't know of a single construction services firm that hasn't taken advantage of this program.

So you wonder how employees like this are counted. Full-time, part-time, underemployed, or maybe 1/5 unemployed?

[Winstonm]

Phil, on Nov 6 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 6 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Some quick thoughts from Barry Ritholtz on today's report:

Quote

The data today was pretty ugly — 10.2% Unemployment rate, 17.5% under employed, the highest on record.

The recession that began in December 2007 has now shed over 7.3 million jobs. Out of the total numbers, 5.6 million are out of work six months or longer — a record.

Just 58.5% of adults are working, the lowest since 1983 (down from~63% 2 years ago).

We remain at record lows in weekly hours worked at 33. Consider what that does to future hiring — its devastating to job growth. Why bring on a new body (with all its associated costs) when we can simply add hours to our underutilized work force?

How can you argue with all those RECORD numbers? Where is Wide World of Sports when you need Jim McKay to explain the thrill of supply side and the agony of reality?

In California there is a program where an employer can furlough employees one day a week. The employee gets unemployment on the day he doesn't work.

I heard about this from a friend who is a civil engineer. He's been able to avoid laying off people during the downturn. He mentioned he doesn't know of a single construction services firm that hasn't taken advantage of this program.

So you wonder how employees like this are counted. Full-time, part-time, underemployed, or maybe 1/5 unemployed?

As for potential recovery, the hours worked is the most telling and the most chilling number: 33.

We are likely in for a number of years of sub-par GDP and high unemployment, borrowing a page from the lost generation of Japan but putting an American spin on it.

You make a good point about methodology - it changes over time, either politically driven or to make it more accurate (which simply means politically driven )

[Winstonm]

In the long run, we are all temps.

[kenrexford]

Well, there does seem to be one silly fact touted -- the jobs created or saved. I could create or save tons of jobs, by simply taking gobs of money and paying people to do something. That's really easy.

However, creating jobs that way doesn't necessarily net a gain for society. If taxes to pay for these jobs shrink the economy, and we end up with fewer jobs in the end, then the whole stupid idea didn't work very well, except for those who got these new or saved jobs.

My only point is that the nonsense is uttered on both sides.

[Winstonm]

Quote

However, creating jobs that way doesn't necessarily net a gain for society. If taxes to pay for these jobs shrink the economy, and we end up with fewer jobs in the end, then the whole stupid idea didn't work very well, except for those who got these new or saved jobs.

My only point is that the nonsense is uttered on both sides.

Very true. The problem with following Keynes ideas about escaping depression is that no politician wants to hear the whole story - they like the part about government spending during bad times but conveniently forget the admonition to pay off the debt when things are good.

There surely is a maximum debt burden for every person and every country. What that saturation point is for the U.S. is speculative, but John Mauldin does not believe the Obama trillion-dollar budgets over the next 10 years are doable.

[Al_U_Card]

Not to worry (more), inflation is on the way to make those debts shrink away (along with any savings that you might have had....) so buy now while you can....still borrow even more.

The Fed will then have to raise interest rates to fight the inflation and whoopee! everyone (of the lenders) will be rich!

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 7 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Not to worry (more), inflation is on the way to make those debts shrink away (along with any savings that you might have had....) so buy now while you can....still borrow even more.

There is a reason why I bought a condo with a honking big fixed rate mortgage

[PassedOut]

Maybe because of my business background, one of my hot-buttons is fiscal irresponsibility, both in and out of government. I can say that, despite Clinton's huge flaws, I greatly appreciated his strong stand on restoring fiscal responsibility to the federal government. And I was appalled by Dubya's immediate return to fiscal irresponsibility.

During the campaign, Obama promised transparency and -- to my mind at least -- has been doing a very good job of that. The information on the web put out by the Obama administration is (to my way of thinking) just what the government should be doing, and the quality is constantly improving. There is little need to get biased information (from the left or the right) when actual facts are available at one's fingertips.

My own interests being what they are, I like to browse USAspending.gov and Data.gov, and Peter Orszag's blog is always a good read.

Orszag's first entry in February laid out the goals for the 2010 budget (Discipline, Efficiency, Prosperity), and the data published on the web allows all of us to evaluate how the administration's performance matches its claims. Orszag's discussion of the national debt (IOU, an Explanation) uses analogy to explain the larger numbers in terms anyone can follow.

From what I can see, the people in the White House now are smart, capable, and honest. This is a far cry from what we've had for a long time (even though I liked Clinton's fiscal responsibility, honesty was not one of his prominent traits).

Of course, people can be smart, capable, honest, and still be wrong, but I always feel a lot better about things when I have the actual figures to look at along with rational explanations of what the plans are to fix the problems. So I definitely feel better about this government than I've felt in a very long time. And so happy they know how to use the web!

Yes, the administration was foolish to throw out a number like 8%, and it's biting them now. But I think they are fast learners.

[Al_U_Card]

Likely part of their (optimistic) transparency. It is definitely a step in the right direction.
The system may be broke (in so many ways) but taking the right approach is always valid.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Well, there does seem to be one silly fact touted -- the jobs created or saved.

Monty Obama's Flying Presidency

[Winstonm]

Quote

Obama promised transparency and -- to my mind at least -- has been doing a very good job of that.

Except when it comes to national security issues - then it's the same old Bush-Cheney hide our failures and illegalites from the world mentality. It takes an Italian judge to convict 23 CIA employees of an illegal kidnapping and rendition.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Nov 7 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

Quote

Obama promised transparency and -- to my mind at least -- has been doing a very good job of that.

Except when it comes to national security issues - then it's the same old Bush-Cheney hide our failures and illegalites from the world mentality. It takes an Italian judge to convict 23 CIA employees of an illegal kidnapping and rendition.

Yes, I should probably have limited my comment in that respect.

However, national security issues raise many complicated transparency issues, and it seems reasonable for me to take that a lot slower. I hope to see progess in that area over the coming years, with a good deal of care taken. I don't mind legitimate security classifications, but I oppose the use of secrecy to hide simple mistakes and sheer incompetence.