10.2% 51 comments
November 06, 2009
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Wow:
In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points.
Well, at least give the BLS credit for not trying to sugar-coat the data. This is truly awful, and makes it obvious why the Fed will keep rates at or near zero for the foreseeable future. You just can’t raise rates when unemployment is in double digits.
Print this article with comments
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
1. Tax rates are stable or heading down. When they are heading up (like now) a situation with simultaneous ongoing layoffs and temp hiring just means that some permanent jobs are being replaced with temporary ones.
2. The Regulatory environment is friendly to business. Anyone who sees the current situation in this light has NOT been paying attention to what is happening to small and medium sized businesses, where most of our jobs in this country are born.
3. Legislation is not present which pushes business to reduce permanent payrolls. The prospect of the proposed health care reform - palpably pro-union laws - new laws applying requirements formerly limited to large companies to small ones - these are all things that will force companies to reduce their own workforce and hire temps, whose health insurance will be the temp agency's concern, and whose numbers will not trigger onerous inclusion in whatever encroaching laws they seek to avoid.
4. The outlook for the business is at some minimum level secure and includes real growth. Other than those working for the Federal government, this is not a common condition.
On Nov 06 03:27 PM bbro wrote:
> Unemployment rate is a laggin indicator,nonfam payrolls is a coincident
> indicator and temporary help is a leading indicator and that is up
>
On Nov 06 03:32 PM Roger Knights wrote:
> There'd be less unemployment if DC hadn't raised the minimum wage.
On Nov 06 10:13 PM bricki wrote:
> Minimum wage jobs are not full employment for anyone over the age
> of 18.
>
> On Nov 06 03:32 PM Roger Knights wrote:
On Nov 06 11:34 PM bob adamson wrote:
> Clearly, the current 17+% unemployment and underemployment rate is
> unprecedented since the end of WW II. That said, what from a realistic
> perspective might have been done on or after October 1, 2008 that
> would have kept that rate lower? What needs to be done now to reverse
> the unemployment and underemployment rate increasing trend significantly?
On Nov 06 02:21 PM ETFdesk.com wrote:
> great read from David Rosenberg on today;s jobs numbers, Rosenberg
> on Jobs, mother of all jobless recoveries www.etfdesk.com/headli...
Most of the millionaires who are reading this seem rather sure that our country isn't gong to be the same free spending country we have all grown accustomed to yet most here cannot fathom life at a five dollar an hour wage. It would be better for millions more people to be working and creating something than sitting out this great recession in depression and helplessness. I would expect that we will have to wait for inflation to lower the minimum wage before we will see hiring on a large scale. Vast swathes of the younger generations have no work ethic so they should not expect to have what their parents did, nor will they. At some point the free ride legions of the poor are getting from the government will have to end as America joins most other nations of the world in what we must call a more normal (poorer) lifestyle. We really are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. The current Administration is working desperately to mold the nation into one that is a lot more like Europe. This will have to include unemployment levels similar to what they have suffered unless we create a wage that matches the skill set of the poor and lower middle classes We need a lower minimum wage to help the newly employed build job skills like showing up to work the day after they get paid and staying sober and drug free.
At the current levels of Federal deficit spending, the lower middle class will be basically reduced to the living on the minimum wage that you think is so beneath the American worker as it stands now. It would be far better to put people to work than to create debt and and wait for inflation to do the job for us.
On Nov 07 07:40 AM Dan in mpls wrote:
> You may think that minimum wage is for kids but that is because you
> don't know many people who live on it and do survive. In many towns
> across America one can rent a 2 bedroom apartment for $400.00 very
> easily. I know that I have not been able to raise the rents on my
> rental housing in Minneapolis for the last 8 years. Apartment rentals
> are therefore getting cheaper by the year. Across the globe families
> do live in multi generational households. This will most probably
> become the norm as families pull together to fill the Mc Mansions
> that dot the countryside sucking energy and now commonly house two
> people.
> Most of the millionaires who are reading this seem rather sure that
> our country isn't gong to be the same free spending country we have
> all grown accustomed to yet most here cannot fathom life at a five
> dollar an hour wage. It would be better for millions more people
> to be working and creating something than sitting out this great
> recession in depression and helplessness. I would expect that we
> will have to wait for inflation to lower the minimum wage before
> we will see hiring on a large scale. Vast swathes of the younger
> generations have no work ethic so they should not expect to have
> what their parents did, nor will they. At some point the free ride
> legions of the poor are getting from the government will have to
> end as America joins most other nations of the world in what we must
> call a more normal (poorer) lifestyle. We really are no longer the
> land of the free and the home of the brave. The current Administration
> is working desperately to mold the nation into one that is a lot
> more like Europe. This will have to include unemployment levels similar
> to what they have suffered unless we create a wage that matches the
> skill set of the poor and lower middle classes We need a lower
> minimum wage to help the newly employed build job skills like showing
> up to work the day after they get paid and staying sober and drug
> free.
> At the current levels of Federal deficit spending, the lower middle
> class will be basically reduced to the living on the minimum wage
> that you think is so beneath the American worker as it stands now.
> It would be far better to put people to work than to create debt
> and and wait for inflation to do the job for us.
The statistical models are based on long ago and far away models when we had a balance of the various market sectors. With 70-75 percent based on consumer spending service. Add to that, construction and it is very easy to create a "feedback loop" in that as employment declines so does consumer spending (absent the abused credit of the past). As the spending declines further, then unemployment increases (if the government is not manipulating the statistics).
I think that we can brush off two tales of the old economy:
1. Employment is a lagging indicator.
2. Equity (stock) markets are a leading indicator.
If stock markets are a "leading indicator" the Dow, on October 12, 2007 was telling us our life right now would be some Utopia.
There are models out there that are in use that will project what will happen in the future, but don't expect the government, media, universities, or businesses to report what they indicate. How does 30-40 percent real unemployment grab you?
Then we have the G-20 wanting to put a "tax on speculation," which I read to say a "tax on risk." What next?
There are so many downsides to look at... I told a friend of mine if the Dow didn't drop 300 points on the unemployment stats, then what we are witnessing is a giant economic fraud engineered by the Fed and Treasury... At the end of the day, I had my answer....
On Nov 06 09:55 AM Mark Bern wrote:
"Okay, I know that employment is a lagging indicator."
Whatever other affects such massive and immediate cuts in spending might have, I fail to see how it would increase the demand for workers anytime in the foreseeable future. If you disagree please explain.
On Nov 07 01:47 AM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Bob: Greetings. We could start by not spending many trillions of
> dollars we don't have.
Government creates nothing. They just take from one and give to the other. If business saw that the government had it's fiscal house in order and that taxes (takings) could be reduced, it encourages business to expand and hire.
Hiring and business investment is anemic now because business is scared to death about the regulations and increased taxes being thought up by the current administration.
Would you spend $50 million to build or expand a new production facility in the US with the raft of additional restrictions, regulations and taxes being proposed in Washington??
Hiring comes from a willingness of businesses to invest and the environment in Washington is not conducive to that.
On Nov 07 12:07 PM bob adamson wrote:
> Mr. Ferguson -
> Whatever other affects such massive and immediate cuts in spending
> might have, I fail to see how it would increase the demand for workers
> anytime in the foreseeable future. If you disagree please explain.
>
Its the running total that counts...(shaking my head)...
On Nov 07 08:30 PM rick12345 wrote:
> Wow, 15000 more jobs lost than expected in October. That's 15000
> out of a total workforce of 150 000 000.
they are way ahead.....if you are willing to do the homework assignment but it seems so many do want to do it.....just blab blab
blab.....
On Nov 06 11:23 AM ain't no fortunate son wrote:
> so, how are those bank stress test "most adverse scenario" numbers
> working out???????????????????...
>
> strange we don't hear much about them anymore... Not!
Interestingly, the household data estimates the working population at 154 million, whereas the establishment data records the same figure at 131 million (excluding farm workers) - a difference of 23 million people. How 23 million people can produce a discrepancy of 368000 between recorded job losses of 190000 and purported job losses of 558000, is a mystery to me.
In conclusion, I think that rather than concentrating on "headline" figures such as 558000 and 10.2% wouldn't it be better to examine each set of data independently, without the fear-mongering?