Seeking Alpha

Initial Jobless Claims: 388K vs. 375K consensus (prior week revised to 389K from 386K)....

Initial Jobless Claims: 388K vs . 375K consensus (prior week revised to 389K from 386K). Continuing claims +3K to 3.31M.
Comments (79)
  • but, but, but... the increases in previous weeks were just a fluke due to seasonal adjustment, early easter, good weather, bad weather...
    26 Apr 2012, 08:34 AM Reply Like


    Should I be happy about the 3 year trend or should I concern myself with week over week rounding errors? Is the 3 year trend a "fluke"
    26 Apr 2012, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • You need to account for the millions increase in Not In Labor Force.
    The 3 yr trends are not pretty.
    Employment to Population Ratio:
    This one is key:
    The long term trend here should worry everyone.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • jp - The fluke is those who have suddenly and unexpectly vanished from the workforce. If that helps you to sleep at night - so be it. But claims have been is this area (400,000) +- 25,000 for several years now. That is something that is not a fluke.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • You are incorrect. Jobless claims were at 670k+ 3 years ago. That is why I included a link to the data. Jobless claims current are now at pre-recession levels and up to 2 weeks ago, were at 3 year lows. As for your assumption that those who left the workforce did so involuntarily....that’s not correct. According to the CBO, about a third of the decline in the rate of participation is due to factors other than the economic downturn...about 10k retirees reach 65 per day. I would agree that the 25 year trend in college graduates PR is troublesome. (see Papaswamp 3rd link). It would be best to actually look at the link or do your own research before you make claims that have no factual basis.

    26 Apr 2012, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Nice try. The number is dropping due to gov't stats. Also, there may be 10k bommers reaching 65 every day; however, that would be relevant if they were retiring that is not a good assumption to make.
    26 Apr 2012, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • On Aug 3, 2002 claims were 388k. In 2002 we lost 540k jobs that year. Sept 10 2005 claims were 422k. We gained about 2.5 million jobs that year. For 2001 and 2002, we lost 2.3 million jobs. From 2004 to 2007 we gained on avg about 1.6 million jobs per year. From 2008 to 2009 we lost about 8.6 million jobs. Now we are avg about 900 to 1 million jobs a year. So job creation now is much slower than the period of 2004 to 2007, which only lost 2.3 million jobs. The hole now is far larger, and we have lower job creation. The level of claims is not all that terrible, but the issue is, it is much worse than it should be in the face of the jobs that we have lost given the pace at which we are getting them back.


    We need nonfarms in the 400k range each month, and we need claims in the 300k range. This would signal real recovery and people getting some serious jobs. When they get jobs they think they can depend on, then they will buy houses. When that happens, the real estate will shore up, and when that happens bank balance sheets will shore up. When their capital is no longer threatened, the regulators will back off, and the banks will start lending again. The numbers now don't indicate that scenario. They indicate a malaise for 10 years.
    26 Apr 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • "about 10k retirees reach 65 per day"


    Is 65 a significant number anymore? Full social security doesn't kick in until 67 and since many savings instruments only pay a pittance, if possible those hitting 65 try to hang on for a 'little' while longer.
    26 Apr 2012, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • And WFP rate for 65+ crowd has increased from 16% in 2007 to 18% in 2012. The 20-24 and under crowd has reduced WFP by 4.6 points for the same period, while the 25-54 cohort is down 1.6 points. Overall WFP rate is down from 66% in 2007 to 63.4% in Jan 2012. With civilian employment at ~ 242 million, the WFP rate delta of 2.6% x 242 million = 6.3 million fewer workers.
    26 Apr 2012, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • And 83% of those retiring have less than $250k in savings (not including their house) and 60% have less than $50k. IMHO that is why WFP rate for over 65 crowd is going up - they cannot afford to retire.
    26 Apr 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Your claim of 400k +/- several years ago is incorrect and your explaination of "gov't stats" in incoherent. I don't need to "try" to correct you if you are not interested in reading the public sources. Please provide your own sources to explain your "gov't stats" comment.
    26 Apr 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Given this chart, I don't think it is wise to compare 04'-07' gains with the gains of the last 2 years (only looking at private sector) given the extreme difference between the loses of 02'-03' and 08'-09'.

    26 Apr 2012, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • So you think the current level of job creation will cure housing and banking any day now because jobs under a democrat are better than jobs under a republican?
    26 Apr 2012, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • do you have factual data showing the savings rate for those retiring?
    26 Apr 2012, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • "Jobless claims current are now at pre-recession levels"
    Lol, that's why "jobless claims" are useless statistics.
    26 Apr 2012, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Here's what I have:
    Average net worth of 65 and over was $232,000


    Only 17% of people retiring in 2011 have savings, not including primary residence, over $250k.
    26 Apr 2012, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • jp...your claim about retirees is incorrect. CBO has been massively off on their predictions and claims. Fewer retirees are actually leaving the workforce. The 16-64 participation rate has been declining.


    Labor force participation rate men 16-64 (non-retirees):


    and women 16-64:


    Retirees participation in workforce +65 (the one of 2 trending positive metric):


    NILF and want job now:


    Youth are getting hammered:


    Unemployment level of new entrants into workforce..highest ever:


    The assumption that job growth is quality (living wage) jobs is pure farce. Bachelors and higher is the same as Associates and HS diploma. The real disturbing trend...less than HS education has seen a +10 yr RISE in employment.


    HS degree:




    Less than HS...the other long term 'positive' trend:


    The long term trends do not support your claim.
    26 Apr 2012, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • should get paid for pulling this info together. I'll owe you a beer or a coke or whatever when/if we ever meet.
    26 Apr 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • @WM
    It's nothing fancy. Takes about 20 minutes to cycle through the graphs. The trends are not new...the amazing thing is how much they have been ignored. Something had to break.
    What makes me chuckle is the claims of 'recovery'. $trillions injected, interest rates forced down, and at best, the present low status is maintained. This should be terrifying everyone. Obviously this tact is not working....we are at the cross roads....yes purely my opinion.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • thank you! That's crazy....I'm only 27 and have almost $100k. I do see my parents struggling to retire, but they are far above that number.


    How does anyone expect to live on that?
    27 Apr 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • I don't think they expect. Some are working longer and not retiring, witness the work force participation rate jumping from 16% to 18% in the last 5 years.


    Others - probably just resign themselves to a life of living barely above the poverty line on Social Security.


    But you are right. I don't know how people will make out.
    27 Apr 2012, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • You mean 10k baby boomers are not reaching the age of 65 per day. That is not in dispute. As far as your conerns about the CBO projections...their biggest fail has been the outlay/revenue spreads in the 2000's...of course their projections were before 2 wars and the medicare advantage spending which has it's own history of manipulation by Congress. The projected 2.4T for Iraq and that came in at 2.7T...not bad.


    "Between 2008 and 2009, revenues dropped 2.6 percentage points, from 17.5 percent of GDP to 14.9 percent--3.1 percentage points below the historical average of 18 percent. Meanwhile, outlays grew 4.3 percentage points, from 20.7 percent of GDP to 25.0 percent--4.2 percentage points above the historical average of 20.8 percent.


    Additionally, in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO predicted 2010 outlays to be $2.457 trillion,[5] whereas actual outlays were $3.456 trillion - a $1 trillion under-prediction of spending. CBO predicted 2010 revenues to be $2.946 trillion, whereas actual revenues were $2.162 trillion - a $0.784 trillion over-prediction of revenues. "

    30 Apr 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • @jp "You mean 10k baby boomers are not reaching the age of 65 per day. That is not in dispute. " Correct…my dispute is with your claim that the participation rate is dropping and NILF rising due to retirees.
    "According to the CBO, about a third of the decline in the rate of participation is due to factors other than the economic downturn...about 10k retirees reach 65 per day."


    Clearly participation rate among the 16-64 crowd is dropping while 65+ is rising. Retiree age people aren't retiring thus fewer retirees are going NILF. The new entrants into the workforce is the bulk of NILF along with those formerly employed, now unable to find work (length of time unemployed still staggeringly high).
    30 Apr 2012, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • I think a lot of that is because we are living a lot longer - it is very difficult to save for 30 years of doing nothing. We have to work longer - let's face it, and I repeat, most of us, no matter how diligent, cannot save that much money. There are also a lot of people, including myself, who don't want to retire at 65 - yeah, maybe a "career change", (pretend I know what I'm talking about as a clerk in Home Depot). Papaswamp - this is something that was going to happen no matter how well the economy was doing - 65 is the new 55.
    30 Apr 2012, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • @OM…"..65 is the new 55.." I agree…still my point was showing the long term drop in participation rate of the 16-64 crowd as well as the growth in NILF has less to do with retirees and more to do with new entrants. Work age population continues to increase in the US far faster than jobs are available or new growth comes on line. Technological advancement makes companies more efficient with less people. Economic stagnation only magnifies the situation of demographic growth and technological replacement.
    30 Apr 2012, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • "Technological advancement makes companies more efficient with less people."


    Know a recent engineering grad who was offered a job at Miller Brewery - they had only 80 people running a three shift bottling line - and the people they hired mostly trouble-shot the "robots". How many would it take to run the line 20 years ago? 200 people?


    Yes, perfect storm of changing demographics and technology - a huge problem no administration can solve - not even a really smart benevolent despot (my favorite form of government).
    30 Apr 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • "not even a really smart benevolent despot"


    That despot would need to be omniscient, instead of "really smart". Only when an individual has perfect knowledge about production, can that individual not be a threat. After all, if you have perfect knowledge about production, the society that you control would have nothing you don't already have. Anybody else will always have incentive to think of their survival over those they are supposedly to "take care of".


    Look at the Fed. Supposedly by putting the experts in charge of the economy, all our problems were supposed to go away. But even these experts are constantly at each other's throat over their mistakes.


    Gov can only regulate the things with which it has to the tools to regulate. Gov has been given a grant of force by the populace, thus gov can regulate with regards to force and fraud. The only way a gov could regulate a market is if it could be given some special grant of superior market knowledge.


    Now think about that. If people in the gov knew more about the markets than everyone esle in the market, think about how much that information would be worth. It would be worth far more than BBs $189k a year salary. It would be worth trillions. Since you don't see a massive flow of gov employess moving to the markets to make trillions, the only conclusion is that they don't have special market knowledge. As such, they can't regulate pricing issues since they are blind to prices.


    Expect more malaise.
    30 Apr 2012, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • @OM.."Yes, perfect storm of changing demographics and technology - a huge problem no administration can solve - not even a really smart benevolent despot (my favorite form of government). "


    I'll mostly agree with that. The time for action was 20+ yrs ago....but hey, hindsight is always 20/20. The issue I have with 'administrations' (previous and present) as well as the majority of press, talking heads, Fed, major economists the 'all is well' meme coming out of everyone's mouth. I would much rather have a straight forward 'we are in a problem...and it is going to get substantially worse if we don't take action now' That would be several rather uncomfortable and unpopular actions, but short term pain and anger now, will go a long way towards future success. Simply put...the US govt lacks the political will to do much of anything. The 2 party system is a failure locked in stagnation allowing a banking structure (the Fed et al) and cronyism to bleed this country down. Both parties are responsible...but the biggest culprit is the electorate failing to hold those in office accountable. Instead it is reduced to a sporting event with the fans (electorate) cheering for their team to win regardless of cost while the stadium is crumbling beneath their feet.
    30 Apr 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • My benevolent despot is really really smart.
    30 Apr 2012, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • If they were, they would be all over the world with economies twice the size of the US. If you are waiting on a Messiah to solve your material desires, you will be waiting the rest of your life.


    Sorry my friend, your material life is up to you. It is up to all of us.
    30 Apr 2012, 12:53 PM Reply Like


    First of all the PR (overall) is on a 10+ year declining trend.
    Second, I never claimed the 65+ PR is declining. This demographic is becoming the dominant one and for those that retire from full time work but maintain part time/consulting work (increasing trend)...those still count toward the PR, but status change also counts towards the NILF stats because they are considered underemployed.
    30 Apr 2012, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • "Technological advancement makes companies more efficient with less people. Economic stagnation only magnifies the situation of demographic growth and technological replacement. "


    This I absolutely agree with.
    30 Apr 2012, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • @jp NILF does not count underemployed (part time for or not for economic reasons).
    "Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
    Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."


    If they have a job…even part time…they are counted as employed..not NILF.


    Not sure what you mean by underemployed…that suggests they wish they had full time work…which is completely different (U6).
    Those wanting to work part time (non-economic reasons) on purpose actually trended down in the last 4 yrs. and we are at late 1990s levels.
    This goes against the CBO claims.


    So lets look at this a different way (because I'm irritatingly stubborn). Employment to population ratio.
    This has only been broken out since mid 2008…
    men 16-64:
    men +65:


    Women 16-64:
    Women + 65
    I was unable to find this…which seems strange since women typically live longer than men and I would think have a greater impact. I would like to see this metric.


    My point wasn't that you were claiming the 65+ participation rate was declining, but rather they are NOT contributing as much to NILF as you believe, but rather those who had lost their jobs previously and new entrants into the workforce.


    So we are seeing retirees stay in the workforce and thus counted (yes even part time), yet the total employment to population ratio has dropped to mid 1980's levels.


    So there is no confusion…per BLS definition.
    Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
    Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees;
    30 Apr 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • You are correct. I am confusing NILF with U6 metrics. The CBO claims that baby boomer demographics have more to do with the decline in Employment/Pop. ratios than new entries. All the FRED chart suggests is that part time employment starts to rebound well past any given recession (83',93') E/P ratios have stabilized for 16-64 and are rising for 65+...Doesn't that tell you that the boomers are staying in the LF at the expense of the young?..which was the contention of the CBO, that the spread between the PR of each group was more of a function of demographic changes than economic reasons. As for the contention (I don't believe by you) that there has been this huge drop in labor force...that has already been debunked by the BLS themselves.



    30 Apr 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • @jp.." that there has been this huge drop in labor force...that has already been debunked by the BLS themselves."
    …perhaps I'm not seeing what you are…the participation rate (which is different from the labor force or the civilian non-institutional population) is the lowest since 1992?
    Yes, I agree this isn't a NEW trend…but it isn't improving.


    There is a large cohort block 15-29 yr olds..~21% of population (exceedingly high unemployment rate) deriving from the large cohort block of 40-54 yr olds (~21.4%). These 2 population blocks (42.4 % of total population (15-54 yr olds) far outweigh the baby boomers+ (55-+85 yrs olds….which occupy 24.3% of the total population…true boomers..55-64 occupy 11.6% of population…(boomer are equal to ~half the 15-29 cohort group or 40-54 cohort)….something no one is talking about. This suggests the population decline between 15 and 54 is minimal……this should scare everyone. In other words..the 40-54 cohort group, conservatively should be 30% larger than the boomers).
    Additionally..there is another upcoming big block (probably from the professional moms holding off on kids) 19% of the total population 14ys and under (with a spike at the 5yrs and under group at 7% at total). Demographically put…the population cohort spikes are compressing to sooner and sooner. This will cause a huge influx of new entrants into the workforce…the group with the highest unemployment rate and lowest participation/employment to population ratio (in some cases since the data has been kept).


    Put plainly…every retire age person could leave the workforce…even part time…and it wouldn't be enough. This is a population (with technology) dynamics problem. It is classic over population with looming large upcoming population cohorts that will need even more resources…. Imagine we get slammed with not 1 cycle of boomers, but repeated cycles with fewer years apart.
    See the problem?


    CPS Table 1 can be found:
    30 Apr 2012, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • Sorry, not into stuff - depression era parents so material junk is just junk to me. A benevolent despot to me, in the words of Rodney King, would be the Dems and Repubs "just getting along, we are all in this together". Their collective minds sans politics and the blinders of ideologies "may" be able to solve some of our problems, collectively, I'm sure they are smart enough. Not going to happen, though.
    Hey, we are all human, so yes, we need regulations, and laws. To bad humans make the laws and regulations, and enforce them.
    30 Apr 2012, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • I guess I am more constructive on longer term employment trends then you are when I see major trends in US manufacturing change course from the mid-late 90's. These changes are essential to reverse the decline in real median family income trends that started (and continue today) since 2001. I believe that metric (median family income) is the "canary in the coal mine" of our economic health.

    1 May 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • The decline in jobless claims year over year has definitely slowed...
    52 week moving average of NSA jobless claims drops 339 to 392,712...
    26 Apr 2012, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • bbro....certainly you will have to admit that if we have 49 more weeks of 388, the 52 week moving average will climb to 388. ;>)
    26 Apr 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • 388 is the seasonally adjusted number...I look
    at the non seasonally adjusted numbers...the real numbers...
    26 Apr 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • That's a little "evasive"..... Over the period of 12 months, would you not agree that the SA all disappear? Isn't that what a "weighted average" is all about?
    26 Apr 2012, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Hey, look over there - Mitt's putting his dog on the top of his car. Got cheap student loans?
    26 Apr 2012, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • Didn't Obama say in one of his books that he had eaten dog?
    26 Apr 2012, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Yep, but that was ghost written by Bill Ayers.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • that will be Obama's defence, i didn't eat dog, it was made up by Bill Ayers !


    The Kim il Sung media will accept that and move on... look over there, Romney has a hoist in his garage !
    26 Apr 2012, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Maybe he can say he chewed, but didn't swallow.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • That's the best "Hooper Hoot" I have heard in a while. Super good morning to you .
    26 Apr 2012, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Don't worry more people will drop out of the work force, unemployment rate will keep declining. As long as pubicly traded CEO's keep getting rich off of central bank mandated higher stock prices everything will be fine.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • "Unexpectedly!" or "Oops!", use whichever you prefer.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • The culprits appear to be New Jersey and New York,,,,financial layoffs??/
    26 Apr 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • Looks more like service industry...including food service. That should make people squirm a bit..these are the low end jobs.


    NY +3,352 Layoffs in the transportation, food service, and educational industries.
    CA +3,060 Layoffs in the service industry.
    GA +2,179 Layoffs in the manufacturing, construction, and wholesale trade industries.
    FL +2,048 Layoffs in the agriculture, construction, services, trade, and manufacturing industries.
    NC +1,923 Layoffs in non-classifiable establishments and the textile, construction, business, and amusement and recreation industries.
    CT +1,312 No comment.
    NJ +1,145 Layoffs in the transportation and warehousing, accommodation and food service, administrative, government, and health care and social assistance industries.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • If you are really interested look at the year over year comparisons in the state data...there is seasonality in the state data just like the national data,,,Florida has a different pattern from the national numbers for example...
    26 Apr 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • my comment was that I didn't see states reporting that the layoffs where in the financial sector...but rather services. NY, GA and CA lead the way.
    26 Apr 2012, 05:40 PM Reply Like
    26 Apr 2012, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • Haha good one. Just wait for next month's data. This month's will be revised up, so that next month's data can be sold as a decrease in initial jobless claims. The game is getting old.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Just wait 'til next week when 388 is revised to 400.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • ....stagnation...
    26 Apr 2012, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • you mean stagflation?
    26 Apr 2012, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • I was merely referring to this metric..overall we have been in stagflation for quite a while (wages v inflation). I don't believe we ever really came out of recession since everything was masked by $trillions injected into the markets and artificially low interest rates (which robs people of wealth faster than it creates economic activity). I think the Fed knows this and is hoping 'something' will change. There are just too many people living paycheck to paycheck now. By September, recession should be in full force barring some miracle.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • No recession..
    26 Apr 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • To those who filed claims there is. To rest of us who are struggling with high food, high energy, and falling real wages - well it just sucks.
    26 Apr 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Dang...JW...your favorite team not playing well??? Sun not out??
    26 Apr 2012, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • we will see. I have always had a hunch that ECRI would turn out to be right. For months there was little or no data that was consistent with their call. (maybe ceridian and train carloads...)


    Now we are seeing some more data that is consistent. Doesn't mean they are right but the probability is increasing with every week that claims increase. The claims increases are also around the reference week so the monthly payroll number is liable to be weak.


    I'm also watching weekly retail sales slow as well. Some other recent indicators like durable goods, industrial production, imports etc. have been weak... every time an indicator come in weak, it strengthens ECRIs call, every strong indicator makes it less likely. Right now, the ECRI call is on a roll.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • High energy? Gas is cheaper now than this time last year, my natural gas is half. Those companies lucky enough to have their electric utilities generate with nat gas have seen their rates drop as much as 30%. Food is in its own sphere - weather is the biggest factor.
    26 Apr 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Wait long enough, and yes, ECRI will eventually be right.
    26 Apr 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • This Stat is so stamps and disability income are the new Hope and Change....and boy are they chaniging...up up and up....Good for Obama voters..
    26 Apr 2012, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • Actually there is a stat in these numbers that is very important to Romney and Obama,,,and it is not the national jobless claims number....
    26 Apr 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Youngman....add to that the number on disability for SS. Not 11 million vs. 9 million in 2007.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • Recovery!
    26 Apr 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • One more month of bad numbers and QE3 will be enacted (my prediction). Of course the Fed doesn't want the Market to know that, but QE3 is a done deal IMO.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • I think we need unemployment backup over 9% and the S&P near 1000 to 1100 for QE3. I think "Sterilization" is more probable (bonds I mean, not people, though you never know when tyranny is involved).
    26 Apr 2012, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • I'm not sure....they may have decided to step away and let things go. The faster a true clearing of debt can occur (either paid down or default) and interest rates can rise...the sooner we can return to real economic health. The US's biggest problem is demographics...we simply have too many people and not enough living wage jobs. Something has to give somewhere.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • OT ends in June. I could see them stepping back during July and Aug and maybe Sept. OT was mainly about getting housing going (and thereby employment) and spurring risk by pushing people out on the yield curve. I think a side benefit was taking some of the winds out of commodity speculation by ending the growth of the Fed's balance sheet. If OT ends, and long yields start to trend up again, that signals higher mgt rates and thus lower home sales and then pressure on home prices and thus pressure on bank collateral and thus more pressure on banks. Given this, it would seem Sterilization (which is really OT2) would seem the most likely candidate.
    26 Apr 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • True, papaswamp - the biggest problem will be the disparity in the demographics - too many on retirement and too few to support them.
    26 Apr 2012, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • O.M.


    Yep, Planned Parenthood has been very successful.
    26 Apr 2012, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • "Led by declines in production-related indicators, the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) decreased to –0.29 in March from +0.07 in February. All four broad categories of indicators that make up the index deteriorated from February, with the production and income and personal consumption and housing categories both making a negative contribution to the index in March."
    26 Apr 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • The economy is growing VERY slowly, I think this just confirms that, and I don't read much more into then that. There will need to be some economic trigger for job losses to start occurring at a much greater rate. In the past two periods, it was a technology bust and a housing bust. Maybe this time it is a government direct and indirect (transfer payments) spending bust.
    26 Apr 2012, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • It's called the fiscal cliff. Coming to you live sometime in the not too distant future.
    26 Apr 2012, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Whether or not the economy is recovering or not..just look at the Not in Force labor participation rate...Even during the massive stock/housing bubble we were in, the particpation rate for 25yrs/graduates, kept declining...It has been declining for 10 years. Its one of the reasons there was a bubble...The fed was making the U.S. look stronger economically, but in reality we have lost millions of long term jobs way before Obama and Bush.


    Call it whatever you want, but if you "think" the economy is recovering..Great! If you don't Great!..but the statistics show a very long down trend in the labor particaption rate(25yrs/college grads)... So there are less people working now, then in 1990(when adjusted for population growth)
    26 Apr 2012, 06:37 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)