No dip in county index for 8th straight month

[creechrr]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

Well, doesn’t job loss beget job loss?

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

No, but the fact that people still have too much debt will make more people not have jobs, IMHO.

Falling housing prices were never the problem — it’s actually the **solution** to the problem. The problem always was — and still is — too much debt and too little income. They’re doing precious little to solve that problem, outside of discussing principal reductions. If they allow principal reductions, there is a whole new bag of problems they will have to deal with, and they/we will incur even greater losses than if they had just let lenders foreclose and home prices fall to normal levels, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

No, but the fact that people still have too much debt will make more people not have jobs, IMHO.

Falling housing prices were never the problem — it’s actually the **solution** to the problem. The problem always was — and still is — too much debt and too little income. They’re doing precious little to solve that problem, outside of discussing principal reductions. If they allow principal reductions, there is a whole new bag of problems they will have to deal with, and they/we will incur even greater losses than if they had just let lenders foreclose and home prices fall to normal levels, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

No, but the fact that people still have too much debt will make more people not have jobs, IMHO.

Falling housing prices were never the problem — it’s actually the **solution** to the problem. The problem always was — and still is — too much debt and too little income. They’re doing precious little to solve that problem, outside of discussing principal reductions. If they allow principal reductions, there is a whole new bag of problems they will have to deal with, and they/we will incur even greater losses than if they had just let lenders foreclose and home prices fall to normal levels, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

No, but the fact that people still have too much debt will make more people not have jobs, IMHO.

Falling housing prices were never the problem — it’s actually the **solution** to the problem. The problem always was — and still is — too much debt and too little income. They’re doing precious little to solve that problem, outside of discussing principal reductions. If they allow principal reductions, there is a whole new bag of problems they will have to deal with, and they/we will incur even greater losses than if they had just let lenders foreclose and home prices fall to normal levels, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

No, but the fact that people still have too much debt will make more people not have jobs, IMHO.

Falling housing prices were never the problem — it’s actually the **solution** to the problem. The problem always was — and still is — too much debt and too little income. They’re doing precious little to solve that problem, outside of discussing principal reductions. If they allow principal reductions, there is a whole new bag of problems they will have to deal with, and they/we will incur even greater losses than if they had just let lenders foreclose and home prices fall to normal levels, IMHO.

[outtamojo]

I asked a simple question and thats what I get : (

[outtamojo]

I asked a simple question and thats what I get : (

[outtamojo]

I asked a simple question and thats what I get : (

[outtamojo]

I asked a simple question and thats what I get : (

[outtamojo]

I asked a simple question and thats what I get : (

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

First of all, I was just replying to TGs claim that unemployment methodology being skewed for political purposes is not just wild anti-Obama nonsense. It is actually quite factual to say unemployment is not what it seems.

But since you ask: I don’t think any methodology that allows 10 million people to be laid off and the “official” unemployment number to NOT change a good thing. I personally think that is a lot less healthy for a country than another way. Having accurate information is kind of a way for people to keep score on what their economic overlords promise. The way it is now you have to do a good bit of research to figure it out.

Second, It’s now about what “I” want. It’s about having a grasp on reality. Which our economic reporting and data is becoming more and more divorced from as the days go by. Again an unhealthy trend.

And yes, I think it is a bad idea to have a methodology that allows people to be marginalized by not even counting them any more. And yes, I think awareness of this could lead to something positive for those people much much more the hiding them like bastard step children.

It’s like hearing a funny sound in your car engine and thinking turning up the radio is a means to fix it. It’s self destructive.

I have an idea, how about paring up our “people” shadow inventory with the “RE” shadow inventory and a government job. That would kill three birds with one stone. They can be in charge of scrubbing government statistics of all unpleasant data.

We can call them the ministry of information. Changing economic data is a growth industry, I hear.

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

First of all, I was just replying to TGs claim that unemployment methodology being skewed for political purposes is not just wild anti-Obama nonsense. It is actually quite factual to say unemployment is not what it seems.

But since you ask: I don’t think any methodology that allows 10 million people to be laid off and the “official” unemployment number to NOT change a good thing. I personally think that is a lot less healthy for a country than another way. Having accurate information is kind of a way for people to keep score on what their economic overlords promise. The way it is now you have to do a good bit of research to figure it out.

Second, It’s now about what “I” want. It’s about having a grasp on reality. Which our economic reporting and data is becoming more and more divorced from as the days go by. Again an unhealthy trend.

And yes, I think it is a bad idea to have a methodology that allows people to be marginalized by not even counting them any more. And yes, I think awareness of this could lead to something positive for those people much much more the hiding them like bastard step children.

It’s like hearing a funny sound in your car engine and thinking turning up the radio is a means to fix it. It’s self destructive.

I have an idea, how about paring up our “people” shadow inventory with the “RE” shadow inventory and a government job. That would kill three birds with one stone. They can be in charge of scrubbing government statistics of all unpleasant data.

We can call them the ministry of information. Changing economic data is a growth industry, I hear.

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

First of all, I was just replying to TGs claim that unemployment methodology being skewed for political purposes is not just wild anti-Obama nonsense. It is actually quite factual to say unemployment is not what it seems.

But since you ask: I don’t think any methodology that allows 10 million people to be laid off and the “official” unemployment number to NOT change a good thing. I personally think that is a lot less healthy for a country than another way. Having accurate information is kind of a way for people to keep score on what their economic overlords promise. The way it is now you have to do a good bit of research to figure it out.

Second, It’s now about what “I” want. It’s about having a grasp on reality. Which our economic reporting and data is becoming more and more divorced from as the days go by. Again an unhealthy trend.

And yes, I think it is a bad idea to have a methodology that allows people to be marginalized by not even counting them any more. And yes, I think awareness of this could lead to something positive for those people much much more the hiding them like bastard step children.

It’s like hearing a funny sound in your car engine and thinking turning up the radio is a means to fix it. It’s self destructive.

I have an idea, how about paring up our “people” shadow inventory with the “RE” shadow inventory and a government job. That would kill three birds with one stone. They can be in charge of scrubbing government statistics of all unpleasant data.

We can call them the ministry of information. Changing economic data is a growth industry, I hear.

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo]My point is, nobody lives in a chart
or on a graph. Let’s just go ahead and count and report things the way YOU want to count them – I am fine with that. A simple question:will that make more living breathing people not have jobs?[/quote]

First of all, I was just replying to TGs claim that unemployment methodology being skewed for political purposes is not just wild anti-Obama nonsense. It is actually quite factual to say unemployment is not what it seems.

But since you ask: I don’t think any methodology that allows 10 million people to be laid off and the “official” unemployment number to NOT change a good thing. I personally think that is a lot less healthy for a country than another way. Having accurate information is kind of a way for people to keep score on what their economic overlords promise. The way it is now you have to do a good bit of research to figure it out.

Second, It’s now about what “I” want. It’s about having a grasp on reality. Which our economic reporting and data is becoming more and more divorced from as the days go by. Again an unhealthy trend.

And yes, I think it is a bad idea to have a methodology that allows people to be marginalized by not even counting them any more. And yes, I think awareness of this could lead to something positive for those people much much more the hiding them like bastard step children.

It’s like hearing a funny sound in your car engine and thinking turning up the radio is a means to fix it. It’s self destructive.

I have an idea, how about paring up our “people” shadow inventory with the “RE” shadow inventory and a government job. That would kill three birds with one stone. They can be in charge of scrubbing government statistics of all unpleasant data.

We can call them the ministry of information. Changing economic data is a growth industry, I hear.

[Author]

Posts