Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › What are the real unemployment numbers?
- This topic has 200 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
Werewolf.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM #425168July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM #424425
4plexowner
Participantaccording to shadowstats.com unemployment is over 20% now
July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM #424658Participantaccording to shadowstats.com unemployment is over 20% now
July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM #424939Participantaccording to shadowstats.com unemployment is over 20% now
July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM #425009Participantaccording to shadowstats.com unemployment is over 20% now
July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM #425173Participantaccording to shadowstats.com unemployment is over 20% now
July 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM #424550
barnaby33Participant25% U6, here we come. Why you might ask? Well to be fair its a total SWAG.
The number we are often given is that at the height of the first Great Depression, unemployment reached 25%. Its closest corollary today is U6, total unemployment. Even though there are still differences between now and then, in terms of calculations, its fairly close.
This time around we are far more credit dependent, ie in debt. The idea that we can avoid a macro contraction that is smaller than the first depression seems silly to say the least. Again why would I go out on a limb and say that?
First both depressions are far more credit driven than any other recessions of the last 100 years.
Second policy responses though superficially different are in essence they same. All of the New Deal programs, though targeted were really about getting money out into the broader economy. Back then the FIRE economy was concentrated in New York and so not a particularly good mechanism for getting the money out there. Plus putting people to work usually involves infrastructure projects.
Third the losses have been made all we are arguing over, while we are having this fun doozy of a depression is who gets the check. Most of the real losses haven’t even been recognized and if Bush III and Geithner have anything to say about it, they never will.
Forth we tried externalizing our problems last time which led to protectionism and greater depression. We haven’t gone there overtly with trade protectionism, but we have with our monetary policy and this is the real bitch. Every major world player is engaging in the same attempt to externalize its debts by printing in one form or another. We print, though we call it borrowing, and so do all our major trading partners, at the same time that massive amounts of credit are contracting. So now we have trillions of dollars of short term money sloshing around and nowhere stable for it to go, which causes further instability in your credit markets. This leads to further risk aversion and less willingness to lend. That part is ok, because there is nothing good to lend against right now, because the govt is committed to propping up bad debt!
The playbook is shockingly similar to last time, only the names and some of the mechanisms have changed.
One of the surprises so far is that I am still employed, a fact that I am eminently greatful for.
Josh
July 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM #424783barnaby33Participant25% U6, here we come. Why you might ask? Well to be fair its a total SWAG.
The number we are often given is that at the height of the first Great Depression, unemployment reached 25%. Its closest corollary today is U6, total unemployment. Even though there are still differences between now and then, in terms of calculations, its fairly close.
This time around we are far more credit dependent, ie in debt. The idea that we can avoid a macro contraction that is smaller than the first depression seems silly to say the least. Again why would I go out on a limb and say that?
First both depressions are far more credit driven than any other recessions of the last 100 years.
Second policy responses though superficially different are in essence they same. All of the New Deal programs, though targeted were really about getting money out into the broader economy. Back then the FIRE economy was concentrated in New York and so not a particularly good mechanism for getting the money out there. Plus putting people to work usually involves infrastructure projects.
Third the losses have been made all we are arguing over, while we are having this fun doozy of a depression is who gets the check. Most of the real losses haven’t even been recognized and if Bush III and Geithner have anything to say about it, they never will.
Forth we tried externalizing our problems last time which led to protectionism and greater depression. We haven’t gone there overtly with trade protectionism, but we have with our monetary policy and this is the real bitch. Every major world player is engaging in the same attempt to externalize its debts by printing in one form or another. We print, though we call it borrowing, and so do all our major trading partners, at the same time that massive amounts of credit are contracting. So now we have trillions of dollars of short term money sloshing around and nowhere stable for it to go, which causes further instability in your credit markets. This leads to further risk aversion and less willingness to lend. That part is ok, because there is nothing good to lend against right now, because the govt is committed to propping up bad debt!
The playbook is shockingly similar to last time, only the names and some of the mechanisms have changed.
One of the surprises so far is that I am still employed, a fact that I am eminently greatful for.
Josh
July 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM #425066barnaby33Participant25% U6, here we come. Why you might ask? Well to be fair its a total SWAG.
The number we are often given is that at the height of the first Great Depression, unemployment reached 25%. Its closest corollary today is U6, total unemployment. Even though there are still differences between now and then, in terms of calculations, its fairly close.
This time around we are far more credit dependent, ie in debt. The idea that we can avoid a macro contraction that is smaller than the first depression seems silly to say the least. Again why would I go out on a limb and say that?
First both depressions are far more credit driven than any other recessions of the last 100 years.
Second policy responses though superficially different are in essence they same. All of the New Deal programs, though targeted were really about getting money out into the broader economy. Back then the FIRE economy was concentrated in New York and so not a particularly good mechanism for getting the money out there. Plus putting people to work usually involves infrastructure projects.
Third the losses have been made all we are arguing over, while we are having this fun doozy of a depression is who gets the check. Most of the real losses haven’t even been recognized and if Bush III and Geithner have anything to say about it, they never will.
Forth we tried externalizing our problems last time which led to protectionism and greater depression. We haven’t gone there overtly with trade protectionism, but we have with our monetary policy and this is the real bitch. Every major world player is engaging in the same attempt to externalize its debts by printing in one form or another. We print, though we call it borrowing, and so do all our major trading partners, at the same time that massive amounts of credit are contracting. So now we have trillions of dollars of short term money sloshing around and nowhere stable for it to go, which causes further instability in your credit markets. This leads to further risk aversion and less willingness to lend. That part is ok, because there is nothing good to lend against right now, because the govt is committed to propping up bad debt!
The playbook is shockingly similar to last time, only the names and some of the mechanisms have changed.
One of the surprises so far is that I am still employed, a fact that I am eminently greatful for.
Josh
July 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM #425134barnaby33Participant25% U6, here we come. Why you might ask? Well to be fair its a total SWAG.
The number we are often given is that at the height of the first Great Depression, unemployment reached 25%. Its closest corollary today is U6, total unemployment. Even though there are still differences between now and then, in terms of calculations, its fairly close.
This time around we are far more credit dependent, ie in debt. The idea that we can avoid a macro contraction that is smaller than the first depression seems silly to say the least. Again why would I go out on a limb and say that?
First both depressions are far more credit driven than any other recessions of the last 100 years.
Second policy responses though superficially different are in essence they same. All of the New Deal programs, though targeted were really about getting money out into the broader economy. Back then the FIRE economy was concentrated in New York and so not a particularly good mechanism for getting the money out there. Plus putting people to work usually involves infrastructure projects.
Third the losses have been made all we are arguing over, while we are having this fun doozy of a depression is who gets the check. Most of the real losses haven’t even been recognized and if Bush III and Geithner have anything to say about it, they never will.
Forth we tried externalizing our problems last time which led to protectionism and greater depression. We haven’t gone there overtly with trade protectionism, but we have with our monetary policy and this is the real bitch. Every major world player is engaging in the same attempt to externalize its debts by printing in one form or another. We print, though we call it borrowing, and so do all our major trading partners, at the same time that massive amounts of credit are contracting. So now we have trillions of dollars of short term money sloshing around and nowhere stable for it to go, which causes further instability in your credit markets. This leads to further risk aversion and less willingness to lend. That part is ok, because there is nothing good to lend against right now, because the govt is committed to propping up bad debt!
The playbook is shockingly similar to last time, only the names and some of the mechanisms have changed.
One of the surprises so far is that I am still employed, a fact that I am eminently greatful for.
Josh
July 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM #425299barnaby33Participant25% U6, here we come. Why you might ask? Well to be fair its a total SWAG.
The number we are often given is that at the height of the first Great Depression, unemployment reached 25%. Its closest corollary today is U6, total unemployment. Even though there are still differences between now and then, in terms of calculations, its fairly close.
This time around we are far more credit dependent, ie in debt. The idea that we can avoid a macro contraction that is smaller than the first depression seems silly to say the least. Again why would I go out on a limb and say that?
First both depressions are far more credit driven than any other recessions of the last 100 years.
Second policy responses though superficially different are in essence they same. All of the New Deal programs, though targeted were really about getting money out into the broader economy. Back then the FIRE economy was concentrated in New York and so not a particularly good mechanism for getting the money out there. Plus putting people to work usually involves infrastructure projects.
Third the losses have been made all we are arguing over, while we are having this fun doozy of a depression is who gets the check. Most of the real losses haven’t even been recognized and if Bush III and Geithner have anything to say about it, they never will.
Forth we tried externalizing our problems last time which led to protectionism and greater depression. We haven’t gone there overtly with trade protectionism, but we have with our monetary policy and this is the real bitch. Every major world player is engaging in the same attempt to externalize its debts by printing in one form or another. We print, though we call it borrowing, and so do all our major trading partners, at the same time that massive amounts of credit are contracting. So now we have trillions of dollars of short term money sloshing around and nowhere stable for it to go, which causes further instability in your credit markets. This leads to further risk aversion and less willingness to lend. That part is ok, because there is nothing good to lend against right now, because the govt is committed to propping up bad debt!
The playbook is shockingly similar to last time, only the names and some of the mechanisms have changed.
One of the surprises so far is that I am still employed, a fact that I am eminently greatful for.
Josh
July 3, 2009 at 9:15 AM #424565GH
ParticipantI thing the answer to the “who is considered unemployed?” question has more to do with that person being employed in their area of expertise. A software engineer unable to find programming work and forced to take part or full time employment at the local grocery store etc would in my mind be out of work. Also today it is not uncommon for people to take more than a year finding a new job, and this duration will increase.
July 3, 2009 at 9:15 AM #424798ParticipantI thing the answer to the “who is considered unemployed?” question has more to do with that person being employed in their area of expertise. A software engineer unable to find programming work and forced to take part or full time employment at the local grocery store etc would in my mind be out of work. Also today it is not uncommon for people to take more than a year finding a new job, and this duration will increase.
July 3, 2009 at 9:15 AM #425080ParticipantI thing the answer to the “who is considered unemployed?” question has more to do with that person being employed in their area of expertise. A software engineer unable to find programming work and forced to take part or full time employment at the local grocery store etc would in my mind be out of work. Also today it is not uncommon for people to take more than a year finding a new job, and this duration will increase.
July 3, 2009 at 9:15 AM #425150ParticipantI thing the answer to the “who is considered unemployed?” question has more to do with that person being employed in their area of expertise. A software engineer unable to find programming work and forced to take part or full time employment at the local grocery store etc would in my mind be out of work. Also today it is not uncommon for people to take more than a year finding a new job, and this duration will increase.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.