Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
ParticipantSantaluz offers great ambience, very low density, and famously tough CC&Rs and building restrictions (still a lot of 1 – 2 acre lots for sale).
It has suffered about a 20% fall off the peak, which was about 2005-6.
The big 5,000 – 6,000 s.f. houses have fallen the most; the little one-story casitas of 2100 – 2400 s.f. the least. The latter appeal to empty nesters and down-sizers who want the great atmosphere but not the 5-6 bedrooms.
Not much shopping nearby, but isolation and gated community aspect appeals to many.ParticipantSantaluz offers great ambience, very low density, and famously tough CC&Rs and building restrictions (still a lot of 1 – 2 acre lots for sale).
It has suffered about a 20% fall off the peak, which was about 2005-6.
The big 5,000 – 6,000 s.f. houses have fallen the most; the little one-story casitas of 2100 – 2400 s.f. the least. The latter appeal to empty nesters and down-sizers who want the great atmosphere but not the 5-6 bedrooms.
Not much shopping nearby, but isolation and gated community aspect appeals to many.ParticipantSantaluz offers great ambience, very low density, and famously tough CC&Rs and building restrictions (still a lot of 1 – 2 acre lots for sale).
It has suffered about a 20% fall off the peak, which was about 2005-6.
The big 5,000 – 6,000 s.f. houses have fallen the most; the little one-story casitas of 2100 – 2400 s.f. the least. The latter appeal to empty nesters and down-sizers who want the great atmosphere but not the 5-6 bedrooms.
Not much shopping nearby, but isolation and gated community aspect appeals to many.ParticipantConcho, you have voiced a common misconception. Unemployed simply means not working and actively seeking work.
That could be someone entering the work force for the first time, coming out of retirement to seek work, laid off, fired, etc. They may or may not be getting unemployent benefits, and in fact only about 40% of the unemployed currently receive benefits.ParticipantConcho, you have voiced a common misconception. Unemployed simply means not working and actively seeking work.
That could be someone entering the work force for the first time, coming out of retirement to seek work, laid off, fired, etc. They may or may not be getting unemployent benefits, and in fact only about 40% of the unemployed currently receive benefits.ParticipantConcho, you have voiced a common misconception. Unemployed simply means not working and actively seeking work.
That could be someone entering the work force for the first time, coming out of retirement to seek work, laid off, fired, etc. They may or may not be getting unemployent benefits, and in fact only about 40% of the unemployed currently receive benefits.ParticipantConcho, you have voiced a common misconception. Unemployed simply means not working and actively seeking work.
That could be someone entering the work force for the first time, coming out of retirement to seek work, laid off, fired, etc. They may or may not be getting unemployent benefits, and in fact only about 40% of the unemployed currently receive benefits.ParticipantConcho, you have voiced a common misconception. Unemployed simply means not working and actively seeking work.
That could be someone entering the work force for the first time, coming out of retirement to seek work, laid off, fired, etc. They may or may not be getting unemployent benefits, and in fact only about 40% of the unemployed currently receive benefits.ParticipantImagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.ParticipantImagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.ParticipantImagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.ParticipantImagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.ParticipantImagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.ParticipantSocratt, good question. If 550,000 (net) jobs were lost last month, why did unemployment rate only rise by two-tenths of a percent? Answer: some of the unemployed stopped looking for work. The household survey compiles the # of unemployed. The # of jobs is more of a payroll total coming from employers.
By the way, your chance of being interviewed in any given month are about 1 in 3000.
Arraya, your reference to that blog is a good one, as it brings up one valid complaint to the way the BLS compiles their statistics. The Birth/Death allowance supposedly allows for the imputed jobs created or destroyed monthly by the birth of new businesses or the death of same. Their model is greatly flawed because it overstates job creation. It recently, for example, claimed that construction jobs are still growing in the U.S. A Barron’s columnist, Gene Epstein, has frequently mocked the BLS for these conclusions.
Still, the erroneous numbers are not large in the scheme of things, and are due more to bureaucratic sloth than dark conspiracy. -
AuthorPosts
