Unemployment tops 10%

http://www.chicagotribune...0224.story

Unemployment is now at 10.2% according to this article. Of course, can't trust skewed #'s from washington so real percentage probably much higher.

So how has Wall Street and the stock market managed to be so UP the last few months while unemployment keeps rising??

Double dip economy here people. Get ready for a fun ride. Time to buy things on the el cheap-o.

No no no....you must be mistaken. The supreme leader told us it wouldn't exceed 8% if they passed the 800 billion dollar (Chinese credit line) stimulus package.

Too bad they're waiting to spend 90% to get re elected.

He promised unemployment would never rise above 7.8% and that by 2010 the U.S. economy would employ 138.6 million jobs.

Thankfully Wall Street has been regulated so we don't have to worry bout another banking crisis.

lazycrockett said:

Meltdown 101: When unemployment last hit 10 pct:
http://www.google.com/hos...AD9BQ8AR01

You do realize that unemployment started under Bush? Employment tends to go up with Democratic Presidents. Best to wait another year or so--a two year window in this kind of extreme economic collapse is wise. But whoever said the right wing was wise or sane.

Wave your wildsigns high!!

Talk to me in a year, if jobs don't get created, then we will both go after Obama, k?

Wave your wildsigns high!!

thepope2the9s said:

thepope2the9s said:

SUPRMAN said:

realm said:

I don't give a shit who you want to blame it on, were still in the tank.

SUPRMAN said:

The economy is much better now, orders are up for me and bushiness i deal with, But not so much so we are going to be hiring any time soon.
For me and every business i deal with, we have been cutting costs everywhere possible, so much so we like the results we are seeing and see no need to go back to some of our wasteful ways if at all possible.
Vendors have lowered their prices,which is good for us, because we too have lowered our prices just to stay..
The biggest problem i foresee is deflation, but that's a whole other thread.
[Edited 11/6/09 15:33pm]

2freaky4church1 said:

2freaky4church1 said:

realm said:

Obama's spin team will just say it would be higher with out the spending. They will name a few specific short term job projects and how they created X jobs.

But never forget if a year from now there is not marked improvement it is all obama's fault.

http://abcnews.go.com/Pol...558&page=1

savoirfaire said:

realm said:

2010 = The Great Depression. The USNA will make its "shocking" debut. The US Dollar will be dead. The Amero will rise.

Just wait!

[Edited for compliance]

[E]ven though the recession is apparently over, for the average worker it remains in force. The misery is actually greater than the headline number suggests: an alternative unemployment rate that includes those who would like to work but are not looking for a job, and those who are employed part-time but would rather work full-time, rose by half a percentage point to 17.5%. This rate has jumped almost nine percentage points since the recession began in December 2007, compared with an increase of 5.3 points in the regular unemployment rate. The median spell of unemployment now stands at a record 18.7 weeks.


Yet there are other signs that the problems may eventually ease, and indeed the jobs report itself, released on Friday November 6th, contains puzzling contradictions. The total number of non-farm payroll jobs fell by 190,000, or by 0.14%, led by construction, manufacturing and retailers. That was a bit more than expected, but consistent with a generally moderating pace of job losses. Payroll declines in the previous two months were revised down by a total of 90,000. A shift from downwards to upwards revisions often accompanies a bottom in jobs growth. The number of people who were employed by temporary agencies rose by 33,700, or 2%, the third monthly gain. This is usually considered a precursor to more permanent recruitment, although Capital Economics notes this gave a false signal in 2002. The number of new claims for unemployment insurance has also declined steadily in recent weeks. Employment in economies highly geared to the American market, such as those of Japan, South Korea and Canada (up until the last month), has already turned up.

The increase in GDP has not translated into jobs yet because of firms’ strong tendency to work each employee harder early in a recovery before hiring more of them. The Labour Department reported that productivity soared by 9.5% at an annualised rate in the third quarter, a rate surpassed only once since 1983 (in 2003). China can sustain such rates of productivity growth; America cannot. Assuming that sales keep edging higher, companies will soon have to boost hours, employment, or both.

If the underlying trends are constructive, why is unemployment still rising fast? In part, it is a statistical mystery. The payroll data are based on a survey of establishments covering roughly a third of the workforce which is continually revised until almost all establishments have been counted. The household survey is based on a much smaller sample of 60,000 households which is volatile and never revised. It showed a gigantic, 589,000 drop in the number of people working in October, triple the tally of the payroll report. Once the two surveys’ differing definitions of a job are reconciled, the household survey shows 914,000 more lost jobs in the past 12 months than the payroll survey. Perhaps a third of the discrepancy will disappear with forthcoming revisions to the payroll data; the remainder is a mystery.


Politicians will focus on how to respond to voters’ demands for action. On Friday Barack Obama was expected to sign into law a hotchpotch of stealth stimulus measures. They include some badly designed but popular measures such as letting money-losing companies claim tax refunds against profits earned up to five years earlier and an extension to the tax credit for buying a home. A third measure, extending unemployment benefits for some who have lost their jobs, will alleviate hardship and boost demand but will probably raise, not lower, the unemployment rate. Richer benefits encourage workers to look for a job rather than quit the search, and to turn down unsatisfactory job offers.

There is growing support for a tax credit for firms that hire more workers: Mr Obama is reportedly interested in the idea and Joe Sestak, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, introduced a bill for one on Friday. However a similar measure in the 1970s had at best a marginal benefit according to Gary Burtless, a scholar at the Brookings Institution.

To make a real dent in unemployment would require a lot more money. Mr Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are reluctant to spend more. Peter Orszag, his budget director, acknowledged this week that the deficits he now projects are “well above the fiscally sustainable” level and the administration is “considering a number of proposals” to bring them down. The politics are treacherous: voters rejected Democratic candidates to be governors in Virginia and New Jersey this week in part because of concerns about the economy and government spending. Mr Obama can't address both at once. Although painful, patience is the better choice: in time, the employment numbers should go his way; not so the deficit.

http://www.economist.com/...s_box_main

thepope2the9s said:

Bohemian67 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

lazycrockett said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

The finger pointing needs to be set aside, and solutions need to be sought!

It is obvious that the nearly $800 billion in new debt has had little or no impact so far. We can not turn a blind eye, and say it would be worse...if.

Hello! We have the highest unemployment in over a quarter of a century!

Heck, we would have stimulated our economy more if we would have passed out $16.000 checks to each family. That would have been alot more productive this past year, than spending it to lose even more jobs!

Perhaps, a numbers cruncher will figure out how much we have spent in order to lose each additional job!

I am sorry...but I have a difficult time spending 200,000 to create a temporary 26 week $30,000 job.

This just isn't working!

Like Obama....don't like the plan!