The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 952,151 in the week ending Jan. 10, an increase of 220,205 from the previous week. There were 547,506 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
Helluva an "adjustment." Y-o-y equivalent reporting periods double the inital claims.
Rob Dawg, no surprise there of course. The DOL actually tells you in advance what the adjustments will be - and January is always the biggest downward adjustment.
The same will be true for the January BLS report - Jan is always the largest job loss month of the year (even in the best of times a large number of jobs are lost), so the SA is huge.
I went and dug into those adjustments - in past years they were very similar if not bigger...not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it's the same as it ever was.
The DOL actually tells you in advance what the adjustments will be - and January is always the biggest downward adjustment. Calculated Risk | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 8:59 am | #
When does the annual correction to the birth/death model get applied? IIRC end of the month. Any advance whisper number?
By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s. - CR
Was around for both of those - this one doesn't feel near as bad so far [key is 'so far']. However after a half decade of being pounded by the late 80s there wasn't quite as much 'fear' as I sense today. Most folks today haven't experienced that kind of kicking so it is a bit of a shock.
The same will be true for the January BLS report - Jan is always the largest job loss month of the year (even in the best of times a large number of jobs are lost), so the SA is huge. Calculated Risk | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 8:59 am | #
Maybe we'll have 'job gains' in January - wouldn't that be 'refreshing' - even if totally phony.
in past years they were very similar if not bigger...not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it's the same as it ever was. citizen energyecon | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 9:01 am | #
Jan 12, 2008 NSA 547,506 SA 315,000 adj 1.74 Jan 19, 2008 NSA 415,149 SA 324,000 adj 1.28 Jan 17, 2009 NSA 952,151 SA 524,000 adj 1.82
I heard on the local news radio this morning that December new unemployment claims here in GA were up 174% YOY. The cities with the highest claims were Dalton (aka Carpetville)at more than 330% and Gainesville (aka Chickenville) at more than 250%. The head of the GA Depatrment of Labor said the new claim filings are "unprecedented & alarming".
The New York-based bank on Thursday reported a profit of $702 million, or 7 cents per share, down 76 percent from $2.97 billion, or 86 cents per share, a year ago.
Analysts, who had been trimming their estimates in recent weeks, expected break-even results. Analyst estimates tend to exclude one-time items. JPMorgan said it got a $1.1 billion gain, after taxes, from ''merger-related items.''
It seems to me that everyone is talking about an outright Depression and how the sky is going to fall...this is after we went through a period of denial last year, during which everyone but Nouriel Roubini was predicting a soft-landing. If history is to provide a lesson, then my belief is that since the majority thinks that the economy is going to get worse, we might have actually already seen the worst. I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple. I noticed with my business that growth was slowing in Q4 of 2007 and we acted accordingly. Surprisingly my company is actually having a good January after being down 2.94% in 2008 vs. 2007. I adjusted early to the changing times and maybe that is why I feel business might be better than we expect in 2009.
If Ititial Weekly Claims is 0.4% of the workforce (as it is now and was for 2 years during 1991-92), doesn't that mean that each week one in 250 workers filed an initial claim?
By that reasoning during 1991-92 (~100 weeks) there was a total of 100 claims per 250 workers, or 40% of workers becoming unemployed. Earlier recessions would produce even more outlandish results.
cr writes: By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s.
It's early yet. Order another round and see what the band sounds like for the next set.
to call the JOPM morgan number s better than expected or a gain is delusional. They lost money ex the $qB oplus extra gain on Wamu. They also are assuming a 7.5% unemployment rate which is a laugher. But JPM is doing yoemansd work buying mortgage and clo product at - "more than the gov't" per Dimon. The sureal is the new real
Alberts out with a US depression call today.
Further check out ppi - crude and intermediate goods down 4-5% m|M but finsihed goods down 1.9%.
bearly, I respectfully suggest that you turn off your television. I destroyed one by heaving it out of a second-story window many years ago for reasons similar to the ones you are voicing.
CNBC is not reality-based programming, so it really doesn't promote good mental health.
When there are extremes of opinion, "depression," "recovery 2nd half of '09," I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I see a very broad middle there, so cannot state with any certainty what is going to happen.
A point I must make. Employment #'s usually rise for the holiday season.
We lost ~1.5 MILLION jobs during the holiday hiring season(Oct., Nov., Dec.).
One bright spot though, the bankers got their bonuses via TARP. It made my holidays just a bit more bearable knowing they could keep up their payments on their BMW's. I would hate to see them suffer.
The other thing I was grateful for this holiday season.... Congress and senate received pay raises.
Not all businesses are down in a recession. I have a relative who runs a bicycle shop, and lots of people are buying bikes or having them services. Albeit not a lot of high end bikes.
Regarding the large post-holiday adjustment to seasonally adjusted employment numbers.
This would likely be based on a large number of seasonal retail workers hired during December and laid off in January. As far as I can tell, the former didn't happen this year in which case the adjustment would be bogus.
OTOH, under this scenario the standard adjustment for the past December likely produced an over-pessimistic result.
Nick writes: \tI am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple... Nick | 01.15.09 - 9:19 am | # ----- If the flippers were any indication, the "sheeple" won't all be depression believers until you have shows on TLC and Food Network about cooking squirrels, building a bunker, and other Chicken Little activities.
As long as you know enough people who are Buy & Hold investors or clinging to their jobs like grim death, the contrary pick may not be "Recovery".
CNBC is not reality-based programming, so it really doesn't promote good mental health.
mp | 01.15.09 - 9:27 am |
I quit watching it after the 2002 bear market. Not watching CNBC improved my attitude and my decision making. I used to watch Bloomberg, as it is a notch better, but I've pretty much stopped relying on financial TV for info altogether for the past 5 years.
By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s.
Does this take into account the rise in the self-employed since the 70s, who may not be counted in the numbers?
Nick writes:
I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple...
Nick | 01.15.09 - 9:19 am | #
Ah, to be a contrarian! But like Denise Richards' life, 'It's Complicated"
The trend of the sheeple is a lagging indicator, and happens after the MSM has labelled the trend (see Money Magazine Nov 2009 issue, "The End of Mutual Funds?" But the trend labelling happens only after the pattern has lasted long enough to be noticed. But blogs have picked up on these patterns eons ago (see CR), which are themselves laggers to the players and market movers, who got in/out long before mp and the conjure bag got up for the a.m. "beer and a bump."
So you can be contrarian at any/all of these steps, but it doesn't mean you are one step ahead of anybody. Remember : it's Calvinball. The rules change, arbitrarily, and not for your benefit.
If history is to provide a lesson, then my belief is that since the majority thinks that the economy is going to get worse, we might have actually already seen the worst. I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple.
nick, the difficulty i've long found with being contrarian is that the crowd is right most of the time -- it's in the turns where they extrapolate and get fooled. being a great contrarian is mostly a function of being able to call the turns in spite of popular reinforcement.
it pays to note that the contrarian opinion would have got optimistic on the economy in 1931. it wasn't until april 1933 that the banks failed; and january 1934 that the dollar was devalued and the economy started to recover. more than two years of straightaway that reflexive contrarians were killed by.
same lesson in japan. how many pessimisms maxima have there been now? and the nikkei is touching 26-year lows anyway.
just a thought. in a true balance sheet recession, assets will just continue to deteriorate until the delevering is done -- that's a long way from here, afaict.
Anybody else wonder why pump price is staying up? Is it because the shut down turn around cycle picks up? Comrade Volker the Viking | 01.15.09 - 9:22 am | #
Maybe because of the conversion to home heating oil. We're freezin' our tallywhackers off up here
nick, the difficulty i've long found with being contrarian is that the crowd is right most of the time -- it's in the turns where they extrapolate and get fooled. being a great contrarian is mostly a function of being able to call the turns in spite of popular reinforcement. gaius marius | 01.15.09 - 9:54 am | #
Exactly. Are we near a turn now and what would the tell tail signs be? That is the question.
High, but declining, unemployment is a strong signal that this recession will be over sooner rather than later.
Unless someone has some strong evidence to the contrary. Assuming this trend continues for another week or so I'll probably start looking at the stock market again.
I was troubled by the dramatic adjustment, but charted out the Not Seasonally Adjusted Claims going back to the early 70's and saw that in every January there was a huge spike. Both in total and as a percent of total employment. I'm always a little weary of seasaonal adjustments, but there's always been a spike at this time of year.
As a percent of total employment, the spike is significantly less than during the 70's and early 80's. However, I remember during the 70's and early 80's, that it was common for many, if not most, major manufacturing companies to regularly furlough production workers for a period of time, and then recall them back sometime later. I grew up in a neighborhood where majority of my friend's dads worked for Mack Trucks or Bethlehem Steel. It was part of the deal, work lots of overtime when times were good. The company then would dramatically overshoot its production, and its workers would receive unemployment when the company needed to reduce inventory. Rarely were workers furloughed for longer than unemployment benefits ran out. Of course, that all changed during the recession of the early 80's as production was moved South and overseas.
So a historical look at these numbers provides us a somewhat biased view of what's occuring today. Most newly unemployed today have little to no hope of being hired back by the same employer. Back in the 70s and very early 80s, it was pretty common practice.
How can this possibly turn around with an economy (& world) still debt-driven? Outsider | 01.15.09 - 10:10 am | #
IMHO, I don't think we can focus exclusively on long-run outcomes. In the short run, we could certainly see a modest "recovery" or at least a slower bleed even in this debt-driven economy. Remember, everyone is sinking at the same time right now - including export-economies not running exclusively on borrowed time.
Those of us who frequent this board seem pretty focused on long-run outcomes and taking the current problems we face today to their logical end. The very activity of focusing on long-run outcomes is contrarian in the sense that the majority of actors currently on stage (the masses) can't see three feet passed their noses.
ot so smart said: "I can't stand the CNBC bashing watch and learn as there is no better insight into the enemy's mind than CNBC."
Or my posts, which are, unaccountably, unwelcome here. Can you imagine a poker player who has zero interest in the cards that the other players are holding?
Even a numbskull like me at least knows and understands the bearish arguments.
So you can be contrarian at any/all of these steps, but it doesn't mean you are one step ahead of anybody. Remember : it's Calvinball. The rules change, arbitrarily, and not for your benefit.
Would be nice to be a board member of the Fraudulent Reserve Banking System and get the inside tips on the latest angle they are planning to use to screw savers/taxpayers.
Unfortunately, you/I have no rich uncles to appoint us to said position, nor do any of our friends belong to the Illuminati clique. So at this point, strict contrarian investing is little better than a blind stab in the dark --and highly leveraged contrarian investing could get you royally screwed.
Thanks for normalizing the data. In some respects this recession is less severe than the 1980s slump. What has changed is the ability of the policymakers to withstand risk--this is the adverse result of too much "stabilization" (really unwarranted accommodation). They're panicking. And they're giving money to everyone but those who really need it, the involuntarily unemployed.
To clarify, the backlog isn't complete. Non-adjusted losses will fly above 1mill and the backlog will catch up to the adjustment thus leading to a upswing in the public number.
Same thing happened last year too. Happened in 1990-91 as well, which was a milder recession.
Long-term trend line still declining.
Damn, Nemo needs to be unemployed.
OT- Here's someone arguing that the recession is almost over:
Fundmastery Blog » Blog Archive » Recession Should Be Over Soon
Not buying it, but it is an interesting read........
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 952,151 in the week ending Jan. 10, an increase of 220,205 from the previous week. There were 547,506 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
Helluva an "adjustment." Y-o-y equivalent reporting periods double the inital claims.
Rob Dawg, no surprise there of course. The DOL actually tells you in advance what the adjustments will be - and January is always the biggest downward adjustment.
The same will be true for the January BLS report - Jan is always the largest job loss month of the year (even in the best of times a large number of jobs are lost), so the SA is huge.
best wishes.
OT- More accurately:
Information Arbitrage: Citigroup - Somebody Please Say "Game Over"
LOL
RD,
I went and dug into those adjustments - in past years they were very similar if not bigger...not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it's the same as it ever was.
The DOL actually tells you in advance what the adjustments will be - and January is always the biggest downward adjustment.
Calculated Risk | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 8:59 am | #
When does the annual correction to the birth/death model get applied? IIRC end of the month. Any advance whisper number?
When you're up, it's a long way down.
When you're down, it's a long way up.
Markets should rally on this great news.
Might have been worse if the phones/web sites worked?
By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s. - CR
Was around for both of those - this one doesn't feel near as bad so far [key is 'so far']. However after a half decade of being pounded by the late 80s there wasn't quite as much 'fear' as I sense today. Most folks today haven't experienced that kind of kicking so it is a bit of a shock.
The same will be true for the January BLS report - Jan is always the largest job loss month of the year (even in the best of times a large number of jobs are lost), so the SA is huge.
Calculated Risk | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 8:59 am | #
Maybe we'll have 'job gains' in January - wouldn't that be 'refreshing' - even if totally phony.
....my thought too, dryfly....but then I didn't feel the La Prieta earthquake either
in past years they were very similar if not bigger...not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it's the same as it ever was.
citizen energyecon | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 9:01 am | #
Jan 12, 2008 NSA 547,506 SA 315,000 adj 1.74
Jan 19, 2008 NSA 415,149 SA 324,000 adj 1.28
Jan 17, 2009 NSA 952,151 SA 524,000 adj 1.82
Draw your own conclusions.
I heard on the local news radio this morning that December new unemployment claims here in GA were up 174% YOY. The cities with the highest claims were Dalton (aka Carpetville)at more than 330% and Gainesville (aka Chickenville) at more than 250%. The head of the GA Depatrment of Labor said the new claim filings are "unprecedented & alarming".
JPMorgan posts profit. Bottom !
The New York-based bank on Thursday reported a profit of $702 million, or 7 cents per share, down 76 percent from $2.97 billion, or 86 cents per share, a year ago.
Analysts, who had been trimming their estimates in recent weeks, expected break-even results. Analyst estimates tend to exclude one-time items. JPMorgan said it got a $1.1 billion gain, after taxes, from ''merger-related items.''
Shares rose about 2 percent in premarket trading.
Dawg.....the Jan 17 readings look OK to you? (I'm an idiot - how do you get from 952K to 524K??)
Anonymous writes:
Damn, Nemo needs to be unemployed.
Anonymous | 01.15.09 - 8:54 am | #
Aren't most people who post here unemployed?
you know shit is bad when CR says that 524K is "good news" b/c some had said it could have been a quadrillion or so.
Aren't most people who post here unemployed?
Bubblisimo Gerkinov | Homepage | 01.15.09 - 9:14 am | #
Please, we prefer the term "home based day-traders".
Please, we prefer the term "home based day-traders".
Eric | 01.15.09 - 9:17 am | #
'Gainfully' unemployed in between fits of 'weeping'...
It seems to me that everyone is talking about an outright Depression and how the sky is going to fall...this is after we went through a period of denial last year, during which everyone but Nouriel Roubini was predicting a soft-landing. If history is to provide a lesson, then my belief is that since the majority thinks that the economy is going to get worse, we might have actually already seen the worst. I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple. I noticed with my business that growth was slowing in Q4 of 2007 and we acted accordingly. Surprisingly my company is actually having a good January after being down 2.94% in 2008 vs. 2007. I adjusted early to the changing times and maybe that is why I feel business might be better than we expect in 2009.
CR... please explain
If Ititial Weekly Claims is 0.4% of the workforce (as it is now and was for 2 years during 1991-92), doesn't that mean that each week one in 250 workers filed an initial claim?
By that reasoning during 1991-92 (~100 weeks) there was a total of 100 claims per 250 workers, or 40% of workers becoming unemployed. Earlier recessions would produce even more outlandish results.
I'm misinterpreteting something here. What is it?
cr writes: By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s.
It's early yet. Order another round and see what the band sounds like for the next set.
to call the JOPM morgan number s better than expected or a gain is delusional. They lost money ex the $qB oplus extra gain on Wamu. They also are assuming a 7.5% unemployment rate which is a laugher. But JPM is doing yoemansd work buying mortgage and clo product at - "more than the gov't" per Dimon. The sureal is the new real
Alberts out with a US depression call today.
Further check out ppi - crude and intermediate goods down 4-5% m|M but finsihed goods down 1.9%.
Anybody else wonder why pump price is staying up? Is it because the shut down turn around cycle picks up?
"I adjusted early to the changing times and maybe that is why I feel business might be better than we expect in 2009."
Nick, it's good that you feel good about it.
Erin - "Off the worst levels". How many times can the parakeet just mutter the same line over and over.
How can any number not be off the worst levels 99% of the time ? Sickening.
bearly, I respectfully suggest that you turn off your television. I destroyed one by heaving it out of a second-story window many years ago for reasons similar to the ones you are voicing.
CNBC is not reality-based programming, so it really doesn't promote good mental health.
When there are extremes of opinion, "depression," "recovery 2nd half of '09," I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I see a very broad middle there, so cannot state with any certainty what is going to happen.
A point I must make. Employment #'s usually rise for the holiday season.
We lost ~1.5 MILLION jobs during the holiday hiring season(Oct., Nov., Dec.).
One bright spot though, the bankers got their bonuses via TARP. It made my holidays just a bit more bearable knowing they could keep up their payments on their BMW's. I would hate to see them suffer.
The other thing I was grateful for this holiday season.... Congress and senate received pay raises.
Not all businesses are down in a recession. I have a relative who runs a bicycle shop, and lots of people are buying bikes or having them services. Albeit not a lot of high end bikes.
Regarding the large post-holiday adjustment to seasonally adjusted employment numbers.
This would likely be based on a large number of seasonal retail workers hired during December and laid off in January. As far as I can tell, the former didn't happen this year in which case the adjustment would be bogus.
OTOH, under this scenario the standard adjustment for the past December likely produced an over-pessimistic result.
I just want CNBC to put up that 4 Bad Bears chart for a good 10 minutes.
Nick writes:
\tI am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple...
Nick | 01.15.09 - 9:19 am | #
-----
If the flippers were any indication, the "sheeple" won't all be depression believers until you have shows on TLC and Food Network about cooking squirrels, building a bunker, and other Chicken Little activities.
As long as you know enough people who are Buy & Hold investors or clinging to their jobs like grim death, the contrary pick may not be "Recovery".
mp,
I respectfully ask that you be kinder to your televsion sets. In the future,please shoot them first before you toss them out the window.
"I respectfully ask that you be kinder to your televsion sets."
Ha! That was many years ago. I no longer own any televisions.
CNBC is not reality-based programming, so it really doesn't promote good mental health.
mp | 01.15.09 - 9:27 am |
I quit watching it after the 2002 bear market. Not watching CNBC improved my attitude and my decision making. I used to watch Bloomberg, as it is a notch better, but I've pretty much stopped relying on financial TV for info altogether for the past 5 years.
By these measures, the current recession is already worse than the '01 recession, and about the same as the '90/'91 recession - but far less than the severe recessions of the early '70s and early '80s.
Does this take into account the rise in the self-employed since the 70s, who may not be counted in the numbers?
Nick writes:
I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple...
Nick | 01.15.09 - 9:19 am | #
Ah, to be a contrarian! But like Denise Richards' life, 'It's Complicated"
The trend of the sheeple is a lagging indicator, and happens after the MSM has labelled the trend (see Money Magazine Nov 2009 issue, "The End of Mutual Funds?" But the trend labelling happens only after the pattern has lasted long enough to be noticed. But blogs have picked up on these patterns eons ago (see CR), which are themselves laggers to the players and market movers, who got in/out long before mp and the conjure bag got up for the a.m. "beer and a bump."
So you can be contrarian at any/all of these steps, but it doesn't mean you are one step ahead of anybody. Remember : it's Calvinball. The rules change, arbitrarily, and not for your benefit.
bearly writes:
Erin - "Off the worst levels". How many times can the parakeet just mutter the same line over and over.
probably the most annoying anchor in their stable -
"Does this take into account the rise in the self-employed since the 70s, who may not be counted in the numbers?"
Of course not. Otherwise the number would be closer to 20%
"Erin - "Off the worst levels". How many times can the parakeet just mutter the same line over and over."
But, she's cheerleading. That's her job.
AND, 1099 ppl don't file for unemployment - though they are looking for work as well.
bearly, Sciurus:
I call her "Little Miss Sunshine."
Even Dylan Ratigan has calmed down his act; and I haven't seen one of Maria Bartiromo's cackling on-air orgasms in quite a while.
Erin is the anchor-desk incorrigible. Oops, almost forgot that Bozo Dennis Kneale.
I want to see it blow thru 8K today on its way to 7K - then I can get that damned milk shed built and quit worryin' about this nonsense.
If history is to provide a lesson, then my belief is that since the majority thinks that the economy is going to get worse, we might have actually already seen the worst. I am a contrarian by nature and tend to go in the opposite direction of the sheeple.
nick, the difficulty i've long found with being contrarian is that the crowd is right most of the time -- it's in the turns where they extrapolate and get fooled. being a great contrarian is mostly a function of being able to call the turns in spite of popular reinforcement.
it pays to note that the contrarian opinion would have got optimistic on the economy in 1931. it wasn't until april 1933 that the banks failed; and january 1934 that the dollar was devalued and the economy started to recover. more than two years of straightaway that reflexive contrarians were killed by.
same lesson in japan. how many pessimisms maxima have there been now? and the nikkei is touching 26-year lows anyway.
just a thought. in a true balance sheet recession, assets will just continue to deteriorate until the delevering is done -- that's a long way from here, afaict.
Anybody else wonder why pump price is staying up? Is it because the shut down turn around cycle picks up?
Comrade Volker the Viking | 01.15.09 - 9:22 am | #
Maybe because of the conversion to home heating oil. We're freezin' our tallywhackers off up here
nick, the difficulty i've long found with being contrarian is that the crowd is right most of the time -- it's in the turns where they extrapolate and get fooled. being a great contrarian is mostly a function of being able to call the turns in spite of popular reinforcement.
gaius marius | 01.15.09 - 9:54 am | #
Exactly. Are we near a turn now and what would the tell tail signs be? That is the question.
Black Angus Steakhouse BK (again)
Black Angus Steakhouse Operator Files Bankruptcy (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
There was a comprehensive steak house discussion a week or two ago in the comments, so no need to revisit that. I blame this on big hamburger.
High, but declining, unemployment is a strong signal that this recession will be over sooner rather than later.
Unless someone has some strong evidence to the contrary. Assuming this trend continues for another week or so I'll probably start looking at the stock market again.
I was troubled by the dramatic adjustment, but charted out the Not Seasonally Adjusted Claims going back to the early 70's and saw that in every January there was a huge spike. Both in total and as a percent of total employment. I'm always a little weary of seasaonal adjustments, but there's always been a spike at this time of year.
As a percent of total employment, the spike is significantly less than during the 70's and early 80's. However, I remember during the 70's and early 80's, that it was common for many, if not most, major manufacturing companies to regularly furlough production workers for a period of time, and then recall them back sometime later. I grew up in a neighborhood where majority of my friend's dads worked for Mack Trucks or Bethlehem Steel. It was part of the deal, work lots of overtime when times were good. The company then would dramatically overshoot its production, and its workers would receive unemployment when the company needed to reduce inventory. Rarely were workers furloughed for longer than unemployment benefits ran out. Of course, that all changed during the recession of the early 80's as production was moved South and overseas.
So a historical look at these numbers provides us a somewhat biased view of what's occuring today. Most newly unemployed today have little to no hope of being hired back by the same employer. Back in the 70s and very early 80s, it was pretty common practice.
"Does this take into account the rise in the self-employed since the 70s, who may not be counted in the numbers?"
Of course not. Otherwise the number would be closer to 20%
Black Star Ranch | 01.15.09 - 9:48 am | #
Right, but what I meant was - does this then make it comparable to the 70s/80s recession -- or perhaps worse?
picosec | 01.15.09 - 9:32 am | #
Two very good observations.
Exactly. Are we near a turn now and what would the tell tail signs be? That is the question.
dryfly | 01.15.09 - 9:59 am | #
How can this possibly turn around with an economy (& world) still debt-driven?
How can this possibly turn around with an economy (& world) still debt-driven?
Outsider | 01.15.09 - 10:10 am | #
IMHO, I don't think we can focus exclusively on long-run outcomes. In the short run, we could certainly see a modest "recovery" or at least a slower bleed even in this debt-driven economy. Remember, everyone is sinking at the same time right now - including export-economies not running exclusively on borrowed time.
Those of us who frequent this board seem pretty focused on long-run outcomes and taking the current problems we face today to their logical end. The very activity of focusing on long-run outcomes is contrarian in the sense that the majority of actors currently on stage (the masses) can't see three feet passed their noses.
In the short run, we could certainly see a modest "recovery" or at least a slower bleed even in this debt-driven economy.
I would think that would be a blip at best, due to unsustainability.
At some point, common sense can not be avoided.
I can't stand the CNBC bashing watch and learn as there is no better insite into the enemy's mind than CNBC.
there is no better insite into the enemy's mind than CNBC.
I've got some insight for ya...
ot so smart said: "I can't stand the CNBC bashing watch and learn as there is no better insight into the enemy's mind than CNBC."
Or my posts, which are, unaccountably, unwelcome here. Can you imagine a poker player who has zero interest in the cards that the other players are holding?
Even a numbskull like me at least knows and understands the bearish arguments.
S.
So you can be contrarian at any/all of these steps, but it doesn't mean you are one step ahead of anybody. Remember : it's Calvinball. The rules change, arbitrarily, and not for your benefit.
Would be nice to be a board member of the Fraudulent Reserve Banking System and get the inside tips on the latest angle they are planning to use to screw savers/taxpayers.
Unfortunately, you/I have no rich uncles to appoint us to said position, nor do any of our friends belong to the Illuminati clique. So at this point, strict contrarian investing is little better than a blind stab in the dark --and highly leveraged contrarian investing could get you royally screwed.
Thanks for normalizing the data. In some respects this recession is less severe than the 1980s slump. What has changed is the ability of the policymakers to withstand risk--this is the adverse result of too much "stabilization" (really unwarranted accommodation). They're panicking. And they're giving money to everyone but those who really need it, the involuntarily unemployed.
Sorry CR, but last week was STILL part of the Holiday season.
The surge to 650,000 has begun.
To clarify, the backlog isn't complete. Non-adjusted losses will fly above 1mill and the backlog will catch up to the adjustment thus leading to a upswing in the public number.
Same thing happened last year too. Happened in 1990-91 as well, which was a milder recession.
Here are some useful tips and answers for those who are unemployed with April 15 approaching: http://www.nextwave.org/finances/tax-questions-to-ask-if-you%E2%80%99re-unemployed/