Without federal intervention, unemployment would be near 16%

[ProSense]

Without federal intervention, unemployment would be near 16%



Republicans didn't lift a finger to help.

[Fumesucker]

1. Umm.. Unemployment *is* at about sixteen percent..

The "official" figures are cooked and everyone with a room temperature IQ knows it..

[panader0]

2. In today's Sunday paper (the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson)

the executive director of ACT, the Alliance of Construction Trades, a James Kuliesh says the figure for unemployment in local construction workers is 30%. ACT was at first against the Rosemont Mine project because of environmental issues. But now, ACT has decided to back the minein an effort to put some people back to work.
I lost my small general contractor business after two years with little or no work (after 16 years in business). 30% is about right from what I've seen around here. Damn! The only jobs around here are in the Border Patrol.
www.azstarnet.com

[gratuitous]

3. And if they'd listened to Romer and Stiglitz

And done a bigger stimulus package, unemployment could be down substantially further, instead of simply holding steady. Those "steady" numbers represent millions of working people still out of work, people who've simply given up, and millions more covering for them.

And the Republicans not only didn't lift a finger, they actively opposed spending money to put people to work. But they didn't have any problem at all spending two or three times that on the black holes of two illegal invasions and asset-sucking long-term occupations.

[Igel]

4. How do they know what unemployment would have been?

They have a model.

The model has assumptions so the model's only as good as the assumptions.

Rather than discuss the output of the model, the first thing to do is discuss the assumptions and how the model is constructed.

Note that the early estimates of job losses in '08 were based on a model. The model's assumptions were wrong.

The early predictions of how unemployment would trend in '09 were based on a model. The model's assumptions were wrong.

The predictions about how the economy would respond to the stimulus, where we would be now, were based on a model. The model's assumptions were wrong.

In fact, every time the model made a prediction that could be falsified, it's been falsified.

Still, we trust, implicitly, models that make non-falsifiable predictions. What unemployment would have been without the stimulus. Sorry, I see no great reason to trust the model or its assumptions. Not, at least, before a thorough discussion of them.

[MadHound]

5. The unemployment figures are running over sixteen percent right now,

Combined U3 and U6 numbers are well over sixteen percent. Not to mention the fact that the way unemployment is counted is little more than a shell game anyway.

[ProSense]

6. U6 is underemployment

not unemployment, and even those numbers would be higher. Do you think those numbers would have remained the same if the massive job losses had continued?

[EFerrari]

12. Job losses are continuing.

US jobless claims rise unexpectedly
Published 10:53 PM, 12 Aug 2010 Last update 2:22 AM, 13 Aug 2010
Reuters

WASHINGTON - The number of US workers filing new claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose last week to its highest level in close to six months, a fresh signal of a weak jobs market.

The number of new claims for jobless benefits rose 2,000 to 484,000 in the week ended August 7, the second straight increase, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Economists had expected claims to edge down to 469,000.

"This is not a good number," an analyst at MF Global in Chicago, John Brady said. "Claims are going the wrong way. That has the market concerned."

US stocks closed down for a third straight day, pressured by the data and a disappointing revenue forecast from tech bellwether Cisco Systems Inc.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-jobless-claims-unexpectedly-rise-in-latest-week-89GVA?opendocument&src=rss


Good grief.

[ProSense]

13. When was the last time the economy lost 850,000 jobs in a month? n/t

[MadHound]

14. No, actually it isn't.

Do you even bother to look things up before you post. Because if you had so bothered, you would have found the following definition of U6 at the BLS:

* U1 : Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2 : Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3 : Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
* U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5 : U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6 : U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

So, U6 is probably the best measure of true unemployment, and it is running over sixteen percent. Deal with reality, thanks.

[madrchsod]

7. it`s 16% now in many parts of the country

15-17% in parts of northern illinois and southern wisconsin.

a 16% across the country would be edging close to a full blown depression

[ProSense]

8. "a 16% across the country would be edging close to a full blown depression"

Do you doubt that was where losing 850,000 jobs per month was heading?

[LooseWilly]

9. I don't think anyone is saying things couldn't've been worse (except maybe the newly evicted)

What I keep hearing is that things could've been a lot better. Bailing out "homeowners" (maybe "mortgage holders" would be a more accurate term?) seems, based upon my model, likely to have been a hell of a lot more "stimulatory" to the economy. The mortgages would've been paid off, the banks would've had their money, AIG wouldn't've been facing the prospect of paying off the insurance on all the sub-prime derivatives that were threatening to implode... people who'd been subjected to predatory loans would've essentially won the "banking crisis lottery"... and all the cash that is currently being dumped into the Wall Street Sinkhole that is the lending agreements that these not-so-savvy consumers signed up for would suddenly be freed up for one big-ass-spending-spree (let's face it... these people would've been in the mood to celebrate and they're obviously pretty easily separated from their money)... all that spending would spike demand and suddenly corporations and small business alike would need to start hiring to produce and retail the crap these people would want... Local & state governments would start collecting sales taxes again. Teachers and fire fighters and police and regulators wouldn't need to be furloughed/fired.

The "middle class" outrage (let's face it, it's really mostly the wealthy that didn't need to rely on sub-prime lending... at least here in CA, with our absurd real estate prices)... would sustain a call for regulation of the lending industry—"So that something like this can never happen again!" (Let's be honest, wealthy people always take it personally when the poor, and especially the poor-of-color, get anything from the government... so Obama could've used that rage, linked it to the TeaBagger rage, and let someone who needs a little "charisma enhancement", like Harry Reid for instance, take the initiative to "pass a law" to make sure such a thing could never happen again.)

As far as I can see... aside from all the people who can afford to buy a house (or several houses) being pissed off that the government paid off houses for others... this would've been a far better solution... and it wouldn't've required a stimulus bill to go with a financial bail-out. Hell, a lot of those people would probably have used the money to buy a car too... saving GM and maybe even Chrysler.

Hmm... wasn't that Kucinich's proposal?

And yes, obviously Republicans don't give a damn beyond Wall St. and corporate board rooms...

[Scurrilous]

10. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[LostInAnomie]

11. That's going to fall on deaf ears around here.

Haven't you heard, Obama can't do anything right.