Thread: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

the fundamentals of this country's economy are strong.

Are you out of your mind?

Currently, 10% of all mortgages are for more than the underlying asset is worth (it was more than 1/3 when JM made the statement).

When John McCain made that comment, shadow banks were breaking the buck.

Narrow view doesn't begin to describe your take.

It amazes me that the same people have the same argument every month when the job report comes out lol

Originally Posted by ludin

no you still don't get it.

in the U3 number if you are not looking for work or are a discouraged worker and haven't looked for work in 4 weeks you are not counted.

They are counted....where'd you get the idea thery're not? They're not classified as Unemployed, though because Unemployed has always been defined as not working but looking for work (unless on temporary layoff waiting to go back to your old job). In 1967 the time limit of 4 weeks and requirement to actually be available to work.

even though he is unemployed the U3 number does not count him as unemployed.

No, they're NOT unemployed because they're not trying to work. That's the definition of the term. You can't just change it willy-nilly.

DA60 is correct. if everyone stopped looking for work according to the U3 number unemployment would be 0% even though they are still unemployed.

No, if everyone stopped looking for work there would be zero unemployed, because job search is part of the definition!

that is why the U3 number is a joke. the U5 and U6 numbers give a much better picture of the unemployment rate than the U3 does.

What are you trying to measure? If you want to know about long term unemployment, the U1 is best.
For Involuntary Unemployment: the U2
If you want to measure how hard it is to get a job, the U3 does that best.
If you want to know about people who might be available if they think they have a chance alongside those actually trying, then the U4 is best.
U5 is how much potentially available labor is not being used.
And U6 is how much potentially availalble labor is not being used to its fullest.

The U3 is best at measuring actual current labor market conditions.
The U5 and U6 are better at measuring potential.

But out of curiousity....If someone looked for work in March/April and did not get a job by mid/April, that tells me it was difficult for him/her to get a job, and the more people that's true for, the worse the labor market is.

But if someone last looked for work last August, that tells me nothing at all about how hard it is to get a job in April.

So why do you think including people who had a zero percent chance of getting a job tells you more about how hard it is to get a job? Y

es, I know some of them did have a chance if an application they had put in months before was finally seen, but since that cannot be measured, we have to go with the snapshot of each month.

Originally Posted by ludin

then you can't use it for political distortions.

Agreed, and hence why it'll never be. What would the politicians do if they couldn't use this to turn the electorate against each other?

Originally Posted by Chomsky

Perhaps.

But markets only work efficiently when well-regulated.

This isn't as easy as, "Free everything, and let what may, happen". (not saying you claimed this)

And the subject of regulation is where much of the debate lies.

If by "well-regulated" you mean as little as possible, then I agree wholeheartedly. But what many people ignore is the source and main beneficiaries of much of the regulation forced on business, namely big business. Big business tells Congress or their state/local governments that regulation is important to protect the safety of customers and integrity of business. That's how we end up with medallions for taxi cabs costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, license requirements to teach someone how to braid hair or give a horse a massage, regulations forbidding having employees if you run a home business, or price-fixing schemes for limousine companies. These are just a few real-world examples off the top of my head that were passed in the name of protecting the customer, but in reality only protect the incumbent businesses. For every example I can think of, there are a thousand that I missed.

Originally Posted by Kushinator

Are you out of your mind?

Currently, 10% of all mortgages are for more than the underlying asset is worth (it was more than 1/3 when JM made the statement).

When John McCain made that comment, shadow banks were breaking the buck.

Narrow view doesn't begin to describe your take.

So? What does that have to do with what I posted?

Originally Posted by Visbek

Or, you're willfully ignoring the evidence.

The simplified version of the very complex facts is: If Bush 43, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama and others had done nothing, there is little doubt we'd be in far worse shape today. The economy as a whole and unemployment would've hit a deeper trough, and specifically the auto industry would be decimated. Lots of people from a variety of political persuasions get partial credit both for causing the crisis, and helping the recovery. That includes Obama, who in particular was instrumental in helping the auto industry.

You should also keep in mind that we are in a consumer economy. The more people unemployed, and for longer time, has longer-term effects. Companies pull back on manufacturing and inventories, because people are buying less; this in turn causes them to reduce staff. More staff reductions mean yet more reductions in manufacturing, inventory, and thus staff; it's a vicious cycle. A stimulus can help blunt the worst effects of a recession. This, in turn, helps explain some of what we see in employment figures.



lol... Yes, Bush 43 gave them a $13bn loan from TARP, he gets some credit. The total loan amount was around $80bn; the restructuring also obviously took place during, and was largely designed by, the Obama administration.

Saving auto industry jobs is definitely saving private sector jobs; getting people back to work faster helped the economy recover faster. Expand your horizons.



Sorry, but that's a bit absurd. An economy with strong fundamentals can still be crippled by a financial crisis; if the damage hadn't been stopped, at a minimum unemployment would be much worse.



It was -- in part. His policies were one of many factors that allowed the bubble to get so big. Part and parcel of that is that the bubble drove down unemployment for a few years. It's not a good way to lower unemployment rates, and he definitely wasn't solely responsible, but yes his policies had an effect on employment rates.

If they had all done nothing, the economy would be in worse shape. Great. I agree.

Now what does that have to do with specific policies that were implemented by Barack Obama that are responsible for creating private sector jobs and lowering the unemployment rate?

Originally Posted by disneydude

Not really. A pool of hungry workers willing to work for peanuts is exactly what the wealthy want.

Source, please? And when you say the wealthy, I assume you're including all of the wealthy Democrats, too...right?