Increasing Unemployment = Recovery?

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Jul 8, 2009
6,517
1,370
48
OH
Is this the newest form of doublespeak?

How the hell does increasing unemployment demonstrate a recovery? Is anyone seriously believing this?

Are we so desperate for a recovery that we're going to actively repress our reason and logic to make-believe it true?
 
Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery. The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001, but the economy continued to shed jobs for 22 more months.

After the 1991 recession ended, the economy continued to shed jobs for 12 months.

If we peg this recession as ending in June or July of 2009 (which GDP data indicates), the economy continued to shed jobs for 6 months.
 
Is this the newest form of doublespeak?

How the hell does increasing unemployment demonstrate a recovery? Is anyone seriously believing this?

Are we so desperate for a recovery that we're going to actively repress our reason and logic to make-believe it true?

Unemployment can increase either by people losing/quitting their job and looking for a new one, OR by people who hadn't been working or looking deciding to start looking. For August, the increase in Unemployment comes from people who hadn't been working or trying to work deciding to start looking. That's a good thing. At the same time, more people found work as well. So the rate went up, but BOTH Eployment and Unemployment went up, and the Unemployment came not from people losing their jobs, but starting to look for work.
 
Is this the newest form of doublespeak?

How the hell does increasing unemployment demonstrate a recovery? Is anyone seriously believing this?

Are we so desperate for a recovery that we're going to actively repress our reason and logic to make-believe it true?

Not only that, borrowing will lower debt!
Yes, it's true!
 
For August, the increase in Unemployment comes from people who hadn't been working or trying to work deciding to start looking.
No it did not. The labor force participation rate was unchanged in August:

Employment Situation Summary

In August, the civilian labor force participation rate (64.7 percent) and the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

Unemployment increased, while the size of the labor force remained unchanged, according to the government.
 
And the fact is that employment lagged much more dramatically in previous recessions.
The fact is, according to the government, unemployment is increasing while labor force participation remains unchanged.
 
For August, the increase in Unemployment comes from people who hadn't been working or trying to work deciding to start looking.
No it did not. The labor force participation rate was unchanged in August:

Employment Situation Summary

In August, the civilian labor force participation rate (64.7 percent) and the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)
"Essentially Unchanged" does not mean "no change at all." The participation rate went slightly up from 64.6% to 64.7% and the employment-population rate went slightly up from 58.4% to 58.5%. Neither is a large change and both are within the margin of error, but then so was the employment change and unemployment change. There were no statistically significant changes in any of the labor force numbers. Read the table: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Unemployment increased, while the size of the labor force remained unchanged, according to the government.
No, according to BLS, there was a small increase in employment, unemployment, the UE rate, the labor force participation rate, the employment-population rate, and a small decrease in Not in the Labor Force. None were significantly different from zero. You can't pick and choose which to say are increases/decreases and which to say stayed the same.
 
Last edited:
And the fact is that employment lagged much more dramatically in previous recessions.
The fact is, according to the government, unemployment is increasing while labor force participation remains unchanged.


Yes indeed. And the fact is that the total number of jobs in the economy began a sustained increases in Jauary of this year, approximately 6 months after the expected end of the recession.

That is six months sooner than sustained job creation started after the 1991 recession and 16 months sooner than sustained job creation started after the 2001 recession. The big difference is that:

1. we have to climb out of a deeper hole this time.

2. we started climbing much sooner than in previous recessions.
 
So all of my NYC real estate people just don't know a recovery when they see one that has to be it.

Nothing else fits the facts
 
Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery. The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001, but the economy continued to shed jobs for 22 more months.

After the 1991 recession ended, the economy continued to shed jobs for 12 months.

If we peg this recession as ending in June or July of 2009 (which GDP data indicates), the economy continued to shed jobs for 6 months.

Some economists are suggesting this will be a double dip recession, which would indicate the recession has not ended. Jobs are still being shed to this day. In fact, since you like using that phrase, unemployment is happening at an increased pace.

Ideas to create a recovery:

1. Eliminate Obamacare and replace it with interstate competition for policies.
2. Reduce tax on small businesses.
3. Stabilize the housing market with a program that reduces principle balances for those who can qualify to make payments at the reduced amounts.
4. Aggressively eliminate housing stock that is substandard.
5. Reduce federal spending and apply any surplus to the deficit.
 
I take it back..the labor force change was significantly different from zero. The official change was +550,000 and at a 90% confidence rate that's plus or minus 373,627 so the actual change was somewhere between + 176,373 and +923,627.
The labor force participation and employment to population ratios were not statistically significant.
 
Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery. The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001, but the economy continued to shed jobs for 22 more months.

After the 1991 recession ended, the economy continued to shed jobs for 12 months.

If we peg this recession as ending in June or July of 2009 (which GDP data indicates), the economy continued to shed jobs for 6 months.

Some economists are suggesting this will be a double dip recession, which would indicate the recession has not ended. Jobs are still being shed to this day. In fact, since you like using that phrase, unemployment is happening at an increased pace.

Ideas to create a recovery:

1. Eliminate Obamacare and replace it with interstate competition for policies.
2. Reduce tax on small businesses.
3. Stabilize the housing market with a program that reduces principle balances for those who can qualify to make payments at the reduced amounts.
4. Aggressively eliminate housing stock that is substandard.
5. Reduce federal spending and apply any surplus to the deficit.

Saveliberty for President!
 
Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery. The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001, but the economy continued to shed jobs for 22 more months.

After the 1991 recession ended, the economy continued to shed jobs for 12 months.

If we peg this recession as ending in June or July of 2009 (which GDP data indicates), the economy continued to shed jobs for 6 months.

Some economists are suggesting this will be a double dip recession, which would indicate the recession has not ended.

No, it doesn't suggest that. It suggest that we will experience two back-to-back recessions in a short period of time ala 1980-81 and a double dip in 1982.

Jobs are still being shed to this day.

The private sector has added jobs for 6 straight months.

1
. Eliminate Obamacare and replace it with interstate competition for policies.

I don't want to compete with the regulatory environment of Alabama for my health care in VT. I like the fact that states can write their own rules, ala federalism.

2. Reduce tax on small businesses.

The stimulus bill did this.

3. Stabilize the housing market with a program that reduces principle balances for those who can qualify to make payments at the reduced amounts.

I honestly don't think either party can stomach forcing a haircut on the people who wrote the loans to benefit the people who took those loans.

4. Aggressively eliminate housing stock that is substandard.

That's an interesting idea. It would require aggressive federal funding, making number five more difficult.
5. Reduce federal spending and apply any surplus to the deficit.

[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't recommend cutting government spending during a recession. Many states have done this and it's done nothing but create massive layoffs.
 
Of course it increases the average income and profit margins and efficiencies.

Noast layoffs impact the workers not the higher paid execs and such. Hence the average income goes up.
 
Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery. The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001, but the economy continued to shed jobs for 22 more months.

After the 1991 recession ended, the economy continued to shed jobs for 12 months.

If we peg this recession as ending in June or July of 2009 (which GDP data indicates), the economy continued to shed jobs for 6 months.

Some economists are suggesting this will be a double dip recession, which would indicate the recession has not ended.

No, it doesn't suggest that. It suggest that we will experience two back-to-back recessions in a short period of time ala 1980-81 and a double dip in 1982.



The private sector has added jobs for 6 straight months.

1

I don't want to compete with the regulatory environment of Alabama for my health care in VT. I like the fact that states can write their own rules, ala federalism.



The stimulus bill did this.



I honestly don't think either party can stomach forcing a haircut on the people who wrote the loans to benefit the people who took those loans.

4. Aggressively eliminate housing stock that is substandard.

That's an interesting idea. It would require aggressive federal funding, making number five more difficult.
5. Reduce federal spending and apply any surplus to the deficit.

I wouldn't recommend cutting government spending during a recession. Many states have done this and it's done nothing but create massive layoffs.[/QUOTE]

Memo: Keyesian economics is a fail. 2/1991 You didn't get it did you?
 
Memo: Keyesian economics is a fail. 2/1991 You didn't get it did you?

Indeed, Alan Keyes economic plan is pure shit fail.

or perhaps you meant Keynesian. Tell me, saveliberty, how is Keynesian economics a failure? Some specifics would be helpful.

Yep typo. Keynesian. You might want to read up on Milton Friedman, Keynesian turned opponent.

He theorized there existed a "natural rate of unemployment" and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and change their behavior to neutralize such policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies then existing would cause "stagflation" (high inflation and minimal growth).[4] Friedman's claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective during depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to decrease mass unemployment.

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Forum List

Back
Top