Unemployment getting close to Depression figures when comparing apples to apples

[Maple]

Those people who have been unemployed for over a year are not counted. Many have given up looking for a job because there are none to be had. Alot of these people unemployment benefits have ran out.

I have talked to many new college graduates, many who are engineers that can't find any employment. It is very sad.

I can't help to think that if the stimulus bill that was passed was really a stimulus bill that we would have been seeing a strong turn in the right direction on unemployment. Unfortunately that stimulus bill was anything but a stimulus. It was nothing more than a pork barrel spending bill. Had the feds just limited their outrageous spending did across the board tax cuts, you would be seeing job growth by now and not job losses.

One thing that made me sick in my own state of Colorado was that they are going to spend 5 million from this stimulus bill to re-pave a BIKE trail that runs along a highway out in Denver. This will temorarily employ 6- 10 men. They were proud of this number when they announced their plan, it's ridiculous. THAT MEANS THAT EACH OF THESE TEMPORARY JOBS COST $500,000 of tax payer dollars. It won't stimulate anything and it certainly does not create a long term employment situation for anybody. Besides that, we don't need that trail re-paved, it's a bike trail for crimany sakes. Ride on the dirt!!!!!.

The liberal democrats are now in full control of this country and it's policies, they even have enough senators to block a filibuster. It's a sad thing, spending is totally out of control Common sense does not prevail.

The good news, they have enough rope that they will hang themselves, there is no one else to blame, then we turn hard right, first in the 2010 elections and then the 2012. In 2012 Obama will be toast and so burnt that your local ice cream man will be able to run against him and win.

 

[pinqy]

Those people who have been unemployed for over a year are not counted.

Go up to my post...there are links to the definitions. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED! The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not you're looking. Here, I'll save you time,

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Technical Note for the CPS

So where are you getting the idea that people who have been out of work over a year aren't counted?

Many have given up looking for a job because there are none to be had.

That's subjective, which is one reason why people who are not looking aren't counted. The other being that people who aren't looking aren't a good measure about how hard it is to actually get a job, because there is zero chance they will get one. They are counted seperately, however, and can be found in Table A-13 of the Employment Situation report (Tomorrow at 8:30 is the release for June data).

I have talked to many new college graduates, many who are engineers that can't find any employment. It is very sad.

It is sad, but is that reason to spread falsehoods about unemployment?

 

[rhodescholar]

I am interested in Obama's plan for illegal immigrants, if the numbers are correct there is about 10 million illegals in the US today. That number may be skewed the number of illegals may be higher closer to 15 mill to 20 mill. If Obama embraces citzenship for illegals our unemployment numbers will skyrocket because those indiviuals would now be legal and would have to compete against the rest of us for work, that is if companies stop the under the table practices which they would not because again it is a numbers game cheap labor is sought after. interesting to me since I heard him talk of immigration reform last week yet he did not give any specifics as usual.

This is an issue I don't agree with the Dems on, but I see where they are coming from at least.

The GOP wants the status quo. That's how they keep wages down. And they love the free healthcare we give illegals now, because they as employers don't have to pay. The tax payers pay. And we pay more this way because they go to the emergency room.

If they are documented, then the USA gets taxes from their labor and we know who they are when they go to the emergency room. Or if they get a driving ticket, they now have a record.

The status quo has to go. If you guys want to throw out all the illegals, I'm with you. That will bring wages up big time.....

And thats when right wingers shit their pants.

I am a conservative, and this post is outstanding. No true conservative would disagree with you. There are some false rightwingers out there, and they want the cheap labor.

This country is about shared commitment, concern for my fellow americans, and teamwork - we are all in this together. Even H Ford knew that for the economy to function properly, workers needed good wages - and all shitholes like Walmart have done is hurt the country in so many ways.

I almost wish I could hire some muslims to suicide bomb walmart's HQ...

 

[Toro]

I almost wish I could hire some muslims to suicide bomb walmart's HQ...

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Maple]

this stimulus bill. The states are getting billions more dollars just to keep track of this money. RIDICULOUS!!!!! We have an idiot liberal governor out here. Tell me there is not going to be massive fraud with this money, pleeeeease.

IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH. INSANITY IS UPON US.



Feds shake loose fast cash for states to track stimulus dollars
By John Tomasic 5/15/09 1:45 PM
That was fast.

Faced with complaints that states didn’t have the resources to properly track federal stimulus dollars, the feds have released more funds for states to hire accountants and auditors and set up offices and websites.


According to the AP, Colorado will likely receive $7 billion in stimulus money and can now use some of that to properly track stimulus spending and projects.

“We are glad that the federal government has responded to our concerns and clarified a way to plan and budget for our costs to appropriately track the Recovery Act funds,” Myung Oak Kim, communications manager for Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s economic recovery team, told the AP.

Threatened with losing stimulus money for not spending it fast enough and not tracking it sufficiently, Colorado officials told the Wisconsin State Journal two weeks ago that they had no money even for a website or a publicist. A spokesperson for Gov. Ritter then said the governor’s office had no handle on the costs of allocating stimulus money and suggested the state may be incurring debt in simply attempting to spend it.

Print Subscribe to RSS

 

[Maple]

Pingy, thank you for your post it was very informative, although the criteria that you post is correct, it still does not answer the true numer of unemployed. You can count them any way you want to , but there are many that I know that have simply given up looking for work and they are still unemployed.

Pingy with my job, I talk to people, hard working people of every different background and education levels on a daily basis. I can tell you that it's bad out here, it's worse than anything I have ever seen in all my years. For one teaching position in our local district there were over 200 applicants. For one opening at a 7-11 store there were over a 1,000 applicants. Many of the job fairs done at our local colleges have been cancelled because they have no jobs to offer. Now you can site your numbers if it makes you feel better, but I have the testimony from these people and they are completely discouraged and disallusioned and it's defintely not a pretty sight.

 

[Toro]

Maple

I think we all know that it is bad out there. But the argument is that it is as bad as the Great Depression.

It is not.

 

[rhodescholar]

I almost wish I could hire some muslims to suicide bomb walmart's HQ...

Wow. Just wow.

I would just be killing 2 birds with one stone (or bomb)

 

[sealybobo]

I am interested in Obama's plan for illegal immigrants, if the numbers are correct there is about 10 million illegals in the US today. That number may be skewed the number of illegals may be higher closer to 15 mill to 20 mill. If Obama embraces citzenship for illegals our unemployment numbers will skyrocket because those indiviuals would now be legal and would have to compete against the rest of us for work, that is if companies stop the under the table practices which they would not because again it is a numbers game cheap labor is sought after. interesting to me since I heard him talk of immigration reform last week yet he did not give any specifics as usual.

This is an issue I don't agree with the Dems on, but I see where they are coming from at least.

The GOP wants the status quo. That's how they keep wages down. And they love the free healthcare we give illegals now, because they as employers don't have to pay. The tax payers pay. And we pay more this way because they go to the emergency room.

If they are documented, then the USA gets taxes from their labor and we know who they are when they go to the emergency room. Or if they get a driving ticket, they now have a record.

The status quo has to go. If you guys want to throw out all the illegals, I'm with you. That will bring wages up big time.....

And thats when right wingers shit their pants.

I am a conservative, and this post is outstanding. No true conservative would disagree with you. There are some false rightwingers out there, and they want the cheap labor.

This country is about shared commitment, concern for my fellow americans, and teamwork - we are all in this together. Even H Ford knew that for the economy to function properly, workers needed good wages - and all shitholes like Walmart have done is hurt the country in so many ways.

I almost wish I could hire some muslims to suicide bomb walmart's HQ...

Thanks Rhode. I bet you got about 20 negative reps for saying that to me.

Now I want to see the righties here argue with you for saying exactly what I feel. Will they call you the 2nd dumbest guy on USMB?

 

[sealybobo]

I almost wish I could hire some muslims to suicide bomb walmart's HQ...

Wow. Just wow.

I would just be killing 2 birds with one stone (or bomb)

Bill Press was talking about France banning the Burka. He agrees with France. After hearing the pro's and con's, I'd like to ban the Burka here too.

For one, we think men are forcing women to wear them.

2, can hide a suicide bomb or your face. Can't wear a ski mask in a bank or to court, can you?

3. This is America, you come here, you assimilate. Creeps us out. Stop it. Wear them in Saudi Arabia, not here.

4. Yea you should be free to wear whatever you want, but come on. We have laws that say you can't wear a bra and panties in public, but you can wear a bathing suit. Don't think it is unconstitutional, but I'm sure some could argue that it is.

I can guess what you think.

 

[sealybobo]

Maple

I think we all know that it is bad out there. But the argument is that it is as bad as the Great Depression.

It is not.

In a lot of ways it is. Look at how much the bankers have taken to "bail themselves out". I don't want to beat a dead horse, but remember the $9 trillion they loaned out in the last 8 months thing I keep posting? 5 million people lost their homes. Yadayada. Sure you can make an argument that its not as bad, but many indicators at least suggest that its the 2nd worse.

And GW kept fudging the numbers to say he never had a recession. Remember the $300 or $600 stimulus him and Pelosi gave us last year? Without that spending, GDP and all, we officially have been in a very very long depression.

And when things were good for corporations in 2004-2007, things were not good for many Americans. Many Americans started losing their jobs, but you pointed to corporate profits and said, "look, things are good".

But labor was falling behind. Costs were going up, home values and 401K's going down, and people were making less when Bush and the Corporations were looting the treasury. We don't even know the real unemployment numbers. If they aren't collecting unemployment, we don't count them. And don't forget the underemployed.

This is an important point in American history. Either our politicians put us first and corporations second, or visa versa. If we allow Dems to do exactly what Republicans did and put corporations over us, then America will NEVER be the same again. Democratic politicians want to see what we will let them get away with.

Right now the corporations are winning because guys like you give them cover.

 

[Maple]

I don't know where you get your information, things may not be as bad as the depression, I have read the " Forgotten Man," and yes it was a horrible time in history. I do know that the unemployment figures do not represent all those that are unemployed and simply given up.


We were not worse off under President Bush, Bush had 9-11 to deal with and passed across the board tax cuts and put millions back to work. By the way, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, lets not forget that.

I know an attorney who was laid off and now is delivering pizzas and a mechanical engineer who is mowing yards for a living, something I have never seen before.

 

[editec]

Williams is simply wrong, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is that the composition of the labor market has changed.

This data only goes back to WWII, but as you can see, the percentage of the employable population that is employed is far higher now than it was in the 1940s

If you were to extend this data back to the 1930s, the ratio would have been either the same or lower than it was in the 1940s.

The reason why the percentage has risen so much is because women entered the workforce. When comparing unemployment during the Depression, women would not have been included in the workforce data when calculating unemployment because they weren't in the workforce.

Thus, Williams is correct in that we are comparing apples to oranges, but not in the manner he suggests. If you adjusted for all the women who were not working during the Depression, the unemployment would have been far higher than 25%. Thus, making the comparison of today to the 1930s is a specious comparison.

BTW, I've seen two signs at fast food places looking to hire people over the past few weeks. You can get jobs if you are not picky, at least where I live. That wasn't the case in the Depression.

Wrong perhaps he was but doesn't that actually make it worse?

It takes TWO incomes for most families to make it, now.

It did not take two incomes in 1929.

And, while I don't have the numbers to prove it, I suspect that married couples often work at roughly the same level of employment.

So, if, as I also suspect, the unemployment is hitting some classes of employees much worse than others, then in some cases (far too many cases) some families are facing DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT problems.

I do NOT think we're at the level of employment problems were were at in 1930.

But I do think our real rate of unemployment (especially if we include underemployment into the equsion in some fair way) puts ud near the rate of 20% that somebody just posited as the real rate of unemployment.

If somebody has a degree and they're working at a big box until they can get a job that is never going to happen (and that describes millions of kids with college degrees now) they are basically UNemployed.

It's getting might ugly down here in the working classes trenches.

I think it's already worse than the recession of the early 80s, employment-wise.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't know where you get your information, things may not be as bad as the depression, I have read the " Forgotten Man," and yes it was a horrible time in history. I do know that the unemployment figures do not represent all those that are unemployed and simply given up.


We were not worse off under President Bush, Bush had 9-11 to deal with and passed across the board tax cuts and put millions back to work. By the way, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, lets not forget that.

I know an attorney who was laid off and now is delivering pizzas and a mechanical engineer who is mowing yards for a living, something I have never seen before.

First off, if you use the GOP's fuzzy math, Clinton probably didn't have a recession. 3 consecutive quarters of decline on his watch? 2ndly, the dot com boom wasn't due to his policies. 3rdly, any policies you blame him for like NAFTA or deregulations, came from guys like Newt or Lindsay Graham. So if you fault Clinton, fault the GOP Congress that he worked so well with. He was a sellout, not a flaming liberal like you probably thought.

We were worse off in 2008 than we were in 1999.

The laws and policies the GOP put into place after 9-11 are more responsible for the recession we are in now than 9-11 itself.

Corporate profits were thru the roof 2005-07. What happened? So if Bush got us out of Clinton's recession, what caused the latest bust? Deregulations, tax breaks for companies to go overseas, rich people not paying their fair share and of course invading Iraq.

You lose on Iraq alone buddy. $10 billion a month x 6 years for a Bush mistake. They lied us in, so don't even try to say Hillary signed on too. That's just a lame excuse.

And where did the money go? Record profits the last few years? Mortgage industry made billions of dollars. Bankers made trillions of dollars. You really think the bankers needed $9 trillion dollars in order to fix the economy? They were the ones that made all the profits. But once it is their own personal money, you don't count that anymore. You think they deserve the money because they earned it. Well I say they stole it. But now the bank vaults are empty. The rich took their money to the caymens and arab emerits and switzerland. So the Federal Reserve (bankers) have to print more money and give it to the banks so they can pass their stress tests. Because the money is gone. They took it. But you bail them out.

What information have I given that are you doubting.

 

[Toro]

I don't know where you get your information, things may not be as bad as the depression, I have read the " Forgotten Man," and yes it was a horrible time in history. I do know that the unemployment figures do not represent all those that are unemployed and simply given up.


We were not worse off under President Bush, Bush had 9-11 to deal with and passed across the board tax cuts and put millions back to work. By the way, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, lets not forget that.

I know an attorney who was laid off and now is delivering pizzas and a mechanical engineer who is mowing yards for a living, something I have never seen before.

Well, then you haven't been living long enough. Or at least out in the workforce in the right areas.

I came into the labor force in the early-90s. After working for a year in England, I returned to Canada and couldn't find a job as a waiter, let alone in finance in which I had an honors degree. If you wanted a job as a waiter then, you needed at least two years experience, and then you were up against hundreds of applicants. I wound up scrounging a living first in telemarketing then working night audit for over a year. I lived off half a sandwich a day and drove a car that could barely make it up hills and had no floorboards left on the drivers side, which meant I'd get soaked driving over puddles. After the collapse in the tech bubble in 2000, Harvard MBAs in the Bay area who were execs in dotcoms were working at Starbucks. In the early 80s, it was even worse, I am told. So what you are describing is not unprecedented.

BTW, if you are focusing on Bush/Obama/Clinton comparisons, you will not understand what is happening.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't know where you get your information, things may not be as bad as the depression, I have read the " Forgotten Man," and yes it was a horrible time in history. I do know that the unemployment figures do not represent all those that are unemployed and simply given up.


We were not worse off under President Bush, Bush had 9-11 to deal with and passed across the board tax cuts and put millions back to work. By the way, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, lets not forget that.

I know an attorney who was laid off and now is delivering pizzas and a mechanical engineer who is mowing yards for a living, something I have never seen before.

Well, then you haven't been living long enough. Or at least out in the workforce in the right areas.

I came into the labor force in the early-90s. After working for a year in England, I returned to Canada and couldn't find a job as a waiter, let alone in finance in which I had an honors degree. If you wanted a job as a waiter then, you needed at least two years experience, and then you were up against hundreds of applicants. I wound up scrounging a living first in telemarketing then working night audit for over a year. I lived off half a sandwich a day and drove a car that could barely make it up hills and had no floorboards left on the drivers side, which meant I'd get soaked driving over puddles. After the collapse in the tech bubble in 2000, Harvard MBAs in the Bay area who were execs in dotcoms were working at Starbucks. In the early 80s, it was even worse, I am told. So what you are describing is not unprecedented.

BTW, if you are focusing on Bush/Obama/Clinton comparisons, you will not understand what is happening.

So true. People don't realize I worked as an enrollment couselor during Bush's early years. From around 2002 to 2005 so I heard stories like yours all the time.

And I knew it was happening in more places than just Michigan.

 

[driveby]

Can any Obamabot tell me one thing the President has done to IMPROVE the economy ?

 

[sealybobo]

Can any Obamabot tell me one thing the President has done to IMPROVE the economy ?

Patients my friend. We just got 60 votes so now they won't have any excuses.

2. The economic stimulus bill has helped. It even gives tax breaks to business'.

3. He has closed loopholes that give offshore tax loopholes to the rich. We need that money. It plays into the economy.

4. He has cut some wasteful spending, which also plays inton "the economy".

5. He did not end the Bush tax breaks to the rich to cause them to freak out.

6. He is working with companies on keeping/bringing jobs back home.

7. Saved millions of jobs by bailing out GM.

8. Has put oversite into the TARP program so the bankers aren't just stealing the money like they did under Bush/Paulson.

9. Consumer confidence went up. No one had confidence in Bush.

But I agree, he has not done nearly enough yet.

What did Bush do for the economy besides tax breaks, and why didn't any of it work?

 

[pinqy]

It takes TWO incomes for most families to make it, now.

It did not take two incomes in 1929.

Well, if you wanted to live at the standard of living of 1929 with all the things they had (and without the things they didn't have) most families could easily get by on one income. But few couples would want to do that. And at the same time, there are many dual-income families that would in reality be better off on one income. If the expenses of child-care, transportation, lunches at work, extra cost of food at home from buying quicker-to-prepare foods etc is factored in, the secondary earners salary often doesn't make up the difference or is very close. For my family, it's only marginally better for my wife to work and there wouldn't be any hardship if she quit.

And, while I don't have the numbers to prove it, I suspect that married couples often work at roughly the same level of employment.

The latest numbers I could find are from 2006, but the median contribution to family income by wives then was 35.6% (compared to 26.6% in 1970)

So, if, as I also suspect, the unemployment is hitting some classes of employees much worse than others, then in some cases (far too many cases) some families are facing DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT problems.

Oh, I'm sure. Again in 2006, for married couple familes 13.7% had nobody earning an income. I'm sure it's much worse now.

But I do think our real rate of unemployment (especially if we include underemployment into the equsion in some fair way) puts ud near the rate of 20% that somebody just posited as the real rate of unemployment.

There's no such thing as "real rate of unemployment." The rate is based on whatever definition you're using. The official rate is based on the idea of how relatively easy or difficult it is to find a job for people actively looking for one. That's really the most objective measure because it's based solely on what people are doing, and how successful they are, versus how people feel they would or could do. Including "underemployment" is methodologically difficult to get any meaningful information...too many cases where you're classifying on person as employed and another person, who works more hours, as unemployed. And again it's very subjective because it's based on what someone wants, or what they think.

If somebody has a degree and they're working at a big box until they can get a job that is never going to happen (and that describes millions of kids with college degrees now) they are basically UNemployed.

From a personal perspective, perhaps, but not from a practical perspective. Do you realize how hard it would be to have any meaningful numbers if you have two people working the same job, for the same hours, for the same pay, yet you're classifying one as employed and the other as unemployed? And even if you could do it, does it really make sense? The numbers are to try to measure what's happening, not what people feel their position should ideally be.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know where you get your information, things may not be as bad as the depression, I have read the " Forgotten Man," and yes it was a horrible time in history. I do know that the unemployment figures do not represent all those that are unemployed and simply given up.


We were not worse off under President Bush, Bush had 9-11 to deal with and passed across the board tax cuts and put millions back to work. By the way, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, lets not forget that.

I know an attorney who was laid off and now is delivering pizzas and a mechanical engineer who is mowing yards for a living, something I have never seen before.

I doubt that attorney was being completely truthful. Even if a lawyer gets disbarred, s/he can always work as a paralegal doing research or even deposition summaries. They are constantly in demand no matter what the economy looks like.