Unemployment: How bad is "bad?"

[DavidS]

Unemployment: How bad is "bad?"

 

[editec]

100% is very bad.

Anything higher than that is truly catastropic because that means the Zombies are unemployed.

 

[xotoxi]

100% is very bad.

Anything higher than that is truly catastropic because that means the Zombies are unemployed.

Actually, don't you want all the zombies to be unemployed?

Can you imagine is zombies worked as chefs in restaurants?

You order minestrone and you end up with rotten beef stew.

 

[oreo]

We consider 4.5% unemployment in this country "full" employment figures, meaning the economy is cooking right along.

Right now California has over 10% unemployment & Detroit, MI is at 11.6% unemployment. That's bad.

The last great recession during the Carter years measured 10% unemployment. We have not seen this since then. It's very worrisome. During the Great Depression of the 30's unemployment measured at a whopping 28%. Along with that add that our financial stock market is collapsing--the lowest level in 12 years. Retirements & savings are getting wiped out along with savings for the kids college educations.

I really don't know what turns this around--but I am very skeptical that all these bail-outs & government spending is the solution.

 

[editec]

If everyone who used to have two jobs, just to keep going, lost both jobs, would we have 200% unemployment?

 

[auditor0007]

We consider 4.5% unemployment in this country "full" employment figures, meaning the economy is cooking right along.

Right now California has over 10% unemployment & Detroit, MI is at 11.6% unemployment. That's bad.

The last great recession during the Carter years measured 10% unemployment. We have not seen this since then. It's very worrisome. During the Great Depression of the 30's unemployment measured at a whopping 28%. Along with that add that our financial stock market is collapsing--the lowest level in 12 years. Retirements & savings are getting wiped out along with savings for the kids college educations.

I really don't know what turns this around--but I am very skeptical that all these bail-outs & government spending is the solution.

There is no single action that will turn this around. We over-borrowed, and now we are paying the price. When I say we, I mean everyone in general, us as a society. People borrowed too much to buy the homes they live in, they borrowed too much to fill those homes with furniture and nice toys, they borrowed too much for the cars they drive in. At the same time, our government also borrowed too much.

The economy will turn around, but it's going to take at least five years, maybe ten. That doesn't mean it will continue to collapse, but it is going to level off. This is the great L curve recession versus the V or U. Many people will lose everything they have. The rest will hang on tight and will pay down their debt as they begin to save money. No one will be spending extra money. As savings rates increase and people actually begin to have money saved, then they will feel more comfortable spending that money. When we reach that point, then we will see real growth in the economy again, but not until then.

What bothers me is that is what our government should be doing also, biting the bullet by cutting spending. But instead, they are taking the opposite route, borrowing even more, which is why we are here in the first place. This will most likely help out a bit in the short term, but it will also prolong any real recovery. This is why I worry that we may be looking at ten years of minimal growth.

 

[xsited1]

I was going to say 8.05%, but you don't have it in your poll.

 

[auditor0007]

I was going to say 8.05%, but you don't have it in your poll.

Semantics

 

[xsited1]

I was going to say 8.05%, but you don't have it in your poll.

Semantics

It has nothing to do with antivirus software.

 

[wimpy77]

in this current economy anything over 10% i think is bad. one guy on cnbc said 12% unemployment now is the eqivalent of maybe 20% back in the 30's.

 

[auditor0007]

in this current economy anything over 10% i think is bad. one guy on cnbc said 12% unemployment now is the eqivalent of maybe 20% back in the 30's.

That really doesn't equate considering we have so many more safety nets today. Those who weren't working during the Great Depression were standing in soup lines to eat.

 

[editec]

in this current economy anything over 10% i think is bad. one guy on cnbc said 12% unemployment now is the eqivalent of maybe 20% back in the 30's.

That's because today's unemployed are more efficient than the unemployed were in the old days.

 

[wimpy77]

cramer did say something i agreed with this week. he said the difference is if thinks get worse there are public things in place tp help.

 

[DavidS]

8.1%. We've now gained .5% of unemployment in one month. Amazing.

 

[editec]

cramer did say something i agreed with this week. he said the difference is if thinks get worse there are public things in place tp help.

Well I'm here to report that the lasses I know who actually work in the trenches in those "public things in place to help" are losing their funding and their ability to help the needy at exactly the time when there are more needy coming to the fore than ever in our lifetimes.

SoCramer, as much as I enjoy his shows (and I do very much) simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[wimpy77]

cramer did say something i agreed with this week. he said the difference is if thinks get worse there are public things in place tp help.

Well I'm here to report that the lasses I know who actually work in the trenches in those "public things in place to help" are losing their funding and their ability to help the needy at exactly the time when there are more needy coming to the fore than ever in our lifetimes.

SoCramer, as much as I enjoy his shows (and I do very much) simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

he was talking about things like social security which, fdic and things of that nature. things to actually help people that weren't available back in the 1930's. also food stamps and welfare (like it or not) wasn't available then either. there are governmental backstops to help people that's was his point.