Why the Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Looks- Zuckerman

Editec,

You do what I did. I didn't have the kids or wife (divorced, no kids), but going back to school at 37 on a 30 hour a week income wasn't exactly easy.

I'm sure it wasn't.

First off, I didn't bother trying the standard classroom routine- I went to the University of Phoenix through the online program. I was able to set my own schedule, and aside from having assignments and such due on certain days of the week it didn't matter if I logged into class at noon or at 3am. Yeah, it was tough as heck at times, and finances were a major pain in the rear, but 2 months after i finished my degree my income almost doubled. Im still not on easy street (owe too much in student loans for that), but I'm not too worried about being able to meet each months bills anymore either. Instead i worry about how long it's going to take me to build up enough money to fix up my house. :)

That's nice.

Now explain to me how the other 30,000,000 Americans are going to do it.

Editec,

Whether a college education is worth the cost is totally dependent on where you're going and what you're majoring in.


Very true.


I spent right about 40K for a bachelors that landed me a job starting at 40k/yr, which isn't a bad cost vs benefit ratio in my book. However, what about the people that spent the same amount I did to get liberal arts degrees that won't land them a good starting job? Is it worth it to spend that kind of money to land a position with starting pay of maybe $25-30K/year?

The better question is: What major can you be assured will not find itself leaving you, in mid career, having to seek still another career path because, for one reason or the other, but certainly not because of any shortcoming in your proformance, the business conditions have changed and you find yourself REDUNDANT.

Now when that happens to some of us, we can find some path back to employment that makes sense.

But when it happens to millions of people every year, there is not enough resources for that happy outcome to happen to all of us.

I keep popinting out problems that effect the MACRO-economic climate, and you people tell us about something that effected you personally.

All that would be sage advice IF we all had the same circumstance.

Clearly that is NOT the case.


I myself hold one "worthless" degree. I picked up an associates in veterinary sciences in my late 20's, and worked as a veterinary surgical technician for a couple of years. Problem was that i couldn't count on regular hours, and I soon found that I could make more on my part time job loading trucks then i could at my "career". I got off relatively light on that one-Only cost me about $8k, and it did allow me to cut a full year worth of general ed classes off the requirements from my bachelors in accounting.

I applaude your stick to it attitude, I really do.

I myself have had to change career paths and have done so. But I happened to be a position where I could do that, just as you found yourself in that position.

That is not the case for the millions of workers who: are too old, are too poor,are too stupid, are in far too much debt, etc etc etc.

MY complaint is that we are creating far too many people who have no such avenue to get back on the employment roles.

The fact that some of us can and do is irrlevant to that issue.

Some people survived the sinking of titanic, too.

But more would have survived if they'd had enough LIFEBOATS.

The survivors who tell themselves that they DESERVED TO SURVIVE, while the others didn't, are damned fools.
 
...when Obama was elected there were 7 million more people working than there are today.

Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.
Ummm, no. Obama was elected in Nov. 08.

That's ok, everyone misreads this stuff now and then. In the mean time there's also the CES level and both the CPS & CES have w/ & w/o seasonal adjustment. The numbers vary but they all have no jobs created since the election and all have the number of jobs lost at more than double your 2.4M.
 
...when Obama was elected there were 7 million more people working than there are today.

Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.
Ummm, no. Obama was elected in Nov. 08.
Ok, Nov 2008 the employment level was 144,068,000. 139,779,000-144,068,000 = -4,289,000 Still not 7 million.

That's ok, everyone misreads this stuff now and then.
Well, when talking about what happened under a President we talk about when he actually took office and had some kind of power and responsibility, yes, I misread. But you must also have misread if you're getting 7 million.


In the mean time there's also the CES level
Which is irrelevant here. You said "people working," and the CES is not a measure of people working, it's a measure of jobs (multiple job holders are counted for each job). And the CES excludes a largish number of people.


and both the CPS & CES have w/ & w/o seasonal adjustment.
The not seasonally adjusted change for the CPS employment is -4.5 million from Nov 2008 to May 2011.

The numbers vary but they all have no jobs created since the election and all have the number of jobs lost at more than double your 2.4M.
Again "Jobs" and "Employment" (or "people working" as you phrased it) are different and you can't compare the two. In any case, CES jobs are approx 4 million (seasonally adjusted) to 4.5 million (unadjusted) lower than Nov 2008.

So, I'll ask again where you got the 7 million figure from when the lowest employment dipped was to 137,960,000 in Dec 2009.....6 million lower than Nov 2008.

Don't you think things are bad enough without trying to make them appear worse?
 
...when Obama was elected there were 7 million more people working than there are today.

Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.
Ummm, no. Obama was elected in Nov. 08.

That's ok, everyone misreads this stuff now and then. In the mean time there's also the CES level and both the CPS & CES have w/ & w/o seasonal adjustment. The numbers vary but they all have no jobs created since the election and all have the number of jobs lost at more than double your 2.4M.
You could get nasty and include the increase in working age population, increased numbers of people on Disability Income and SSI (the rates have gone way up) and increased homelessness which is also undercounted.
 
Example --when Obama was elected there were 7 million more people working than there are today.

Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.



Wow. We certainly got a lot of job creation for that Stimulus Bill!
 
One thing I do not understand ,Is the unemployment numbers seem to not reflect the truth. The numbers of filed for unemployment do not reflict those who's unemployment run out . What about those people,are they counted ,I think not.




There are different levels of unemployment U3 is the commonly reference rate. U6 is the broader measure which includes short term discouraged workers and people doing part time jobs when they can't find full time ones. U6 has been around 16% for quite some time. But even this understates under and unemployment because it excludes long term discouraged workers who have given up looking for work (they were defined out of existence in the revised 1994 unemployment methodology).

Shadow Stats calculates UE with the 1994 definition. We are in the 22%-23% level using that methodology.

Alternate Unemployment Charts
 
...the CES excludes a largish number of people...
There's been a bit of controversy on these threads over which employment level is 'best', the CES or the CPS. Current CPS employment is 140,028,000 (139,779,000 SA) and the CES level is 109,203,000 (108,916,000 SA). The argument goes something like the CES is more narrow but more accurate while the CPS is a broader phone survey including those working just a few hours per week.

My experience is that they both work well for most needs as long as compared numbers are from the same survey.

...Don't you think things are bad enough without trying to make them appear worse?
Huh! The thread topic here is all about how things appear much better than they really are, and I'm a bad guy for having things appear worse. What I like about this thread is the gradual steering away from appearances altogether and going for what is --not people's opinions and personalities.
 
...get nasty and include the increase in working age population, increased numbers of people on Disability Income and SSI (the rates have gone way up) and increased homelessness which is also undercounted.
lol!! I'd forgotten the U-6. Just as well seeing how I never liked that stat anyway.

Like, why bother including as unemployed everyone who says they aren't paid enough + people not even looking but willing to accept pay for no effort. It makes for a bigger headline but offers no new info; just a new number that for decades has always come out exactly 1-5/8's times the narrower unemployment number.
 
...between my mortgage, student loans, and car payment I'm running something like 60%...
That sounds like a decent financial order for someone under 40, and for someone over 60 it would be trouble. My take is most of the talk we've been hearing about US savings rates usually ignors demographics because the goal is America-bashing/to hell with facts.

What?
60% debt/income is decent...wow.
I am 46, I have zero credit card debt, no 2nd mortgage, no car loans. Just a mortgage.
My debt/income ratio is 6.13%.
If Fiscal Sanity loses his job - he would be in bankruptcy in less than a few months.
If I lost my job...I could last at least 5 years. If I sold my home and lived close to the wallet...probably 10 years or more.
 
...60% debt/income is decent...wow. I am 46, I have zero credit card debt, no 2nd mortgage, no car loans. Just a mortgage. My debt/income ratio is 6.13%...
The entire debt/income ratio may be real easy to figure but it sure doesn't say much. In my case I got zero earned income w/ huge debt. At the same time my net worth is doubling while I'm putting the last 2 of six kids through college. There's a lot more to financial prudence than debt/income. My preference is how well current net worth changes match recent cash flow and life goals.
 
Iam,

I've freely admitted that i got off to a late start. My major goal right now is to get my debts paid down, but when you look at what i actually have for debts it's pretty typical of what someone in the 25-35 year old range that went to college straight out of highschool is going to be dealing with. Mortgage, student loans, and a car payment. I graduated right as the economy crashed in 2008, so I had to settle for what i could get for a starting job and pay scale. Now i've got enough experience that i can move on to other companies at a higher scale, but don't see the need as our companies CFO is retiring next spring and is grooming me to take over for him. Give me another 3-5 years and the only debt I'll have is my mortgage.

Btw, you're wrong about how long I could go if I became unemployed, because I pay things ahead of time. I've already sent out the mortgage payment for August and paid the student loan bills for July, and i always keep at least enough cash in the bank account to cover all the bills for a minimum of two more months, so I've got somewhere around 4-5 months before I would need to really worry.
 
Well folks...when 67% of consumer spending was on credit...when negative savings was the thing to do for over a decade, when 3/5th of the population have greater than 36% debt/income ratio...when all this comes to a head...
This is what happens.

This isn't a simple economic downturn. It is a looong-term, if not permanent - adjustment.

And everything you listed is caused by a lack of personal responsibility. I have know sympathy for people who are broke because of their own greed.
 
Example --when Obama was elected there were 7 million more people working than there are today.

Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.



Wow. We certainly got a lot of job creation for that Stimulus Bill!

but, but..... it would have beeeeen worrrrrssee!!!!
 
...60% debt/income is decent...wow. I am 46, I have zero credit card debt, no 2nd mortgage, no car loans. Just a mortgage. My debt/income ratio is 6.13%...
The entire debt/income ratio may be real easy to figure but it sure doesn't say much. In my case I got zero earned income w/ huge debt. At the same time my net worth is doubling while I'm putting the last 2 of six kids through college. There's a lot more to financial prudence than debt/income. My preference is how well current net worth changes match recent cash flow and life goals.

I hear you, cash outs don't equal debt in this context, I called my ins. guy, was thinking of upping my contribution if the IRR was right, it was, my policy rate of ret. has outstripped the S&P 500 for the last 5 years...unreal.
 
Ummm, no. Go to BLS Data retrieval select seasonally adjusted employment. You'll see that in January 2009 the Employment level was 142,201,000 and in May 2011 (latest available), it was 139,779,000, a loss of 2,422,000. Not sure where you got 7 million from.



Wow. We certainly got a lot of job creation for that Stimulus Bill!

but, but..... it would have beeeeen worrrrrssee!!!!

It couldn't have been worse?
 
There are different levels of unemployment U3 is the commonly reference rate. U6 is the broader measure which includes short term discouraged workers and people doing part time jobs when they can't find full time ones.
Wrong. Look up the real definition and come back. Those are included but not just them.

Shadow Stats calculates UE with the 1994 definition.
No, it doesn't. Williams doesn't even claim that. Read it carefully, he's claiming he's using the U-6 definition and adding in the pre-1994 definition of "Discouraged." The U-6 definition has NEVER been an official defintion. No one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs in any official definition of UNemployed (because they're employed).

Plus, the U-6 includes Marginally Attached, which was newly defined for 1994.

As for Shadowstats, he's basing his number off of the U-6, which is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic Reasons)/(Labor Force + Marginally Attached).

Marginally Attached are those who are willing and able to work, have not looked in the last 4 weeks (therefore not unemployed) but have looked in the last year. Marginally Attached was not a category until 1994. Discouraged are a subset of the Marginally Attached (less than half). Part time for Economic reasons has NEVER been part of the official definition and neither has Marginally Attached.

As for the 22% claim, do the math: If the U-6 = (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic Reasons)/(Labor Force + Marginally Attached)...which we'll shorten to (U+M+P)/(L+M), then to get the amount Williams is adding to get 22% we do (U+M+P+X)/(L+M+X)= 0.22 and solve for X. {X=(.22(L+M)-(U+M+P))/0.78}

The data for Unemployed and Labor Force (which is Employed + Unemployed) is in Table A 1, Part time for Economic reasons is Table A 8, and Marginally Attached is Table A 16. Use the seasonally adjusted numbers from tables 1 and 8. You'll get about 12 million as your answer. Then look back to Table 1 for "want a job now" which includes the Marginally Attached.

Now tell me how accurate shadowstats is.

Oh, wait you won't, because I've told you this all before and you ignore it everytime and never do any research.
 
Last edited:
We know your here and will straighten us out pinqy. lol

We all agree there is more unemployment than the stats show and more jobs would be very welcome.
 

Forum List

Back
Top