Worst of the Recession is Behind Us

[Toro]

We haven't bottomed in the economy though the fourth quarter probably will be the worst. Unemployment is going into double digits so for most people, the worst has just begun.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I had to check because your post doesn't make sense to me, you seem to be saying the numbers are bigger because the population has grown therefore it is not as bad as in the past when the numbers were smaller

Yes, that is a correct reading and somewhat obvious. Let's say at the end of WWII you 145 million people in the US and 550,000 lost their job in one month that would be .3% of the total population. Since we've doubled in population, that percentage would be halved.

So, is it less bad to have .15% lose a job than .3%? I would say so.

 

[roomy]

Yes, that is a correct reading and somewhat obvious. Let's say at the end of WWII you 145 million people in the US and 550,000 lost their job in one month that would be .3% of the total population. Since we've doubled in population, that percentage would be halved.

So, is it less bad to have .15% lose a job than .3%? I would say so.

Then you agree it is a recession but it is not as bad as others you remember yet but it may become so?

 

[Gaar]

We seem to agree that it hasn't bottomed out yet and is likely to take some time before it get any better, I am not going to argue about a matter of months.

Understood...

I was only suggesting 6 more months on the downside.

And likely agreeing years, because of Obama's likely actions.

Unless of course it isn't Obama making the decisions by then.

The SCOTUS still needs to Hear some Cases on his eligibility, and if you ask me, the man is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, so we could be looking at President Biden.

 

[roomy]

Understood...

I was only suggesting 6 more months on the downside.

And likely agreeing years, because of Obama's likely actions.

Unless of course it isn't Obama making the decisions by then.

The SCOTUS still needs to Hear some Cases on his eligibility, and if you ask me, the man is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, so we could be looking at President Biden.

That remains to be seen...you seem to be projecting beyond the remit of reasonability now

 

[Tech_Esq]

Then you agree it is a recession but it is not as bad as others you remember yet but it may become so?

Correct.

 

[Gaar]

It's not hard to get to a raw number that is as large as something 60 years ago...

If it isn't so hard, why did it take 60 years to do it?

 

[Tech_Esq]

If it isn't so hard, why did it take 60 years to do it?

Ok, I thought I covered that, but....the population has been steadily growing each year since WWII. In recent times we have had recessions causing job loss in 1974, (I guess you could count the entire Carter presidency as a recession, but people didn't lose their job in massive numbers, they just never got one -- 10%+ unemployment), 1982, 1992 (although we were out of it before we were sure we were in it) and 2001-2002 another very shallow recession.

Therefore the only real opportunities for massive job loss were during the two major recessions 1974 and 1982. That's because we were moving from a period of relatively high employment to a period of low employment, thus major job losses during a given month to month period.

Two major shifts have occurred in the 25 years since 1982. The first is an increase in the size of the population. We have added more than 25 million people to the population. The second is the level of employment. When I was in college in the 1980s, in Econ class the discussion was that the experts wanted to change the "Full Employment" level from 5% unemployment to 6% unemployment because they had never seen 5% unemployment in such a long time. Since then of course we've hit 5% and better many times. So, the sudden loss of jobs from 5% to 6.5+ though not a historically high percentage it is a huge real number and a large shift.

In 1974, same thing only more so. It was less than 30 years since WWII. The population was not even the size of 1982, so less shift, less population less job loss.

By the way, the job loss in 1945 was because we geared down from war production to peacetime production. That's why that number was so high to begin with. Hopefully that answers the question.

 

[Gaar]

Therefore the only real opportunities for massive job loss were during the two major recessions 1974 and 1982.

I think some forget the Maeket reaction to 9/11, which came during a recession, and caused some significant Job losses...

But nothing near what we are seeing today.

We aren't just talking about one, or even two QTR's here, but losses for ALL of last year.

 

[auditor0007]

I had to check because your post doesn't make sense to me, you seem to be saying the numbers are bigger because the population has grown therefore it is not as bad as in the past when the numbers were smaller

What Tech said was that with a larger population, even a small percentage will surpass the numbers from 1945 when the percentage drop was higher. With a working population of over 150 million today, a one percent increase in the unemployment rate would equate to 1.5 million lost jobs. In 1945, with half the population, it would have taken a two percent increase in umenployment to equal that many lost jobs. It's just basic arithmetic.

 

[roomy]

What Tech said was that with a larger population, even a small percentage will surpass the numbers from 1945 when the percentage drop was higher. With a working population of over 150 million today, a one percent increase in the unemployment rate would equate to 1.5 million lost jobs. In 1945, with half the population, it would have taken a two percent increase in umenployment to equal that many lost jobs. It's just basic arithmetic.

You have'nt read the rest of the thread have you?

 

[auditor0007]

Understood...

I was only suggesting 6 more months on the downside.

And likely agreeing years, because of Obama's likely actions.

Unless of course it isn't Obama making the decisions by then.

The SCOTUS still needs to Hear some Cases on his eligibility, and if you ask me, the man is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, so we could be looking at President Biden.

I love the mentality of some of you who still believe Obama is not a US citizen. Here is the problem with your argument; you have no proof. Because Obama does have a legitimate birth certificate from Hawaii, in order to prove him ineligible, someone needs to show us proof that he wasn't born in the US. In other words, show us a certificate of birth from Kenya. If no one can come up with that as evidence, then there is no case to be made, nor is there a case to even be heard in court; and that is why the courts have refused to hear any suits brought against Obama concerning this matter.

So you know, I myself have some questions concerning the place of Obama's birth, but the fact is there is no evidence that should lead us to believe that he was not born in the US.

 

[Gaar]

I love the mentality of some of you who still believe Obama is not a US citizen. Here is the problem with your argument; you have no proof. Because Obama does have a legitimate birth certificate from Hawaii, in order to prove him ineligible, someone needs to show us proof that he wasn't born in the US. In other words, show us a certificate of birth from Kenya. If no one can come up with that as evidence, then there is no case to be made, nor is there a case to even be heard in court; and that is why the courts have refused to hear any suits brought against Obama concerning this matter.

So you know, I myself have some questions concerning the place of Obama's birth, but the fact is there is no evidence that should lead us to believe that he was not born in the US.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...onstitutionally-eligible-to-be-president.html

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even if the worst of this one is behind us, which I seriously doubt, the next bubble that pops is going to be even worse.

 

[Chris]

I sold three houses this week, all to first time home buyers.

Thank you Congress and the Fed.

 

[Dr Grump]

The SCOTUS still needs to Hear some Cases on his eligibility, and if you ask me, the man is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, so we could be looking at President Biden.

More drivel from an Obama hater...

it's been decided. His mother is a Yank and that is all that matters...

 

[Toro]

Yes, that is a correct reading and somewhat obvious. Let's say at the end of WWII you 145 million people in the US and 550,000 lost their job in one month that would be .3% of the total population. Since we've doubled in population, that percentage would be halved.

So, is it less bad to have .15% lose a job than .3%? I would say so.

This is true.

On a comparative basis, the jobs losses in 1945 would be equivalent to nearly 2 million today.

Check here.

Bespoke Investment Group: 41st Worst Monthly Jobs Report On Record...Yes 41st

 

[Red Dawn]

As much as so many people hate Bush and blame him for everything, Obama is continuing the policies Bush put into motion to try to turn things around. ..

.What so many people, especially Democrats, don't realize, is that Bush was much the moderate when it came to the economy. Other than his tax cuts, his ideas aren't much different from those of Obama.

Okay, this is becoming a universal meme among former bush voters. 3 months ago, every single conservative and bush supporter said obama was either a radical muslim, a marxist, or at best a dangerous extremist liberal from the extreme far left of the dem party.

So let me ask, were bush voters lying three months ago?

 

[Gaar]

This is true.

On a comparative basis, the jobs losses in 1945 would be equivalent to nearly 2 million today.

Check here.

Bespoke Investment Group: 41st Worst Monthly Jobs Report On Record...Yes 41st

And we lost OVER 2 Million last year...

Imagine that.

 

[Skeptik]

Okay, this is becoming a universal meme among former bush voters. 3 months ago, every single conservative and bush supporter said obama was either a radical muslim, a marxist, or at best a dangerous extremist liberal from the extreme far left of the dem party.

So let me ask, were bush voters lying three months ago?

When they said that he was a radical Muslim, a Marxist, or at best a dangerous extremist liberal from the extreme far left of the dem party, yes they were.

They knew that they were, and so did almost everyone else. If they hadn't, then McCain would have won despite being seen as a Bush clone.

Ironic, isn't it? McCain kept telling us what a "maverick" he was, meaning that he was different from Bush. Meanwhile, Obama kept calling for "change", and no one expected him to continue Bush's policies.