|
Replies:
11
-
Pages:
1
-
Last Post:
Nov 7, 2009 5:20 PM
by: bg6638
|
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
|
|
Posts:
606
Registered:
2/7/07
|
|
|
|
Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 6:38 AM
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?_r=1&hp
Email the writer: leonhardt@nytimes.com
I know you folks can find flaws in this article... like why we're so s*rewed... sponsorships...
For all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession — until now.
With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression.
In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982. [Note: The editors of the NYT may not be comparing apples with apples...]
This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.
The official jobless rate — 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September — remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.
The rate is highest today, sometimes 20 percent, in states that had big housing bubbles, like California and Arizona, or that have large manufacturing sectors, like Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
The new benchmark is a sign of just how much damage financial crises tend to inflict. A recent book by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, two economists, found that over the last century the typical crisis had caused the jobless rate in the country where it occurred to rise for almost five years. By that standard, the jobless rate here would continue rising for two more years, through the end of 2011.
Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government’s aggressive response — fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Friday’s report showed that monthly job losses continued to slow recently, though the improvement has been gradual.
At the White House Friday, President Obama signed a bill to extend unemployment benefits and a tax credit for home buyers, and said that he was looking at ways to enact more stimulus. On Wednesday, the Fed announced that it expected to leave its benchmark interest at zero for “an extended period.”
Nearly 16 million people are now unemployed and more than seven million jobs have been lost since late 2007.
Officially, the Labor Department’s broad measure of unemployment goes back only to 1994. But early this year, with the help of economists at the department, The New York Times created a version that estimates it going back to 1970. If such a measure were available for the Depression, it probably would have exceeded 30 percent.
Compared with the early 1980s, a smaller share of workers today are officially unemployed and a smaller share are considered discouraged workers.
But there are many more people who would like to be working full time and have been able to find only part-time work, according to the government’s monthly survey of workers. The rapid increase in their ranks and in the officially unemployed has caused the rate to rise much faster in this recession than in the early 1980s. Two years ago, it was only 8.2 percent.
One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.
First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.
So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. But those without work are paying a steep price, because finding a new job is extremely difficult.
Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report.
Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year, depending on which government survey is examined. Average weekly pay has risen less — zero to 1 percent — because hours have been cut. But average prices have fallen. Altogether, the typical worker has received a 1 to 2 percent inflation-adjusted raise over the last year.
In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.
It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.
Next Article in Business (2 of 31) » A version of this article appeared in print on November 7, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.
|
|
Posts:
2,004
Registered:
5/2/09
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 7:06 AM
in response to: Gracie
|
|
|
And another from today's NY Times reminding Obama it is now his recession - time to do something about it and stop throwing blame and excuses, from Charles Blow, who is an African American
November 7, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama’s to Fix
By CHARLES M. BLOW
What a difference a year makes.
In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. ... We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.
“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”
“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.
Fast forward. On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released unemployment figures for October 2009. The official rate was 10.2 percent, up more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech. Oops, nevermind.
(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)
Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.
But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.
This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.
It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.
|
|
Posts:
606
Registered:
2/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 7:07 AM
in response to: NHJoan
|
|
|
Cool - I'll go look at the article. Thanks.: It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.
|
|
Posts:
2,004
Registered:
5/2/09
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 8:08 AM
in response to: Gracie
|
|
|
Yes he inherited it, but now it's his problem and he's not solving it continuing with the Paulson plan. He did that. His choice. Le'ts not make excuses for him (he doesn't need any help on that score). Now the problem has to be fixed.
More grist for the mill, by Mauldin, a respected econo guy
The Ugly Unemployment Numbers
The headlines said unemployment, as measured by the "establishment survey," was down by 190,000; and even though that was slightly worse than forecast, market bulls were cheered by the fact that the number was not as bad as last month's. It is an improvement that we are not falling as fast.
Well, maybe. What I did not see in many of the stories I read was that the number of unemployed actually soared by 558,000, to 15.7 million, as measured by the household survey. The establishment survey polls larger businesses; the household survey actually calls individual households.
Let's look at the real number in the establishment survey. If you don't seasonally adjust the number, the actual change in unemployment for October was 641,000, or about 450,000 more than the seasonally adjusted number. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics added 86,000 jobs that they simply guess were created through the so-called birth-death ratio. Interestingly, the birth-death ratio number is not seasonally adjusted, so it is just added to the unemployment number. http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm
The total (U-6) employment rate is at a record high of 17.5% (this includes those who are part-time for economic reasons). There are now over 10.5 million people who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the downturn.
My favorite slicer and dicer of data, Greg Weldon (www.weldononline.com), offers up an even more horrific number. As I have noted before, if you have not looked for work in the last four weeks, the BLS does not count you as unemployed. Quoting Greg:
"Moreover, when we combine the monthly change in the number of Unemployed, with the number Not in the Labor Force, we might consider the result to be a proxy for the actual 'change' in the underlying labor market situation ... in which case, October's figure of 817,000 represents the fourth LARGEST yet, behind last month's (September's) second largest figure of 1,021,000 ... for a two-month combined figure of 1.838 million, in newly Unemployed, or no longer 'in' the Labor Force ...
"... the second LARGEST two-month total EVER posted, barely trailing the December-08/January-09 total 1.955 million.
"Bottom line ... basis this measure AND the 'Total Unemployment Rate,' we could conclude that not only is there NO 'improvement' in the labor market, but moreover, that it continues to DETERIORATE, intently."
|
|
Posts:
606
Registered:
2/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 8:35 AM
in response to: NHJoan
|
|
|
I'm sending a link here to friends. I also sent a letter, as you suggested, to Senator Gillibrand. I sent a letter to Schumer last week.
I'm looking forward to the day when millions of us can protest this krap around the country. I'd love to meet in D.C. as I did in the old days but I can't afford to stay in a hotel!
|
|
Posts:
5,200
Registered:
2/8/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 8:46 AM
in response to: Gracie
|
|
|
I think that the "broader measure" is a bit too low ......................
***
I'm looking forward to the day when millions of us can protest this krap around the country.
****
You won't have to wait very long ..............
----------------------------------------
NHJoan wrote: ***reminding Obama it is now his recession - time to do something about it and stop throwing blame and excuses***
He is doing something about it ........ he wants higher unemployment, so he can more easily institute "class warfare" to arrive at his true goal, which is to "change" our gov't from Capitalism, to Socialism, and finally to .......... Communism! 
Note: +++It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.+++ and also keep in mind an Obama favorite quote: "Spread the Wealth" ..................
|
|
Posts:
606
Registered:
2/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 1:03 PM
in response to: bg6638
|
|
|
bg, when you learn of the protests, let us know before they happen so we can participate. I know you despiiise Obama. I don't. I despiiise our system.
|
|
Posts:
5,200
Registered:
2/8/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 2:00 PM
in response to: Gracie
|
|
|
***
bg, when you learn of the protests, let us know before they happen so we can participate. I know you despiiise Obama. I don't. I despiiise our system.
****
If Obama was President instead of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we'd be blogging in Russian today ..............
|
|
Posts:
981
Registered:
2/11/09
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 4:08 PM
in response to: Gracie
|
|
|
If the government had taken the trillion dollars it gave to Wall Street and used it to create jobs for the unemployed at $100,000 salary per job - that would be 10 million jobs; at half the salary, then 20 million jobs. That would completely solve the unemployment problem, right?
Oh, except a few thousand mortgage backed securities traders might lose THEIR jobs and have to take early retirement on their decade of big bonuses, if they were prudent enough to save the cash.
|
|
Posts:
1,325
Registered:
4/24/07
|
|
|
|
Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 5:02 PM
in response to: manowar
|
|
|
> If the government had taken the trillion dollars it
> gave to Wall Street and used it to create jobs for
> the unemployed at $100,000 salary per job - that
> would be 10 million jobs; at half the salary, then 20
> million jobs. That would completely solve the
> unemployment problem, right?
Twenty million jobs @ USD50,000.00 would certainly have turned the economic disaster of Wall Street into a road to recovery for Main Street. As an added bonus the jobs could have been targeted to encourage people to relocate to lower cost of living areas of the country where technology jobs exist. And not one penny for any call center or contact center jobs. The twenty million jobs would cover the currently unemployed IT workers as well as probably creating new jobs for recent university and college graduates. Oh, to keep the money out of the hands of recently converted H1-B to GC status workers add a stipulation of 10 years US citizenship.
|
|
Posts:
1,325
Registered:
4/24/07
|
|
|
|
Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 5:04 PM
in response to: bg6638
|
|
|
> If Obama was President instead of JFK during the
> Cuban Missile Crisis, we'd be blogging in Russian
> today ..............
Хороший день, камрад. 
|
|
Posts:
5,200
Registered:
2/8/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Banner headline in NYT: Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
Posted:
Nov 7, 2009 5:20 PM
in response to: idm
|
|
|
поговорите английскую язык пожалуйста
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Helpful Answer
|
|
Correct Answer
|
|
