"The Worst Economy since the Great Depression"

[wwswimming]

"unemployment will rise into 2010"

according to those crude conspiracy theorists at the Fed & CNN

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/0901...10609_fed_minutes.html

for people interested in the Real part of Reality (factual economic data)

http://www.shadowstats.com/

Was unemployment in the Great Depression counted the same way as today ?

since many of those people had given up looking for work, they would not be
counted as unemployed, according to today's new improved unemployment
measuring techniques.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

We're definitely in for a serious slowdown - but god how can these "journalists" and editors be such idiots?

This may or may not turn out to be "the worst" economy since the Great Depression, but those journalists are just reporting what a number of recognized economists and legislators from all political sides are saying. I'm not advocating any particular economist's views, but as an example of the views from a published, noted economic figure, here's what Robert Reich says on his blog;

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

Friday, December 05, 2008
Shall We Call it a Depression Now?

Today's employment report, showing that employers cut 533,000 jobs in November, 320,000 in October, and 403,000 in September -- for a total of over 1.2 million over the last three months -- begs the question of whether the meltdown we're experiencing should be called a Depression.

We are falling off a cliff. To put these numbers into some perspective, the November losses alone are the worst in 34 years. A significant percentage of Americans are now jobless or underemployed -- far higher than the official rate of 6.7 percent. Simply in order to keep up with population growth, employment needs to increase by 125,000 jobs per month.

Note also that the length of the typical workweek dropped to 33.5 hours. That's the shortest number of hours since the Department of Labor began keeping records on hours worked, back in 1964. A significant number of people are working part-time who'd rather be working full time. Coupled with those who are too discouraged even to look for work, I'd estimate that the percentage of Americans who need work right now is approaching 11 percent of the workforce. And that percent is likely to raise.

When FDR took office in 1933, one out of four American workers was jobless. We're not there yet, but we're trending in that direction.
.
.
(continues)

No matter how you look at it, we're in for rough econmic times. Why are you Bushwhacko apologists still trying to gloss over the economic damage done to our nation by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal by the dual trillion dollar catastrophies of their illegal war in Iraq and their complete failure to regulate and oversee their wealthy Wall Street robber barons as they pillaged our economy? :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

We're definitely in for a serious slowdown - but god how can these "journalists" and editors be such idiots?

This may or may not turn out to be "the worst" economy since the Great Depression, but those journalists are just reporting what a number of recognized economists and legislators from all political sides are saying. I'm not advocating any particular economist's views, but as an example of the views from a published, noted economic figure, here's what Robert Reich says on his blog;

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

Friday, December 05, 2008
Shall We Call it a Depression Now?

Today's employment report, showing that employers cut 533,000 jobs in November, 320,000 in October, and 403,000 in September -- for a total of over 1.2 million over the last three months -- begs the question of whether the meltdown we're experiencing should be called a Depression.

We are falling off a cliff. To put these numbers into some perspective, the November losses alone are the worst in 34 years. A significant percentage of Americans are now jobless or underemployed -- far higher than the official rate of 6.7 percent. Simply in order to keep up with population growth, employment needs to increase by 125,000 jobs per month.

Note also that the length of the typical workweek dropped to 33.5 hours. That's the shortest number of hours since the Department of Labor began keeping records on hours worked, back in 1964. A significant number of people are working part-time who'd rather be working full time. Coupled with those who are too discouraged even to look for work, I'd estimate that the percentage of Americans who need work right now is approaching 11 percent of the workforce. And that percent is likely to raise.

When FDR took office in 1933, one out of four American workers was jobless. We're not there yet, but we're trending in that direction.
.
.
(continues)

No matter how you look at it, we're in for rough econmic times. Why are you Bushwhacko apologists still trying to gloss over the economic damage done to our nation by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal by the dual trillion dollar catastrophies of their illegal war in Iraq and their complete failure to regulate and oversee their wealthy Wall Street robber barons as they pillaged our economy? :roll:

Uhhh Reich is a hack and also Alchemize did not say we weren't in for rough times - just not yet "worse" than "the great depression" so untwist your panties and stand your macros down.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

You mean how it may but that doesn't mean it works - which is again going to go way off topic. But again - you learn SKILL via training. People go to college for TRAINING. They should really only be lacking experience and skill mastery when leaving. Unfortunately though college is just a bunch of mental masturbation any more. I've seen kids come out of 3 different schools who make their EE piece of paper look like the cartoon page. Seriously - college is basically a joke anymore as it's pulled away from businesses while building the barriers around itself(academia)

Back to topic?

College has always been like that. Colleges started off as the pampered playground for the kids of aristocrats centuries ago. College has never been practical.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhhh Reich is a hack and also Alchemize did not say we weren't in for rough times - just not yet "worse" than "the great depression" so untwist your panties and stand your macros down.

I didn't say I agree with Reich, just that he's one of a number of published economists from various quarters who are comparing the current economic situation to the Great Depression. In fact, the main warnings I've seen are that the Obama adminstration and Congress are going to have to act quickly and decisively to at least attempt to avoid a similar catastrophy.

My panties aren't twisted. Like most, except a few of Bush's buddies, they're just pinching my wallet. My "macros" happen to be correct. The folly of the Bushwhackos started their bullshit war was evident almost from the beginning, and even then, I was projecting that Bush could be remembered as "the man who broke the world." Back when the Dow was at 11,000 and skyrocketing behind all of the hot air investment "instruments," I told my accountant I didn't understand why it wasn't closer to 7,500 because there was no reality behind the fiction of that "wealth."

I didn't know the economy would tank this badly, but that possiblity was evident for years. All you had to do was pay attention. Where was your Traitor In Chief, and what was he "thinking" with that famous MBA of his?

Some Master of Business Administration he is. He's more a Masturbator of Business Adminstration. :roll:

Whether this turns out to be "the worst wconomy since the Great Depression" remains to be seen. The fact that, regardless of other, previous causes and conditions, the Bushwhackos' irresponsible war in Iraq and their failure to watch and control their wealthy, crooked financial schemer buddies are the most recent, immediate and prolonged causes of our current financial mess.

 

[DealMonkey]

Obama's 3,000,000 new jobs oughta help.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, well, the folks at the top have done a pretty fair job of concealing the effects on everyday working people, that's for sure. My wife posted an ad on Craigslist this morning at 10:15 AM for a part time receptionist at their small law firm, and have received 512 resumes as of now, 6:00 PM local time... that's more than one per minute.

Judging from that, and from my own workplace, job opportunities are increasingly scarce. Many of her applicants are strongly overqualified, and many are from people in unrelated fields just looking for A job, any job, anything that'll pay the bills...

I suspect this is only just beginning, that it's far from over, and that we probably aren't being hit as hard locally as in many other places around the country.

You have to be making this up! This can't happen! It's capitalist America where anyone who works hard enough and acquires skills will make it. To hear you tell it:

Doom! Gloom! Doom! Gloom!

Dude, do you want America to fail?

You are an evil doomer and gloomer!



------------



(Sorry, I couldn't help but put up a parody of one of the dumbest responses I ever saw to a post about the economy.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: FarangDamnit don't tell me that man I'm looking for my first office job out of college and I don't have much experience outside of customer service. I was afraid this was the case.

What's scary is that you can end up losing much of the value of your college education if you don't find work in your field soon. If not, in the future when you go to apply for work in your field employers will assume you're a loser since you couldn't find a job after graduation. This goes double for professional degrees.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThe company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now...

Something's wrong. Are they offering enough compensation? Are the requirements rigid and very detailed. (Must have 15 years of experience doing such and such specifically...) Would they be willing to consider hiring an entry-level person with a degree in the field and training them?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThe company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now...

Something's wrong. Are they offering enough compensation? Are the requirements rigid and very detailed. (Must have 15 years of experience doing such and such specifically...) Would they be willing to consider hiring an entry-level person with a degree in the field and training them?

Obviously they are not paying enough or have unreasonable expectations or are unwilling to train. Pick one but ultimately it's a management problem as all company problem are..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThe company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now...

Something's wrong. Are they offering enough compensation? Are the requirements rigid and very detailed. (Must have 15 years of experience doing such and such specifically...) Would they be willing to consider hiring an entry-level person with a degree in the field and training them?

This isn't about the company I work for - I used it as an example that people actually are hiring.
Yes, we've hired some new grads. 1 so far has worked out and is still employed with us 3 others were basically worthless skin heaps with a piece of paper.
No, the requirements aren't rigid - we are a systems integrator so what we do isn't taught anywhere and it's so broad that having rigid requirements wouldn't work anyway.
But again - it's not about my company as even though it's true we've been hiring for 8 years - both offices have more than doubled in 8 years. So yeah...look at the company for the problem some more....

Meh - again it's not the company - I wouldn't work for a company that didn't treat their employees well.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Jhhnn, you might want to recognize that there are some pretty large regional differences in unemployment etc.

Where I live, our unemployment rate just hit 5%. Home values aren't really down either, they just take longer to sell.

Fern

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why do I keep seeing this comment on TV and hearing it on the radio. It's mostly local media, but I swear I've heard it at least ten times.

Most of these reporters had to have lived through the late 70's/early 80's?

Inflation peaked at near 15%!!!!! in 1980
Unemployment was near 10% in 1982

We're definitely in for a serious slowdown - but god how can these "journalists" and editors be such idiots?

its might not be there yet, i agree, but probably will be soon, or at least close to it.

That's a laugh. The CPI Index for Dec '08 was -1.6

If you don't know what that means, CPI Index is the main tool used for measuring inflation. Sorry mate, we're no where near 15%.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: TehMac
That's a laugh. The CPI Index for Dec '08 was -1.6

If you don't know what that means, CPI Index is the main tool used for measuring inflation. Sorry mate, we're no where near 15%.

1) Offical CPI numbers say that the index was at 216.573 in Oct 08 and 212.425 in Nov 08. That results in a (1 - 212.425 / 216.573) = 1.92% drop in Nov 08. Your 1.6% drop is a bit off.

2) December 08 numbers aren't going to be out for another 10 days or so. Thus, there is no Dec 08 data yet as mentioned in your post. If you have some inside information, I'd like to see it, otherwise I think you just made two minor mistakes.

3) The BIG mistake people are making is that the two depression periods (the early 1930s and late 1930s) were both accompanied by DEFLATION, not inflation. Thus, the OP's comment that inflation is nowhere near 15% is just off the mark. True, the CPI is no where near 15%. But the fact that we are showing signs of deflation is a sign that this could be a depression and not the typical recession.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Jhhnn, you might want to recognize that there are some pretty large regional differences in unemployment etc.

Where I live, our unemployment rate just hit 5%. Home values aren't really down either, they just take longer to sell.

Fern

Yeah, it seems that some people and the media don't seem to understand that...or they just ignore it and try to paint with the broadest brush possible.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: dullard
As it is, the economy is no where near depression levels. But, there are many signs that are quite similar to the depression. If anything that is significantly negative happens, it may easily spiral us from recession to depression.

Of course, we have to first determine a definition for a depression. All economic downturns used to be called depressions, until the great depression came along. Then they invented the term "recession" to define a smaller scale depression. One fairly well approved definition says ?If the GDP drops by less than 10%, it is a recession; if GDP drops my more than 10%, it is a depression.? Using that definition, the US has had two depressions. There was a big depression in the early 1930s and a smaller depression in the late 1930s. Together the two were called the great depression. At the moment, we are not even close to that definition. But we could eventually reach that definition in this downturn.

The great depression had a few important factors. There was a stock market boom that ended. The stock values fell 52% from their peaks, had a dead cat bounce, then fell again. There was a real estate boom (prices 4x higher) in the mid 1920s that ended (the construction boom ended in 1928, one year before the start of the great depression). There was deflation that regularly set prices down between 0.59% and 2.05% in almost every month. Finally, consumer spending dropped 10% even though business spending and government spending were actually UP in the early 1930s. About 1.5 years into the depression unemployment rose from 3.2% to 8.7%

What do we have today? The S&P fell 52% from it?s peak, and is in the middle of a bounce. There was a real estate boom that ended (average prices are already down 21% and still falling). New home construction is down 72% so far in this real estate bust. While deflation isn?t a certainty yet, the CPI did just fall 1.92% in November (the 2nd largest monthly drop ever) and 1.01% in October (which was the largest drop since the depression until November hit) and it fell in September and August. Consumer spending has decreased and if you include ONLY the ending of easy home refinance cash, then consumer spending must fall at least 7%. If anything else bad happens, the consumer will easily reach the 10% drop in spending only seen in the great depression. About a year into this mess and the unemployment rate went from 4.7% to 6.7%.

The major facts seem quite similar. Aside from the unemployment rate only going up to 6.7% instead of 8.7%, the stats are nearly identical for the start of the great depression to what we have now.

That's why the fed is not repeating history by pumping liquidity.

However, what we will learn from this is if fed intervention is futile or not. My fear is whether you let the market correct itself or you pump liquidity to prop it up, the end is inevitable: if you overheat the economy and it is in a bubble, you have to bite it in the ass and experience the downturn.

Personally I think pumping liquidity will just prolong the inevitable "pain" with the possibility of the downfall being worse, while if you let the "market correct itself" you just bite the bullet and experience a shorter but more hurtful pain.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JS80
That's why the fed is not repeating history by pumping liquidity.

Personally I think pumping liquidity will just prolong the inevitable "pain" with the possibility of the downfall being worse, while if you let the "market correct itself" you just bite the bullet and experience a shorter but more hurtful pain.

Yes, the first time around, monetary supply dropped by 30% before the fed acted (too little and too late). Hopefully, this time around things will be better with the better timing.

I think your last paragraph is the purpose of government in the economy. The government (in my view) should try to eliminate the big swings. It should make the recessions shallower (but therefore longer). Conversely, it should take a bit of the edge off a boom (and therefore lengthen it). If this action was done perfectly, the economy would be constantly growing at the maximum feasible long-term rate. Of course, this policy can never be done perfectly.

Hmm, I just made a connection. My job is to minimize swings in variables (basically I'm a process control engineer for biotechnology equipment). Maybe that is why I think the government should do the same with the economy.

How about some more similarities:
[*]1930 and 2008: Democrats have gains in congress during what was thought to be a recession
[*]1930 and 2008: Bank failures skyrocket
[*]1929 and 2008: Automobile sales off by 1/3rd

 

[Jhhnn]

From CSG-

uhh... hello? Do you not understand math? Yes, we've hired many so it isn't like we haven't been able to find and hire people. Some have left over that time which tends to happen in our field. But anyway the FACT is, we have been hiring for 8 years and still are right now because we are looking at turning down work again this year because we have too much of it.

So, uhh, let me get this straight. First, you attempt to create the impression that your company has been "trying", apparently unsuccessfully, to hire people for 8 years... But now you say that's not true, that you have been hiring and experiencing normal attrition... but that you're still turning down work because you can't get enough people...

How many different ways do you think you can have it?

You're the free market guy here, so maybe you'd care to explain your original position, that supply doesn't equal demand in terms of skilled workers at a given pricepoint w/o recognizing that the only way to explain that is that the offered price is incorrect? Or were you merely attempting to create a false impression with your original assertion?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CSG-

uhh... hello? Do you not understand math? Yes, we've hired many so it isn't like we haven't been able to find and hire people. Some have left over that time which tends to happen in our field. But anyway the FACT is, we have been hiring for 8 years and still are right now because we are looking at turning down work again this year because we have too much of it.

So, uhh, let me get this straight. First, you attempt to create the impression that your company has been "trying", apparently unsuccessfully, to hire people for 8 years... But now you say that's not true, that you have been hiring and experiencing normal attrition... but that you're still turning down work because you can't get enough people...

How many different ways do you think you can have it?

You're the free market guy here, so maybe you'd care to explain your original position, that supply doesn't equal demand in terms of skilled workers at a given pricepoint w/o recognizing that the only way to explain that is that the offered price is incorrect? Or were you merely attempting to create a false impression with your original assertion?

Yes, we have been trying to hire - still are to this day - DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE'VE MORE THAN DOUBLED. Are you really that obtuse that you can't comprehend that?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThe company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now...

Something's wrong. Are they offering enough compensation? Are the requirements rigid and very detailed. (Must have 15 years of experience doing such and such specifically...) Would they be willing to consider hiring an entry-level person with a degree in the field and training them?

This isn't about the company I work for - I used it as an example that people actually are hiring.
Yes, we've hired some new grads. 1 so far has worked out and is still employed with us 3 others were basically worthless skin heaps with a piece of paper.
No, the requirements aren't rigid - we are a systems integrator so what we do isn't taught anywhere and it's so broad that having rigid requirements wouldn't work anyway.
But again - it's not about my company as even though it's true we've been hiring for 8 years - both offices have more than doubled in 8 years. So yeah...look at the company for the problem some more....

Meh - again it's not the company - I wouldn't work for a company that didn't treat their employees well.

Do you even read the crap you spew?

Cad: "The company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now..."

Cad: "This isn't about the company I work for - I used it as an example that people actually are hiring."

I can't be the only one who's saying WTF?!?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why do I keep seeing this comment on TV and hearing it on the radio. It's mostly local media, but I swear I've heard it at least ten times.

Most of these reporters had to have lived through the late 70's/early 80's?

Inflation peaked at near 15%!!!!! in 1980
Unemployment was near 10% in 1982

We're definitely in for a serious slowdown - but god how can these "journalists" and editors be such idiots?

Perhaps you should compare/contrast recessions since the great depression and then we can all decide which one is the worst? Let's see some hard data.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThe company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now...

Something's wrong. Are they offering enough compensation? Are the requirements rigid and very detailed. (Must have 15 years of experience doing such and such specifically...) Would they be willing to consider hiring an entry-level person with a degree in the field and training them?

This isn't about the company I work for - I used it as an example that people actually are hiring.
Yes, we've hired some new grads. 1 so far has worked out and is still employed with us 3 others were basically worthless skin heaps with a piece of paper.
No, the requirements aren't rigid - we are a systems integrator so what we do isn't taught anywhere and it's so broad that having rigid requirements wouldn't work anyway.
But again - it's not about my company as even though it's true we've been hiring for 8 years - both offices have more than doubled in 8 years. So yeah...look at the company for the problem some more....

Meh - again it's not the company - I wouldn't work for a company that didn't treat their employees well.

Do you even read the crap you spew?

Cad: "The company I work for has been trying to hire people for 8 years now..."

Cad: "This isn't about the company I work for - I used it as an example that people actually are hiring."

I can't be the only one who's saying WTF?!?

No asshat - what you fail to understand(probably on purpose) is that my comment that it wasn't about my company is because people were trying to blame things on my company when they don't have a clue. It's not specifically about my company - however I did use the fact that we've been hiring for 8 years - yes trying to hire - as a note that there are companies that are and have been hiring.

Anymore elementary level crap you need explained to you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No asshat - what you fail to understand(probably on purpose) is that my comment that it wasn't about my company is because people were trying to blame things on my company when they don't have a clue. It's not specifically about my company - however I did use the fact that we've been hiring for 8 years - yes trying to hire - as a note that there are companies that are and have been hiring.

Anymore elementary level crap you need explained to you?

So apparently, they can't find anyone as opinionated and obstinate as you? :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No asshat - what you fail to understand(probably on purpose) is that my comment that it wasn't about my company is because people were trying to blame things on my company when they don't have a clue. It's not specifically about my company - however I did use the fact that we've been hiring for 8 years - yes trying to hire - as a note that there are companies that are and have been hiring.

Anymore elementary level crap you need explained to you?

So apparently, they can't find anyone as opinionated and obstinate as you? :laugh:

So apparently you can't read? :laugh:

 

[spidey07]

CSG - I'm seeing the same thing. You can't find highly skilled people and if you can they demand a pretty penny. WIN/WIN for workers. Supply and demand - learn it, live it, love it.