• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

U.S. economy lost 63,000 jobs in February

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Guys, we can talk about unemployment and all that as much as we want, but casually throwing around the word "recession" misses the point that it means something very specific...2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We're not even close to that, as since we're not, that tells me this is a bump in the road, not a huge crash. There are certainly problems, but nothing is falling apart as far as I can see. The problem is that recession fear feeds on itself, the more it's reported, the more people talk about it, the more it gets reporter, the more real the problem seems. But what we have here is basically a stock market dip, not a problem with the fundamental foundation of the economy. People are freaking out, but they'll get over it soon enough.
There are more than few economist saying by the time we actually know were are in recession, we will probably be out of it. It will be at least 6-8 months before we know if we have had 2 quarters of negative growth.
I've heard that, and I suspect that's more than likely the worst thing that will happen. The point I take from things like that is that the way the economy really works (ie, you have to judge things over a long period of time) is quite the opposite of how people and the media view it (ie, OMG, the recession is starting on Tuesday). Things are never as good as they seem or as bad as they seem, because people are EXTREMELY prone to overreacting to any and all economic indicators.
?From a common sense standpoint right now, we?re in a recession.? Warren Buffet.

And yes, Buffet knows the technical definition of a recession.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: will889
^I'm thinking about using it to get a PS3 to stimulate the economy, or maybe that Esteban guitar set on HSN. Or maybe i'll use it for another widescreen HD TV so I can see my favorite pres on the tube talkin' about Merca's thrivin' conomy.
actually any of those would be excellent choices, and is actually what you SHOULD be spending it on for able effect.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
people seem to confuse recession with depression around here. recessions are natural and normal, and in the long run are generally good by weeding out bad industry leading to its reallocation.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Guys, we can talk about unemployment and all that as much as we want, but casually throwing around the word "recession" misses the point that it means something very specific...2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We're not even close to that, as since we're not, that tells me this is a bump in the road, not a huge crash. There are certainly problems, but nothing is falling apart as far as I can see. The problem is that recession fear feeds on itself, the more it's reported, the more people talk about it, the more it gets reporter, the more real the problem seems. But what we have here is basically a stock market dip, not a problem with the fundamental foundation of the economy. People are freaking out, but they'll get over it soon enough.
Very wise grasshopper, don't prepare for winter until you have seen 2 quarters of negitive grass growth.

That may not be true we are seeing what happens when people are way over leveraged and SHTF
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
One a side note, in Michigan we actually dropped our unemployment rate by 3/10 %.

According to the state, employers added 4,000 payroll jobs in January. Gains of 2,000 construction jobs, 2, 000 leisure and hospitality positions and 4,000 hires in the trade, transportation and utilities sectors were offset by a loss of 6,000 jobs in manufacturing.
Text

We have been enduring this "one-state recession" for quite some time now. IMO, the rest of the country has a long way to go before catching up with us and this being coined a true recession.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,198
149
106
$4.00 a gallon gas had nothing to do with it at least.

Neither did the folly with ethanol.

Ye reap what ye sow!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't worry, blackangst and LK will fix the situation with an anecdotal forum post in 3...2...1...
You know, I just think you guys who hate LK are just afraid of the fact that he has an education and a background in economics. All I ever see are posts bashing him and never any real answers to his questions.
He never posts questions. Only Republican based Kool Aid rhetoric.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeap, keep telling people you got a recession when you have 4.8/4.9 percent unemployment and you will have a self fulling prophecy.
Unemployment dropped because of a shrinking labor force:
Payrolls fell by 63,000, the most in five years, after a revised decline of 22,000 in January, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The jobless rate dropped to 4.8 percent, reflecting a shrinking labor force as some people gave up looking for work.
It's not because things are looking better.

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
600 dollars is barely a mortgage payment. Fuck anyone who thinks it's gonna "boost" the economy.
We'll be paying for those 600 dollars a whole lot more, as it will be good for nothing.
While things could be looking better, unemployment is still below 5% so things are not bad at this point.
You really believe that 4.8% number being fed by this administration all these years?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
I don't believe the 4.8% either. I was watching nightline and they were talking about how the economy was starting to get bad in places like Georgia where thousands lined up for walmart jobs. I would not be surprised to see that the true unemployment rate be at 5.5%.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I don't believe the 4.8% either. I was watching nightline and they were talking about how the economy was starting to get bad in places like Georgia where thousands lined up for walmart jobs. I would not be surprised to see that the true unemployment rate be at 5.5%.
In the words of BTO "You ain't seen nothing yet".
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't worry, blackangst and LK will fix the situation with an anecdotal forum post in 3...2...1...
You know, I just think you guys who hate LK are just afraid of the fact that he has an education and a background in economics. All I ever see are posts bashing him and never any real answers to his questions.
He never posts questions. Only Republican based Kool Aid rhetoric.
Dave, you wouldn't know the difference between a question or a statement if your life depended on it. As far as rhetoric, anybody can tell that I am far from a republican of today, as I have never championed the current status of this economy or government. I just don't agree with you.

Drive for Five? Earthquakes everywhere? F5 tornadoes? You have all of the answers eh sparky?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Guys, we can talk about unemployment and all that as much as we want, but casually throwing around the word "recession" misses the point that it means something very specific...2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We're not even close to that, as since we're not, that tells me this is a bump in the road, not a huge crash. There are certainly problems, but nothing is falling apart as far as I can see. The problem is that recession fear feeds on itself, the more it's reported, the more people talk about it, the more it gets reporter, the more real the problem seems. But what we have here is basically a stock market dip, not a problem with the fundamental foundation of the economy. People are freaking out, but they'll get over it soon enough.
Very wise grasshopper, don't prepare for winter until you have seen 2 quarters of negitive grass growth.

That may not be true we are seeing what happens when people are way over leveraged and SHTF
You know how I prepare for winter? I make sure I've got a decent coat, I find my gloves, and I check the tires on my car. I do not go running around yelling that we're entering a new ice age and that the end is near.

I am not saying the economy is doing perfectly, but this is part of a normal cycle that we should just ride out, NOT the end of the economy as we know it. My point was that people need to relax and stop overreacting.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Minimum wage anyone? Hmm....

Not "only" cause but defiately a contributor. Nothing like hurting those who you libs said it would help... :p
You need only to look a couple of states to the right to see how that argument doesn?t float to well. Michigan's decline started 4-6 years before any July 24, 2007 bump up to $5.85 in the MW. But we should believe that the other 49 have this to blame as a contributing factor now? I am just really not seeing any correlation between for instance, the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs since 2000 having anything to do with a midyear 2007 bump either.

Wonders why Bush signed the bill on May 25th? I think by him doing so the neocons were sure saying it would help, too, eh?

Hmm... indeed.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Minimum wage anyone? Hmm....

Not "only" cause but defiately a contributor. Nothing like hurting those who you libs said it would help... :p
You need only to look a couple of states to the right to see how that argument doesn?t float to well. Michigan's decline started 4-6 years before any July 24, 2007 bump up to $5.85 in the MW. But we should believe that the other 49 have this to blame as a contributing factor now? I am just really not seeing any correlation between for instance, the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs since 2000 having anything to do with a midyear 2007 bump either.

Wonders why Bush signed the bill on May 25th? I think by him doing so the neocons were sure saying it would help, too, eh?

Hmm... indeed.
Uh ofcourse you wouldn't see it as a contributing factor(most libs purposely ignore it) but anyone who owns a small business or one that pays employees at or just about the old minimum wage knows it is a factor. THEY have had to cut back or raise prices due to the forced wage hikes. Now, I never suggested it was the only factor but it definately was one of them. You can't just force a wage increase without it having some effect on those who pay those wages. Sheesh...
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Guys, we can talk about unemployment and all that as much as we want, but casually throwing around the word "recession" misses the point that it means something very specific...2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We're not even close to that, as since we're not, that tells me this is a bump in the road, not a huge crash. There are certainly problems, but nothing is falling apart as far as I can see. The problem is that recession fear feeds on itself, the more it's reported, the more people talk about it, the more it gets reporter, the more real the problem seems. But what we have here is basically a stock market dip, not a problem with the fundamental foundation of the economy. People are freaking out, but they'll get over it soon enough.
Very wise grasshopper, don't prepare for winter until you have seen 2 quarters of negitive grass growth.

That may not be true we are seeing what happens when people are way over leveraged and SHTF
You know how I prepare for winter? I make sure I've got a decent coat, I find my gloves, and I check the tires on my car. I do not go running around yelling that we're entering a new ice age and that the end is near.

I am not saying the economy is doing perfectly, but this is part of a normal cycle that we should just ride out, NOT the end of the economy as we know it. My point was that people need to relax and stop overreacting.
How do you know this is a cyclic downturn? Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley says this is not a cyclic downturn but a post-bubble recession.

The previous recession in 2001 was 13 % of GDP. The current one, if there is one, is the result of the twin Housing and Credit Bubbles popping to the tune of 78 % of GDP.

How can you say this will be a mild recession when everything points to a major recession (perhaps catastrophic depression, if the multi $ Trillion derivatives bubble decides to pop at this point too). The Housing downturn is easily the worst since the Great Depression. The Fed is busy bailing the Banks out (some of which may be beyond salvage at this point). As the Fed continues to create cheap loans inflation in core commodities keeps getting stoked. Goldman Sachs sees the possibility of $200 dollar oil. The mortgage market is short a cool $1 Trillion, money nobody has. And these things are only beginning to hit the real economy.





 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Guys, we can talk about unemployment and all that as much as we want, but casually throwing around the word "recession" misses the point that it means something very specific...2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We're not even close to that, as since we're not, that tells me this is a bump in the road, not a huge crash. There are certainly problems, but nothing is falling apart as far as I can see. The problem is that recession fear feeds on itself, the more it's reported, the more people talk about it, the more it gets reporter, the more real the problem seems. But what we have here is basically a stock market dip, not a problem with the fundamental foundation of the economy. People are freaking out, but they'll get over it soon enough.
Very wise grasshopper, don't prepare for winter until you have seen 2 quarters of negitive grass growth.

That may not be true we are seeing what happens when people are way over leveraged and SHTF
You know how I prepare for winter? I make sure I've got a decent coat, I find my gloves, and I check the tires on my car. I do not go running around yelling that we're entering a new ice age and that the end is near.

I am not saying the economy is doing perfectly, but this is part of a normal cycle that we should just ride out, NOT the end of the economy as we know it. My point was that people need to relax and stop overreacting.
How do you know this is a cyclic downturn? Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley says this is not a cyclic downturn but a post-bubble recession.

The previous recession in 2001 was 13 % of GDP. The current one, if there is one, is the result of the twin Housing and Credit Bubbles popping to the tune of 78 % of GDP.

How can you say this will be a mild recession when everything points to a major recession (perhaps catastrophic depression, if the multi $ Trillion derivatives bubble decides to pop at this point too). The Housing downturn is easily the worst since the Great Depression. The Fed is busy bailing the Banks out (some of which may be beyond salvage at this point). As the Fed continues to create cheap loans inflation in core commodities keeps getting stoked. Goldman Sachs sees the possibility of $200 dollar oil. The mortgage market is short a cool $1 Trillion, money nobody has. And these things are only beginning to hit the real economy.
What multi-trillion derivatives bubble? I don't think you understand derivatives and the market they are in, because most people speak in terms of notional, which is a completely incorrect in perspective. If you want to look at exposure, look at net. As far as it failing, I am sure certain parts might, but so what? That's the way things work.

economic cycles are bubble/bust periods in their most extreme, that's how it works.

Core inflation in cheap commodities has to do with exogenous variables in many cases.

Of course 200 dollar oil will occur, it's the next progression from $100 oil, so who gives a shit?

Why is it "short"?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Doom! Gloom! Do you want the U.S. economy to fail?

---------

Sorry--I just wanted to mock the economic pollyannas who always accuse malcontents like me of celebrating doom and gloom.

In an interview, Harris sounded discouraged, a feeling shared by the growing number of Americans who are out of a job. Fewer Americans looked for work in February, and the size of the overall U.S. labor force declined.

Those developments sent the unemployment rate down to 4.8 percent last month from 4.9 percent in January. "Had the 450,000 people who left the labor force last month been counted among the unemployed, the jobless rate would have been 5.1 percent instead of 4.8 percent," Bernstein, of the Economic Policy Institute, said.
So--those unemployment numbers the pollyannas like to celebrate really aren't accurate. It's nice to see a publication point out that the unemployment number doesn't tell us the real story, and I'm sure that the real unemployment figure is much bigger than that not even counting severe underemployment (which is, for all practical purposes, unemployment).

Note--The U.S. economy actually lost over 200,000 jobs! WTF? How is that? Since our nation's population is exploding, we need about 150,000 NEW jobs every month just to keep pace--just to maintain the same percentage of employment amongst the working-aged population. So the nation probably lost over 200,000 jobs but the media won't dare report that.

Doom! Gloom! The economy is good and getting goodah! Mission accomplished!
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Originally posted by: umbrella39
One a side note, in Michigan we actually dropped our unemployment rate by 3/10 %.

According to the state, employers added 4,000 payroll jobs in January. Gains of 2,000 construction jobs, 2, 000 leisure and hospitality positions and 4,000 hires in the trade, transportation and utilities sectors were offset by a loss of 6,000 jobs in manufacturing.
Text

We have been enduring this "one-state recession" for quite some time now. IMO, the rest of the country has a long way to go before catching up with us and this being coined a true recession.
It's also notable that many of the unemployed Michiganders have removed themselves from the Michigan labor force--by fleeing the state!

That's why I'd like to get this phrase added to the language: ... "harder to find than an available U-Haul in Michigan."

As in, "Finding functioning brain cells in George Bush's head is harder to find than a U-Haul in Michigan."
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Originally posted by: charrison
While things could be looking better, unemployment is still below 5% so things are not bad at this point.
Problem is, the unemployment numbers are bogus because the stat is purposely designed to exclude people who would like to work yet who are conveniently not counted as part of the labor force. The unemployment number also doesn't account for:

  • Early retirees who would like to keep working but ended up getting laid off and who couldn't find worthwhile replacement jobs.

    Women and men who've concluded that it makes more economic sense to stay home with the kids or to just stay home while their spouse works. They'd like to work but can't find wortwhile positions.

    Students who are retraining and reeducating. Many people would like to work but instead are hoping and gambling that more education will improve their employment prospects (and not just leave them saddled with student loans.)

    People who are severely underemployed. In reality they're basically unemployed.

Furthermore, the unemployment numbers do not tell us about quality of employment. That is to say, people can misconstrue them as a measurement of the quality of the nation's economy. However, it's very possible that if 97% of the people are employed at third world poverty wages such as $3/day that the unemployment rate would be 3%, which looks great! The heralded unemployment numbers don't tell us about how many people are:

Working poor--essentially living like slaves.

Severely underemployed. Lots of people have advanced college degrees yet can't find work in their fields and end up working menial jobs for low wages. They're unemployed as far as I'm concerned.

If we had an economic misery index, I bet it would be pretty high right now and that it would show us just how fallacious the unemployment numbers are as a measure of the health of the nation's economy.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Originally posted by: RainsfordI am not saying the economy is doing perfectly, but this is part of a normal cycle that we should just ride out, NOT the end of the economy as we know it. My point was that people need to relax and stop overreacting.
The concern people have is that this isn't an ordinary recession but an overall trend that was masked by the housing market. There are many reasons to believe that the nation's economy is undergoing structural changes:

Foreign offshoring
--never before have white collar, knowledge-based, college-education-requiring jobs--the ones folks are supposed to reeducate and retrain for--been sent to other countries.

Mass immigration--formerly middle class jobs like construction are suffering from the forces of global labor arbitrage, too.

Displacement of Americans by foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas (often from knowledge-based jobs).

The beginning of Peak Oil, which means that people will end up being poorer and poorer as more and more resources are spent on procuring energy.

Population explosion--more people means fewer resources per capita which means higher prices for land, clean water, energy, wood, ore, and minerals, etc.

So, this might not be a mere plain Jane recession but rather the beginning of a structural transformation in the nation's economy--the transformation of the United States into a Third World America. That's what's really bothering Americans even if they can't identify it explicitly nor articulate as well as I can.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: charrison
While things could be looking better, unemployment is still below 5% so things are not bad at this point.
Problem is, the unemployment numbers are bogus because the stat is purposely designed to exclude people who would like to work yet who are conveniently not counted as part of the labor force. The unemployment number also doesn't account for:

  • Early retirees who would like to keep working but ended up getting laid off and who couldn't find worthwhile replacement jobs.

    Women and men who've concluded that it makes more economic sense to stay home with the kids or to just stay home while their spouse works. They'd like to work but can't find wortwhile positions.

    Students who are retraining and reeducating. Many people would like to work but instead are hoping and gambling that more education will improve their employment prospects (and not just leave them saddled with student loans.)

    People who are severely underemployed. In reality they're basically unemployed.

Furthermore, the unemployment numbers do not tell us about quality of employment. That is to say, people can misconstrue them as a measurement of the quality of the nation's economy. However, it's very possible that if 97% of the people are employed at third world poverty wages such as $3/day that the unemployment rate would be 3%, which looks great! The heralded unemployment numbers don't tell us about how many people are:

Working poor--essentially living like slaves.

Severely underemployed. Lots of people have advanced college degrees yet can't find work in their fields and end up working menial jobs for low wages. They're unemployed as far as I'm concerned.

If we had an economic misery index, I bet it would be pretty high right now and that it would show us just how fallacious the unemployment numbers are as a measure of the health of the nation's economy.
You can complain about this stat being bogus, but it is the unemployment stats are quite consistent over the years. And the bls reports reports several unemployment stats, so if you a stat with that stopped looking for one it exists. But that stat is consistent if you compare it against other times, so if think the govt is government is cooking the books, it appears they always cook the books.

As far as wages go, they have been by and large increasing, so there is no huge drop like you would expect to see if there were large numbers of underemployed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY