Why are we still at 9.1% unemployment (U3)?

[her209]

Take the Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Feb 2009 Table 5 data from the Feb 2010 report. I did this because sometimes there are revisions to the numbers in subsequent months so I figured a year out would give it enough time. Take the preliminary May 2011 data from the May 2011 report.

The results (by state) below:

Crazy how many construction and manufacturing jobs have been lost. <sarcasm> At least Education and Health Services jobs are growing. </sarcasm>

EDIT: Numbers in table are in thousands.

 

[nick1985]

We need more stimulus

 

[boomerang]

Sometimes, to create what you want, you have to tear down what you have.

 

[her209]

Sometimes, to create what you want, you have to tear down what you have.

Looks like we want Professional and Business Services, Education and Health Services, and Leisure and Hospitality.

 

[boomerang]

Looks like we want Professional and Business Services, Education and Health Services, and Leisure and Hospitality.

I can see why you'd think that, but you did pose the question of why the unemployment rate is still so high.

That number in the bottom right corner is a big one, and a negative number too.

Is this by design or a result of incompetence?

 

[M0RPH]

The official unemployment number is bs anyways. There are a lot more unemployed/underemployed people not counted in that figure.

 

[Munky]

Why is Bernanke trying to save a sinking ship by throwing more water at it?

 

[a777pilot]

Sometimes, to create what you want, you have to tear down what you have.

So sayth the Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Because job creators are over taxed, duh.

 

[wuliheron]

Because job creators are over taxed, duh.

They need more stimulus! Give the corporations and the wealthy the shirts off your backs and maybe they'll find a nice job for you that doesn't require a shirt.

 

[theeedude]

Look at CA, more government jobs lost than construction. There is your answer. When the economy contracts, the government should pick up the slack, not contract with it.

 

[etrigan420]

NO WORRIES!!!

Any minute now the Republicans are going to introduce Jobs Creation bills, just like they promised...any minute now...wait for it...aaaaaaand NOW!

No?...NOW!

Now!

Now!

hmmm...

 

[nick1985]

lol @ last 3 posters

 

[akahoovy]

Being that the government is funded by the public, I would think that the government should be as dynamic as the private sector. If the private sector is doing well, then the government will reflect this with being able to accomplish more in shorter spans of time, because it can provide more jobs. When the private sector shrinks, the government should contract as well, being dependent on its source.

 

[matt0611]

We need to legislate some more jobs into existence, clearly.

 

[rudder]

Crazy how many construction and manufacturing jobs have been lost. <sarcasm> At least Education and Health Services jobs are growing. </sarcasm>

Construction picking way up near me... of course legal residents cannot afford to work for the suppressed wages (thanks to illegal labor... who by the way are the ones building all the new homes in my town).

 

[MovingTarget]

A better question is why do we keep looking at the U3 levels. The U6 seems to be a better metric to measure the true economic health of the average joe.

 

[Anarchist420]

The reason employment is so low is because of the stimulus and because of taxation and regulations.

It's really kind of sickening to imagine how well off the economy would be if all the bad banks had just been allowed to fail.

The only way out is to temporarily increase unemployment even more, but it would be worthit in the long run However, the sooner they raise interest rates, the shorter the coming recession will be. If the Fed keeps the reserve ratio requirements this low and keeps the discount rate high for another 2 years, then we'll be in the 2nd Great Depression if they were to wait to pop this bubble 2 years from now.

They ought to just hyperdeflate, let the bad debts liquidate, and then keep the money/credit supply stable thereafter. If they were to raise reserve ratios to 100&#37; tonight, then U3 would be ~35% next week, but within 6 months after that, assuming they don't reinflate, the U3 would be < 3%.

If we had spent more on stimulus, then we'd be experiencing hyperinflation now. Keynesian policies work fine in the short term, but then they fuck up. We basically have a Chicago School adherent (or maybe just his policies are) as the Fed Chairman, and monetarist policies are not doing us a damn bit of good. The Friedmanite (monetarist) policies during the roaring 20s was what caused the stock market crash in 1929. Coolidge was no Austrian, he was a Friedmanite, or at least his Fed chairman was. The last President who could be considered to have been anywhere close to adhering to the Austrian school was Stephen Grover Cleveland, but he still wasn't perfect.

 

[First]

Mostly, it's many more people being included in the participation rate since the economy started growing. It was ridiculously low, now it's much higher (like 64&#37;-65%) but that is still historically low. Once we reach whatever the new saturation is for the participation rate, by definition we'll mathematically see unemployment fall fast and sharply assuming 200K+ jobs created every month which has been the case 4 of 5 months this year. Plus you have $2T in corporate cash on the sidelines ready to be used for employment and the next big boom (whether that's green energy or something else, who knows). It'll pick up and stay up for many years, we're just in a prolonged period of high unemployment, but one that is definitely very temporary.

 

[Infohawk]

Is there any reason for more jobs to be created in the US? Not really.

Wages are much lower in other countries. There is no reason to hire someone here over someone there unless it's a job that has to be here like a waiter to service people here who do have jobs. And we're running out of speculative bubbles and credit to sustain many remaining jobs.

A better question is why do we keep looking at the U3 levels.

True. And let's not forget to look at how much people are making in these new jobs too. Average wages are going down.

 

[First]

Average wages have been going up for 3 years running. http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm

And there's plenty of reason to hire people in the U.S., mainly competency, culture, communication and ideas as compared to the Chinese and Indian alternatives, with Chinese labor becoming increasingly more expensive and not as worth it given quality control and communication issues. Yeah, nothing major, lol.

 

[Infohawk]

Average wages have been going up for 3 years running. http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm

And there's plenty of reason to hire people in the U.S., mainly competency, culture, communication and ideas as compared to the Chinese and Indian alternatives, with Chinese labor becoming increasingly more expensive and not as worth it given quality control and communication issues. Yeah, nothing major, lol.

That's a really general link, so I'm not sure what specific figures you're referencing. Are they inflation-adjusted?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...Wage-Growth-Worse-Than-During-Depression.aspx Maybe I should have said "stagnating real wages." It's hard to get higher consumer spending out of stagnating real wages.

Your "we're better than them" argument is wishful thinking I'm afraid. Although I'm a fan of western culture, but the fact is Chinese and Indians are becoming westernized. And the idea that first-worlders are more creative or dynamic is at best speculative and at worst bigoted. They're still developing. They're not going to grow a first-world regulatory system over night.

 

[BurnItDwn]

We are still at 9.1&#37; employment because it's still cheaper to hire people in India and China to do the same work we do here.

Costs are going up in China, however, companies have no incentive to keep their American workers because it hurts their bottom line. While I wish they would reopen factories here and hire Americans, I understand that they are competing on an international stage. I've said in the past that we should not trade with countries that have unfair trade advantages, however that's never going to happen. By unfair trade advantages, I speak mostly of countries with less restrictive pollution laws and/or countries with less restrictive labor laws.

Anyhow, sooner or later China and India will "catch up", and when that happens, there will most likely be another cheap labor pool, however, eventually, the well will dry up.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why are we still at 9.1&#37; unemployment (U3)?

In reality we're probably above 20% unemployment not counting underemployment. But the government and the wealthy who purchased it don't want the peasants to revolt.

Also, many people who would otherwise be unemployed or underemployed are being sucked up by education (as students who should be counted as unemployed IMHO) or the military.

Sadly, the media won't just simply report the percentage of working-aged people who are employed.

 

[First]

That's a really general link, so I'm not sure what specific figures you're referencing. Are they inflation-adjusted?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...Wage-Growth-Worse-Than-During-Depression.aspx Maybe I should have said "stagnating real wages." It's hard to get higher consumer spending out of stagnating real wages.

Yes, they're inflation adjusted. Wages have been rising very slightly for 3 years now.

Your "we're better than them" argument is wishful thinking I'm afraid.

It's rooted in verifiable history, actually.

Although I'm a fan of western culture, but the fact is Chinese and Indians are becoming westernized. And the idea that first-worlders are more creative or dynamic is at best speculative and at worst bigoted. They're still developing. They're not going to grow a first-world regulatory system over night.

Chinese and Indians becoming westernized is irrelevant, I'm talking about them being able to function in the same capacity as native born Americans. As long as Chinese and Indians continue to live in China and India, they will continue to be at a disadvantage to people born and raised in the U.S. in the areas I listed. The reverse is also true. You can't get over anthropological realities.

And weren't you just saying (and failing) in another thread that calling people bigoted was wrong? lol.