Unemployment falls, dollar rallies

[mustang84isu]

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramen...30/daily42.html

 

The nation's unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 10 percent in November, down from 10.2 percent in October, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

 

The Labor Department said the economy lost just 11,000 jobs in November, the smallest monthly contraction in the labor force since the recession began in late 2007. It also revised lower job loss numbers for both September and October.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=acNuaXHmKX4s

 

The biggest rally in the U.S. dollar since June snuffed out an advance in commodities and dampened gains in equities as an unexpected drop in the unemployment rate triggered bets the Federal Reserve will lift borrowing costs. Gold slid the most in a year two-year Treasuries tumbled.

 

The Dollar Index, a gauge of the currency against six major trading partners, jumped as much as 1.3 percent.

[RangerM]

The nation's unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 10 percent in November...

 

The Labor Department said the economy lost just 11,000 jobs in November....

Does that make sense?

[sprinter]

Does that make sense?

 

It's the new government math

[goinbroke2]

It does if your a believer....

 

 

 

 

 

Nobama, keep the change

[grbeck]

Does that make sense?

 

It's possible that some people gave up looking for work, and are thus no longer counted as "unemployed." If I recall correctly, the unemployment rate does not include people who have, for whatever reason, stopped looking for work. They have essentially "dropped out" of the workforce.

 

This flaw in the way the unemployment rate is calculated has been around for many years - I recall hearing about it during the administration of the first George Bush. So it's not something that the Obama Administration dreamed up to make the numbers look better (lest there be any accusations of Obama bashing).

[silvrsvt]

It's possible that some people gave up looking for work, and are thus no longer counted as "unemployed." If I recall correctly, the unemployment rate does not include people who have, for whatever reason, stopped looking for work. They have essentially "dropped out" of the workforce.

 

This flaw in the way the unemployment rate is calculated has been around for many years - I recall hearing about it during the administration of the first George Bush. So it's not something that the Obama Administration dreamed up to make the numbers look better (lest there be any accusations of Obama bashing).

 

I've read that the 'true" unemployment rate including people who aren't working is closer to 17% or so

 

I don't think a whopping .2 of a percent is going to make a big difference....and the numbers are slightly skewered this month due to seasonal employees hired for Christmas.

 

At least the dollar went up...that means its cheaper for me to order stuff overseas

[Ron W.]

It's possible that some people gave up looking for work, and are thus no longer counted as "unemployed." If I recall correctly, the unemployment rate does not include people who have, for whatever reason, stopped looking for work.

 

 

As far as I know it also does not include people like myself that are unemployed but not receiving an unemployment check.

 

The job market is still falling but falling more slowly, that's supposed to be good news?

[fmccap]

Does that make sense?

This might help.

 

Jobs Contract 23rd Straight Month; Unemployment Rate Drop to 10.0%

[Roadtrip]

It's possible that some people gave up looking for work, and are thus no longer counted as "unemployed." If I recall correctly, the unemployment rate does not include people who have, for whatever reason, stopped looking for work. They have essentially "dropped out" of the workforce.

 

This flaw in the way the unemployment rate is calculated has been around for many years - I recall hearing about it during the administration of the first George Bush. So it's not something that the Obama Administration dreamed up to make the numbers look better (lest there be any accusations of Obama bashing).

 

It's not really a flaw, insofar as what the Bureau of Labor Statistics deems to be the "official" unemployment rate. The BLS calls their official rate "U-3," which they claim as "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force."

 

But the BLS also has an unemployment measure called "U-6," which it defines as follows:

"Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

 

"NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule."

 

The BLS's U-6 measure of unemployment was a seasonally adjusted 17.2 percent in November, down from 17.5 percent in October, which is a bit of good news. Here's a link to the BLS December 4 news release.

 

I would caution those who are ready to declare the U-6 unemployment rate as approaching the catastrophic levels of the Great Depression to consider that, during the Depression, most households were supported by single earners. Women had not entered the U.S. workforce en masse until World War II. So a 17 percent unemployment rate today does not mean that people are suffering at the same level they were when the unemployment rate was at 17 percent (or thereabouts) during the 1930s. We don't see the bread lines, soup lines and shanty towns that were prevalent during the Depression largely because most households today have dual income earners. And if one income earner in the family becomes unemployed, it's not necessarily catastrophic for the family. (Which also serves as an economic lesson in the value of diversifying risk -- or simple risk management, for that matter.)

 

As for the Dollar, that's another story. It may have risen today, but it's still down about 19 percent from last March (as measured against a basket of other major currencies). That's not good, because it's a reflection of global confidence in the Dollar as a store of value -- which is undermined by record levels of debt, both public and private.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Roadtrip

[mustang84isu]

11,000 jobs lost this month vs. 160,000 last month (revised down to 139,000) and 200,000+ the month prior. This is in line with economist predictions from six months ago that job creation would begin sometime in the first half of 2010. Each month keeps getting better.

 

As usual, the doom and gloom appears to be overblown.

[Trimdingman]

11,000 jobs lost this month vs. 160,000 last month (revised down to 139,000) and 200,000+ the month prior. This is in line with economist predictions from six months ago that job creation would begin sometime in the first half of 2010. Each month keeps getting better.

 

As usual, the doom and gloom appears to be overblown.

 

If you take the amount the Dow has gone up since last years' low, and compare that to how much the value of the dollar has depreciated compared to gold, we are still at that low. The only growth has been in the money supply from the Fed printing counterfeit Monopoly money. There is a vast store of paper all set to buy up everything in sight at the first real sign of a recovery, and that will cause a bout of inflation which hasn't been seen since the Civil War. Then the whole world will be dumping the dollar and it will become worthless.

[RangerM]

11,000 jobs lost this month vs. 160,000 last month (revised down to 139,000) and 200,000+ the month prior. This is in line with economist predictions from six months ago that job creation would begin sometime in the first half of 2010. Each month keeps getting better.

I'll reserve judgement until after the Christmas Holidays. There are a lot of temporary jobs around this time.

[No_Fear]

You can check out the latest unemployment statistics at the link below:

 

U.S. Dept. of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

[fmccap]

You can check out the latest unemployment statistics at the link below:

 

U.S. Dept. of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Explaining The Drop In Unemployment Rate

In regards to the economy, the jobs picture presented on Friday was a mirage. One even has to wonder if the BLS is purposely playing games knowing full well a massive revision in the January numbers (coming out in February), will subtract 80,000 jobs a month for a full year.

 

I doubt the unemployment rate is under 10% a year from now, or even two years from now, unless the BLS numbers show large declines in the labor force (as they did in the November Employment Report on Friday).

[Trimdingman]

With all of the stimulus money going into the economy, the unemployment picture should be improving, if you buy into the stimulus theory. Printing money makes all money worth less, so there is no gain. It is like a recent project I read about. A residence was built at a cost of twelve million dollars, which took 75 homeless people off the street. The resulting loss of buying power from taking 12 million dollars out of the economy, when it trickles down, will create over 100 more homeless people. That is how all social assistance programs work. They create more need for social assistance. That is why it keeps growing. That is why we are in a financial mess. The government has done it to us by growing too big. Too much money goes to non-productive government paper-pushers and tail chasers. For every useless law or regulation, there is an army of enforcers and investigators and department heads, each complete with his own entourage. We are going to collapse just like the USSR did.

[grbeck]

11,000 jobs lost this month vs. 160,000 last month (revised down to 139,000) and 200,000+ the month prior. This is in line with economist predictions from six months ago that job creation would begin sometime in the first half of 2010. Each month keeps getting better.

 

As usual, the doom and gloom appears to be overblown.

 

If Senator McCain had won the election, and these results were reported, I have the strong suspicion that you'd be among the doom-and-gloom crowd.

[DUCKRACER]

With all of the stimulus money going into the economy, the unemployment picture should be improving, if you buy into the stimulus theory. Printing money makes all money worth less, so there is no gain. It is like a recent project I read about. A residence was built at a cost of twelve million dollars, which took 75 homeless people off the street. The resulting loss of buying power from taking 12 million dollars out of the economy, when it trickles down, will create over 100 more homeless people. That is how all social assistance programs work. They create more need for social assistance. That is why it keeps growing. That is why we are in a financial mess. The government has done it to us by growing too big. Too much money goes to non-productive government paper-pushers and tail chasers. For every useless law or regulation, there is an army of enforcers and investigators and department heads, each complete with his own entourage. We are going to collapse just like the USSR did.

 

Unless fiscally conservative tax and regulation cutting Republicans gain control of congress in 2010 and the white house in 2012

 

It worked when JFK did it. It worked when Reagan did it. It will work now.

[mustang84isu]

If Senator McCain had won the election, and these results were reported, I have the strong suspicion that you'd be among the doom-and-gloom crowd.

Nope, I'd give credit where it was due. Mind you, I was a registered Republican at one time. If the economy had begun to rebound in less than a year under McCain, I would have been nothing short of amazed considering he didn't admit things were on the downward slide until Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsed. His entire career has been focused mostly on goverment spending waste, which is only looking at the trees instead of the entire forest. Nothing would have changed under him. Policies adopted when we had a robust manufacturing sector and small population of aging adults are no longer cutting it in 2009. We need to reform the big ideas, such as health care and energy policy now...not another 10 or 20 years from now. McCain would have simply been an extension of Bush policy.

[grbeck]

Nope, I'd give credit where it was due. Mind you, I was a registered Republican at one time. If the economy had begun to rebound in less than a year under McCain, I would have been nothing short of amazed considering he didn't admit things were on the downward slide until Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsed. His entire career has been focused mostly on goverment spending waste, which is only looking at the trees instead of the entire forest. Nothing would have changed under him.

 

Nothing much has changed under Obama, either, from what I can see. His stimulus plans and bailout of companies were simply extensions of what Bush was doing. "The same, only more so" isn't my idea of a dramatic change.

 

Policies adopted when we had a robust manufacturing sector and small population of aging adults are no longer cutting it in 2009.

 

The myth of the vanishing domestic manufacturing sector. Its death has been greatly exaggerated. Here are the facts, from a 2007 article from that well-known right-wing rag, The Washington Post:

 

The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation -- three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry. Between 1977 and 2005, the value of American manufacturing swelled from $1.3 trillion to an all-time record $4.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (emphasis added)

 

With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for almost one-fourth of global manufacturing, a share that has changed little in decades. The United States is the largest manufacturing economy by far. Japan, the only serious rival for that title, has been losing ground. China has been growing but represents only about one-tenth of world manufacturing. (emphasis added)

 

But if the big picture is brighter than many realize, American manufacturing is nevertheless undergoing fundamental change that is exerting enormous pressure on workers.

 

Imports are rising, now representing a third of all manufactured goods consumed in the country, up from 10 percent in the 1970s.

 

American exports are rising even faster than imports, but companies face intense price competition, with China, India, Brazil and dozens of other low-wage countries now part of a global marketplace for labor and materials. Manufacturers are redesigning production lines to make them more efficient, substituting machinery for people wherever possible.

 

So while American manufacturing is not declining, manufacturing employment has been shrinking dramatically. After peaking in 1979 at 19 million workers, the American manufacturing workforce has since dropped to 14 million, the lowest number since 1950.

 

One reason for the disconnect - especially on this site - is that the old-line companies, and the Big Three in particular, are no longer synonomous with American manufacturing (thank goodness - for example, if the best we do in the auto sector is an MKS or CTS, we really should pack it in).

 

We need to reform the big ideas, such as health care and energy policy now...not another 10 or 20 years from now. McCain would have simply been an extension of Bush policy.

 

I'm not seeing "reform" in those areas, unless "more onerous regulations" and "creation of even more bureaucracy" (energy and health care) and "more people expecting others to pay their bills" (health care) are now synonomous with "reform."

Edited December 7, 2009 by grbeck

[sprinter]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091217/D9CL3AOG1.html

 

Unemployment claims have been on a downward trend since this summer. That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year. But the rise in weekly claims of 7,000 last week, which had followed an increase of 19,000 the previous week, shows that the improvement has been halting.

[97svtgoin05gt]

I think there are a number of issues we face regarding the economy.

 

First and foremost, it is my opinion that costs of everything you can think of have risen at alarming rates. If you look at a simple roll of paper towels now vs 20 years ago, the amount you spend on it has increased dramatically. Apply this to fuel, energy, food, taxes, clothing...everything you can imagine.

 

Conversely, how many peoples income has increased at this rate? Further, how many peoples income has DECREASED over the same period? My particular household makes less now than it did just 2 short years ago and MUCH less than it did 10 years ago. With costs increasing, home values in the tank and income shrinking there is just no way to sustain a consumption driven economy.

 

I believe this downhill slide began when president Bush signed NAFTA. That agreement seems to me to be the turning point at which our ability to manufacture goods here in the US profitably and the shift to bringing almost EVERYTHING in from China really gained steam and relavence. The root cause of this by the way is greed. The reason we outsourced so much stuff was to drive down cost thereby increasing profit which made stockholders and executives more money. We're now experiencing the long term effects of this. I also seem to remember that the politicians were patting themselves on the back when this was done stating that costs will go DOWN and we'll all be able to afford things better etc. etc. Where'd that idea go?

 

Second is our enormous healthcare issue. Aging seniors population increasing and our decision to allow any body and I mean ANYBODY US citizen or not to utilize our hospitals as Drs offices are dragging down the healthcare system like an anchor. We've done this to ourselves by not being proactive with regard to senior care and allowing more and more aliens to just set up shop in our country. It is my opinion that when an illegal appears in an ER with MAJOR issues such as cancer, liver failure, heart failure etc, the US government should not just suck that cost up and treat these people. Fly them back to where ever they came from and allow that country to bear that burden. And yes, we'll fly them at no cost. The idea of hospitals needing to maintain a profit while our population ages and lives longer and longer doesnt' really work out too well. As a person ages, they will need more care and more services that will bankrupt all hospitals eventually. A good place for stimulous money is hospitals so they can provide proper care for our seniors without having to constantly manage a balance sheet for profit. It should of course be policed so rip off administrators don't take the money for themselves (not that that ever happens) but expecting hospitals to turn a profit while bearing the burden of illegals and ever increasing senior care is just crazy.

 

Third, I believe our ever increasingly gigantic size of government both at the town, city, and state level as well as the federal level needs to stop. The government cannot just keep hiring people. In my state, the government has been allowed to grow so much, many natives from the state are leaving in droves. We simply cannot afford to hire all the state employees friends, families etc. When you have to pay damn near $700 a month just in property taxes and not even for a single family home, something is severely broken. I have no property, its a townhouse and with taxes like this I'm just not sure how much longer I can hack it.

 

Lastly, I just feel as if we really just have too many people in the country now. We've allowed people from every continent on the globe to just keep coming and coming. Our population continues to increase while the number of available jobs is in a decline. What this will cause is the need for more government programs to help these unemployed, uninsured people and more government jobs to deal with these programs and less actually productive citizens in which to make the economy work.

 

I believe we are on the road to economic disaster. There have been very expensive plugs put in the tire for now to prop it up, but eventually all these things will come home to roost. He can't possibly print enough money to handle it.

Edited December 18, 2009 by 97svtgoin05gt

[RangerM]

I'll reserve judgement until after the Christmas Holidays. There are a lot of temporary jobs around this time.

 

Economy loses 85K jobs as employers remain wary (Link)

Employers cut more jobs than expected in December, unemployment rate holds at 10 percent

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 net jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.

 

The sharp drop in the work force -- 661,000 fewer people -- showed that more of the jobless are giving up. Once people stop looking for jobs, they're no longer counted among the unemployed.

 

When discouraged workers and part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs are included, the so-called "underemployment" rate in December rose to 17.3 percent, from 17.2 percent in November. That's just below a revised figure of 17.4 percent in October, the highest on records dating from 1994....

This without the post-Christmas layoffs (from seasonal work). Not good news.

 

Businesses aren't going to invest when they can't predict what the government will do.

[fmccap]

Economy loses 85K jobs as employers remain wary (Link)

Employers cut more jobs than expected in December, unemployment rate holds at 10 percent

 

 

This without the post-Christmas layoffs (from seasonal work). Not good news.

 

Businesses aren't going to invest when they can't predict what the government will do.

Jobs Contract 24th Straight Month; Unemployment Rate Stays At 10.0%

Index of Aggregate Weekly Hours

 

Work hours were flat at 33.2. Short work weeks contribute to household problems. Moreover, before hiring begins at many places, work weeks will increase.

 

Also wondering what you think when you read this.

I would like to point out upfront what a joke the announced unemployment rate is. According to Bernanke himself, it should take 100,000 jobs a month to keep up with the birth rate and immigration. Instead the civilian labor force dropped by 661,000 and those not in the labor force dropped by a whopping 843,00 workers.

 

There are now a whopping 2.5 million people without a job but want one, yet are not counted as unemployed.

[RangerM]

Jobs Contract 24th Straight Month; Unemployment Rate Stays At 10.0%

 

Also wondering what you think when you read this.

I think the Federal Government is derelict of duty. They have completely lost focus that without private-sector employment, there can be no public-sector anything.

 

Instead of promoting the types of things that would encourage new business investment, they have stifled it. I'm not usually given to conspiracy, but it almost seems like they want people to become wards of the State.

 

As crazy as that sounds, how about this.........poor peoples' taxes are going up.

 

Not that the rates themselves are going up, but the Federal Government (the Obama Administration) has voted to increase withholding on all workers above a certain threshold. The reason I say "poor peoples" is that the threshold for witholding will go down in 2010 from $138 weekly to $116 weekly. That means that a person making $117 will have taxes taken out of his check this year, whereas last year he would not.

 

Now the person WILL get the money back at the end of the year (supposedly), since the actual rates will not go up, but the Federal Government will be getting a free loan from him for the duration of 2010, unless he (knowingly) adjusts his W4.

 

Similar increases in withholding occur for the middle-class as well. If you lose more of your paycheck to withholding than you did before, but you (supposedly) get the money back at the end of the year, does that mean Obama didn't lie about no tax increases on people making less than $250K?

 

Perhaps it's just to make the deficit appear not as bad in an election year.

 

In any case, I'd love to hear from some Obama fans who favor this, see it as a good thing and why.

 

(EDIT: Here's the link outlining what is happening to withholding in 2010.)

Edited January 9, 2010 by RangerM

[mikem12]

I think there are a number of issues we face regarding the economy.

 

First and foremost, it is my opinion that costs of everything you can think of have risen at alarming rates. If you look at a simple roll of paper towels now vs 20 years ago, the amount you spend on it has increased dramatically. Apply this to fuel, energy, food, taxes, clothing...everything you can imagine.

 

Conversely, how many peoples income has increased at this rate? Further, how many peoples income has DECREASED over the same period? My particular household makes less now than it did just 2 short years ago and MUCH less than it did 10 years ago. With costs increasing, home values in the tank and income shrinking there is just no way to sustain a consumption driven economy.

 

I believe this downhill slide began when president Bush signed NAFTA. That agreement seems to me to be the turning point at which our ability to manufacture goods here in the US profitably and the shift to bringing almost EVERYTHING in from China really gained steam and relavence. The root cause of this by the way is greed. The reason we outsourced so much stuff was to drive down cost thereby increasing profit which made stockholders and executives more money. We're now experiencing the long term effects of this. I also seem to remember that the politicians were patting themselves on the back when this was done stating that costs will go DOWN and we'll all be able to afford things better etc. etc. Where'd that idea go?

 

I won't argue with you other than one point Bush didnt sign off on NAFTA, Clinton did. Bush1 got he ball rolling but Clinton finalized and made it law.