Monthly unemployment - Printable Version

Monthly unemployment - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Monthly unemployment (/thread-20805.html)

Pages: 1 2

Monthly unemployment - BostonCard - 11-06-2020

Lost in all the election hoopla is the following:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/06/unemployment-is-falling-long-term-unemployment-is-ballooning.html

The good news is that unemployment has fallen to 6.9% (down from 7.9%) and 638,000 new jobs. The bad news is that as we are now 8 months into the pandemic, more and more of the remaining unemployed are moving into the "long-term unemployed" category.

Quote:Further, being out of work for more than six months makes it harder to find a new job. Employers are less likely to hire such workers, at the same time that job networking becomes more difficult and worker skills may start to erode, Stettner said.

The number of unemployed workers exceeds job openings by a roughly 2-to-1 margin, making jobs hard to find, too.

People have argued about the shape of the recovery, but more and more this looks like the "backwards square root sign", where a big drop in employment is followed by a significant, but incomplete, recovery followed by slow improvement. And that is pending the third wave of COVID, which could send the recovery into a second dip.

BC

RE: Monthly unemployment - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2020

The "Wall Street Wizards" should have spent more time reading this board than they apparently did in April.

Current equity values were based on the idea there would be shutdowns and then we'd be out of the Covid pandemic woods. A big recovery was priced into valuations. What happens when another round of shutdowns is on the table, like is happening in Europe? IOW, company values a few months ago were based on an expectation of where things would be today, and the assumptions were all wrong.

RE: Monthly unemployment - Mick - 11-06-2020

(11-06-2020, 12:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: People have argued about the shape of the recovery, but more and more this looks like the "backwards square root sign", where a big drop in employment is followed by a significant, but incomplete, recovery followed by slow improvement. And that is pending the third wave of COVID, which could send the recovery into a second dip.

BC

That certainly happened in the last recession. Despite experiencing the lowest interest rates possible outside of negative interest (7 years the Fed held their basic rate at 0.25%, only lifting it in Obama's 8th year), President Obama had very slow improvement both of the economy in general and (even slower) return to employment.

RE: Monthly unemployment - BostonCard - 11-06-2020

[Image: EmployRecessionOct2020.png?1604672398]

You will notice that the peak unemployment after the 2007 recession occurred 2 years after unemployment started rising, and didn't fully recover until well into Obama's second term.

This unemployment looks kind of v-shaped, but you can see how it is flattening out. If employment gains follow the last recession (or even the 2001 "jobless recovery"), with improvement of 2% per year, we will get back to where we were by about the end of the Biden presidency.

BC

RE: Monthly unemployment - fullmetal - 11-06-2020

I'm not sure whether I should be heartened or discouraged by that graph. I think it's fair to say that the covid recession affected different sectors of the economy disproportionately. Many of those who lost jobs were entertainment/food&drink/events workers who were probably not being paid all that much in the first place and, if my acquaintances are any indication, are being stretched to their limits. I'm not sure we can afford to wait four years to get back to where we were.

RE: Monthly unemployment - Goose - 11-06-2020

I think it is equally important to consider how "bogus" these unemployment numbers actually are. Since "discouraged" workers are not included in these figures, people who give up looking just disappear. There are lots more of these people out there than there were 20 years ago. There a even more today than there were a year ago. These numbers also don't include people who retired because they had no reasonable hope of finding a job. These numbers don't include people who are "students" because there are no jobs and they hope by obtaining a new skill they can find employment. "Real" unemployment is much higher than 7%.

RE: Monthly unemployment - oldalum - 11-06-2020

(11-06-2020, 04:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If employment gains follow the last recession (or even the 2001 "jobless recovery"), with improvement of 2% per year, we will get back to where we were by about the end of the Biden presidency.

which one?

:)

thatboy - thatboy - 11-06-2020

(11-06-2020, 04:47 PM)oldalum Wrote: which one?

:)

Assuming he wins, there will only be one term. I don’t buy the dementia narrative, but when I watch him I don’t see a guy who is healthy enough to run again in three or four years. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up resigning before his term is over. I say that as someone who voted for him. I wish him well and much success but I hope Kamala Harris is up for the job.

RE: Monthly unemployment - dabigv13 - 11-06-2020

I think its a nonsense narrative. He'll more likely than not be the next Democratic nominee. Not many incumbents aren't. He seems in fine shape, better than Mitch has been looking for some time and certainly healthier and sharper than our last POTUS.

RE: Monthly unemployment - thatboy - 11-06-2020

(11-06-2020, 11:36 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I think its a nonsense narrative. He'll more likely than not be the next Democratic nominee. Not many incumbents aren't. He seems in fine shape, better than Mitch has been looking for some time and certainly healthier and sharper than our last POTUS.

I guess we'll see. I watched him walk out of the press conference earlier today and he looked ancient. Just my opinion. I hope I'm wrong.

Edit: I just re-watched on Youtube. He didn't look as bad as I thought. Weird. On my TV earlier I swear he looked like a man in his 90s walking away from the podium. I don't know if it was me or my tv or just some glitch in the feed at that time.

RE: Monthly unemployment - BostonCard - 11-07-2020

Based on actuarial tables, the life expectancy of a 77 year old is almost 10 years, but of course some live another 25 years and some don’t make it four. I think he’s fine now, but if he’s ever not fine, he should step down.

BC

RE: Monthly unemployment - JustAnotherFan - 11-07-2020

Another take: Biden's run was a vanity run. Obama tried to talk him out of it. The Democratic establishment rallied around him to stop Bernie, not because they gave a damn about Biden. I'm assuming he gets talked out of running again so that they can have Kamala lose to Donald in 2024.

From Biden's perspective, beating Trump, helping Democratic and moderate Americans overcome the emotional harm of the Trump presidency, bringing even a tiny bit of competence to fighting the pandemic (it will end eventually), and riding the economic recovery will leave him with the legacy he wants to have. I'm thinking that a second term just won't be that appealing to Biden. Why not go out thinking you're the savior? Then again, power, of course, is a hell of a drug.

RE: Monthly unemployment - Mick - 11-07-2020

(11-06-2020, 11:36 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I think its a nonsense narrative. He'll more likely than not be the next Democratic nominee. Not many incumbents aren't. He seems in fine shape, better than Mitch has been looking for some time and certainly healthier and sharper than our last POTUS.

I think it's anything but a nonsense narrative. He will not be the next Democratic nominee. He's not in fine shape.

Don't you recall that Reagan was considered too old to be President at the age of 69? And was essentially out of it mentally at the end of two terms, when he was 77? Well Biden will be 78 in less than two weeks. He'll be 82 by the end of his first and only term in the most demanding job in the world. I sincerely doubt he'll finish the first term and there's a better than even money chance that he doesn't finish the first half of his first term. I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down by the end of 2021. And frankly...if he didn't make it to Inauguration Day, I wouldn't be surprised. At all.

C'mon, man.

(11-06-2020, 04:40 PM)Goose Wrote: I think it is equally important to consider how "bogus" these unemployment numbers actually are. Since "discouraged" workers are not included in these figures, people who give up looking just disappear. There are lots more of these people out there than there were 20 years ago. There a even more today than there were a year ago. These numbers also don't include people who retired because they had no reasonable hope of finding a job. These numbers don't include people who are "students" because there are no jobs and they hope by obtaining a new skill they can find employment. "Real" unemployment is much higher than 7%.

You're right, of course. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defined an unemployed person as satisfying all three of these conditions:

1) Currently has no job, not even part time.
2) Has sought a job at least once in the past four weeks.
3) They are available to work.

So the unemployment rate doesn't include part-time employees. It doesn't include people who are underemployed. It doesn't include people who are "discouraged" e.g., those who haven't sought a job in the last four weeks. It doesn't include the seasonally unemployed.

Technically, the current unemployment rate is 6.9%, up from 3.6% a year ago. The "U-6" unemployment rate, which includes disaffected and those who are part-time employed but want full-time employment was 6.9% a year ago, and is now 12.1% (down from 18% in June).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

That does not include the civilian labor force participation. In George Bush's terms, that ranged from 65.2% of adults to 67.2%mostly in the 66% to 67% range. For Obama, it dropped from 65.8% (last month before Obama's inauguration) to 62.4% in Sept, 2015. So during Obama's terms, about 5 million people were unemployed that didn't hit the unemployment rate, at its nadir.

Trump gets elected, starts with a 62.8% employment participation rate, and stayed mostly flat, climbing to 63.4% at its peak (as unemployment dropped). So he added about 1 million jobs that didn't touch the unemployment rates. That all changed with the pandemic, dropping to a low of 60.2%, currently at 61.7%, meaning many millions of unemployed that don't hit the current unemployment rate because they're not part of the labor force.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

Or to put it another way: 21,508,662 people last week took a federal government check, quite a feat now that the stimulus has ended. The comparative figure from a year ago was 1,444,923, a sixteenfold increase.

Peak labor force was 160 million people in USA, right before the pandemic hit. 21.5 million of those get a govt check. That, to me, says the actual unemployment rate is 13.44% or thereabouts.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

RE: Monthly unemployment - Maple Leaf - 11-09-2020

(11-07-2020, 09:32 AM)Mick Wrote: [quote="dabigv13" pid='295517' dateline='1604730990']
I think its a nonsense narrative. He'll more likely than not be the next Democratic nominee. Not many incumbents aren't. He seems in fine shape, better than Mitch has been looking for some time and certainly healthier and sharper than our last POTUS.

(11-06-2020, 04:40 PM)Goose Wrote: I think it is equally important to consider how "bogus" these unemployment numbers actually are. Since "discouraged" workers are not included in these figures, people who give up looking just disappear. There are lots more of these people out there than there were 20 years ago. There a even more today than there were a year ago. These numbers also don't include people who retired because they had no reasonable hope of finding a job. These numbers don't include people who are "students" because there are no jobs and they hope by obtaining a new skill they can find employment. "Real" unemployment is much higher than 7%.

RE: Monthly unemployment - Mick - 11-10-2020

(11-06-2020, 11:36 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I think its a nonsense narrative. He'll more likely than not be the next Democratic nominee. Not many incumbents aren't. He seems in fine shape, better than Mitch has been looking for some time and certainly healthier and sharper than our last POTUS.

(11-07-2020, 09:32 AM)Mick Wrote: I think it's anything but a nonsense narrative. He will not be the next Democratic nominee. He's not in fine shape.

Don't you recall that Reagan was considered too old to be President at the age of 69? And was essentially out of it mentally at the end of two terms, when he was 77? Well Biden will be 78 in less than two weeks. He'll be 82 by the end of his first and only term in the most demanding job in the world. I sincerely doubt he'll finish the first term and there's a better than even money chance that he doesn't finish the first half of his first term. I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down by the end of 2021. And frankly...if he didn't make it to Inauguration Day, I wouldn't be surprised. At all.

C'mon, man.

(11-06-2020, 04:40 PM)Goose Wrote: I think it is equally important to consider how "bogus" these unemployment numbers actually are. Since "discouraged" workers are not included in these figures, people who give up looking just disappear. There are lots more of these people out there than there were 20 years ago. There a even more today than there were a year ago. These numbers also don't include people who retired because they had no reasonable hope of finding a job. These numbers don't include people who are "students" because there are no jobs and they hope by obtaining a new skill they can find employment. "Real" unemployment is much higher than 7%.

(11-07-2020, 09:32 AM)Mick Wrote: You're right, of course. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defined an unemployed person as satisfying all three of these conditions:

1) Currently has no job, not even part time.
2) Has sought a job at least once in the past four weeks.
3) They are available to work.

So the unemployment rate doesn't include part-time employees. It doesn't include people who are underemployed. It doesn't include people who are "discouraged" e.g., those who haven't sought a job in the last four weeks. It doesn't include the seasonally unemployed.

Technically, the current unemployment rate is 6.9%, up from 3.6% a year ago. The "U-6" unemployment rate, which includes disaffected and those who are part-time employed but want full-time employment was 6.9% a year ago, and is now 12.1% (down from 18% in June).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

That does not include the civilian labor force participation. In George Bush's terms, that ranged from 65.2% of adults to 67.2%mostly in the 66% to 67% range. For Obama, it dropped from 65.8% (last month before Obama's inauguration) to 62.4% in Sept, 2015. So during Obama's terms, about 5 million people were unemployed that didn't hit the unemployment rate, at its nadir.

Trump gets elected, starts with a 62.8% employment participation rate, and stayed mostly flat, climbing to 63.4% at its peak (as unemployment dropped). So he added about 1 million jobs that didn't touch the unemployment rates. That all changed with the pandemic, dropping to a low of 60.2%, currently at 61.7%, meaning many millions of unemployed that don't hit the current unemployment rate because they're not part of the labor force.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

Or to put it another way: 21,508,662 people last week took a federal government check, quite a feat now that the stimulus has ended. The comparative figure from a year ago was 1,444,923, a sixteenfold increase.

Peak labor force was 160 million people in USA, right before the pandemic hit. 21.5 million of those get a govt check. That, to me, says the actual unemployment rate is 13.44% or thereabouts.

(11-09-2020, 04:48 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote: Add to the level of unemployment and the number of business that have and will go under, starting in 2021 we will starting seeing personal income tax increases which was part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Job Act. 2021 will be a tough year for any President.

I think it will depend on the stimulus, candidly. The Democrats can solve an awful lot of self-inflicted problems under the rubric of a blowout stimulus -- essentially what Pelosi was gambling on, initially. Frankly, I think it's a pretty good idea. As Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that: it's an opportunity to do things that you couldn't before." COVID crisis = save lots of underfunded/nonfunded Democratic projects. Sounds like it's time to do that. With a $27 trillion debt, what's another $2 trillion?

https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20current%20U.S.,trillions%20as%20of%20February%202020.

RE: Monthly unemployment - BostonCard - 11-10-2020

(11-10-2020, 09:21 AM)Mick Wrote: I think it will depend on the stimulus, candidly. The Democrats can solve an awful lot of self-inflicted problems under the rubric of a blowout stimulus -- essentially what Pelosi was gambling on, initially. Frankly, I think it's a pretty good idea. As Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that: it's an opportunity to do things that you couldn't before." COVID crisis = save lots of underfunded/nonfunded Democratic projects. Sounds like it's time to do that. With a $27 trillion debt, what's another $2 trillion?

https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20current%20U.S.,trillions%20as%20of%20February%202020.

Pelosi gambled on capturing the senate and presidency and (barring something unexpected in Georgia) lost. As a consequence, she will have to deal with Mitch McConnell who appears to have rediscovered his party's fiscal prudence. I would be surprised if the stimulus breaks the $1 trillion mark, and will require some serious concessions to Republicans.

BC

RE: Monthly unemployment - Mick - 11-10-2020

(11-10-2020, 09:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-10-2020, 09:21 AM)Mick Wrote: I think it will depend on the stimulus, candidly. The Democrats can solve an awful lot of self-inflicted problems under the rubric of a blowout stimulus -- essentially what Pelosi was gambling on, initially. Frankly, I think it's a pretty good idea. As Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that: it's an opportunity to do things that you couldn't before." COVID crisis = save lots of underfunded/nonfunded Democratic projects. Sounds like it's time to do that. With a $27 trillion debt, what's another $2 trillion?

https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20current%20U.S.,trillions%20as%20of%20February%202020.

Pelosi gambled on capturing the senate and presidency and (barring something unexpected in Georgia) lost. As a consequence, she will have to deal with Mitch McConnell who appears to have rediscovered his party's fiscal prudence. I would be surprised if the stimulus breaks the $1 trillion mark, and will require some serious concessions to Republicans.

BC

Without the stimulus, we're in trouble. The Republicans are on the verge of being seen as genuine bad guys. If the economy craters because of the lack of the second stimulus, then the Democrats won't need any other talking points.

Some projections from our Wall Street friends:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/economic-outlook-wall-street-gdp-forecasts-slashed-stimulus-bill-unlikely-2020-9-1029624514

RE: Monthly unemployment - BostonCard - 11-10-2020

One of my favor reports came out, the September JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) report

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm

There are approximately 2 job seekers for every opening out there. The 6.4 million openings is down from 7 million a year ago. And, of course, there were not 21+ million people taking state unemployment a year ago. As you point out, without stimulus, we are in trouble.

BC

RE: Monthly unemployment - Hurlburt88 - 11-11-2020

Still not feeling this in my business for hourly employees and some salaried positions, although those do have specialty requirements. 3 locations: Wisconsin, Detroit, and Chicago we have people telling us that they would rather wait for the next stimulus. Just bumped up our starting rates.

RE: Monthly unemployment - OutsiderFan - 11-11-2020

(11-10-2020, 09:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-10-2020, 09:21 AM)Mick Wrote: I think it will depend on the stimulus, candidly. The Democrats can solve an awful lot of self-inflicted problems under the rubric of a blowout stimulus -- essentially what Pelosi was gambling on, initially. Frankly, I think it's a pretty good idea. As Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that: it's an opportunity to do things that you couldn't before." COVID crisis = save lots of underfunded/nonfunded Democratic projects. Sounds like it's time to do that. With a $27 trillion debt, what's another $2 trillion?

https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20current%20U.S.,trillions%20as%20of%20February%202020.

Pelosi gambled on capturing the senate and presidency and (barring something unexpected in Georgia) lost. As a consequence, she will have to deal with Mitch McConnell who appears to have rediscovered his party's fiscal prudence. I would be surprised if the stimulus breaks the $1 trillion mark, and will require some serious concessions to Republicans.

BC

I am confident those GA Senate seats are going to the Dems. The GOP reality denying and illiberal behavior this week has sealed it for them. John Bolton knows this and said so in WaPo today. A full 84% of Americans polled say Biden won and just 3% say the Orange Turd did. A plurality of GA voters will not want Senators representing them who can't live in reality. They denied Covid now raging out of control and are currently denying an obvious election result.