Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
deMolay wrote:Oilfinder my little Cornupicus I like you, you have a sense of humour. A rare thing with Cornies and Hopey/Changey/Thingey's. But I still have to say. "Now I would never call you a liar. But you do seem to have a knack for telling the truth to suit your own purpose."
shortonoil wrote:DantesPeak said:Yes we could see a drop in new unemployment claims when they are discharged from bankruptcy, but that will only help the monthly unemployment rate a small amount.
I also said elsewhere that we may see a one or two month improvement in unemployment later in the year, bus basically I see monthly unemployment higher at the end of 3 rd quarter (than the 2 nd), and higher still at the end of the 4 th.
We are likely to see a drop in unemployment sometime this year, which will occur before it again starts to escalate in 2010. Projections from the AvailableEnergy model give unemployment levels bottoming at 485,000 a month. Of course the model has problems here in as much that it is basing its estimates from GDP projections. The timing factor between changing GDP and changing employment has to pretty much be guessed at.
In September many unemployed will begin ending their benefit period and be permanently removed from the unemployment rolls. This will help the numbers, and not do much for those who will then have no income. This could be tracked through food stamp and welfare programs if someone had the ambition.
The model predicts 16 years.
However I put the odds at higher than 50% that we will have a sigificnat or worse dollar and/or bond market crisis in the fourth quarter - which may lead to new unemployment going back to 500,000 or more per month.
George Ure: One other thing - in the 'looking ahead before the train wreck rolls over us: I mentioned to the chief time monk yesterday that at least we can still "help people wake up to what's going on."
His answer was kinda startling. "Dude, we passed that point a couple of days ago in the data. If someone's not already awaken, they're not gonna be when all this stuff shows up later in the year."
kmann wrote:You can believe what you want. If you believe the govt is lying - it's not my job to change your mind. I don't (believe they're lying), I think the statistics they put out are most likely genuine. I'll take them at face value until I have evidence otherwise.
-There is an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business and its appearing on the sample frame and being available for sampling. Because new firm births generate a portion of employment growth each month, non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth.
-Earlier research indicated that while both the business birth and death portions of total employment are generally significant, the net contribution is relatively small and stable. To account for this net birth/death portion of total employment, BLS uses an estimation procedure with two components: the first component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births. This is incorporated into the sample-based estimate procedure by simply not reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same trend as the other firms in the sample. This step accounts for most of the net birth/death employment.
-The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from the UI universe micro level database, and reflects the actual residual net of births and deaths over the past five years.
Dreamtwister wrote:For another thing, the formula doesn't count people who have either stopped looking or simply had their benefits expire. Under the current formula, our friend cbxer55 will no longer be considered to be unemployed. I think he might disagree with the government's assessment, though.
Novus wrote:Dreamtwister wrote:For another thing, the formula doesn't count people who have either stopped looking or simply had their benefits expire. Under the current formula, our friend cbxer55 will no longer be considered to be unemployed. I think he might disagree with the government's assessment, though.
This is biggest inconvenient truth the government tries to hide from us in terms of unemployment. First there are millions who could never collect in the first place because they were either self-employed or NEW workers entering the work force who can't find work. Think about 4 million new college grads of the class of 2009 without a job in hand. They are not counted because they never worked and thus cannot file a claim. Six million new jobs have to be added to the economy every year or the true unemployment rate WILL go up. And second there are those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are no longer counted either. These people are cut off and uncounted. The real honest to goodness unemployment rate is between 15% and 17% right now and set to move over 20% by the end of the year.
Dreamtwister wrote:But that's OK. You go right ahead believing those government statistics.
By Alex Lantier
20 July 2009
French workers at several plants slated for closure have threatened to detonate explosive devices at their factories.
At the New Fabris auto supply plant in Châtellerault, an industrial town of 36,000 south of Tours, workers have wired gas canisters to an electrical cable. They are demanding €30,000 in severance payments from auto manufacturers Renault and PSA Peugeot-Citroën, New Fabris’ two main clients. They are threatening to detonate the gas if they do not receive payment by July 31.
threadbear wrote:I would put it conservatively at 10%, factoring in underemployment.
Maddog78 wrote:threadbear wrote:I would put it conservatively at 10%, factoring in underemployment.
I get your point but why not say 12% or 15% when you are just guessing anyway?
When the employment rate was <4% but yet I saw Help Wanted signs in every 3rd business what was the "real" unemployment rate then? 0%?
And in Canada, at 10% unemployment, we've just begun.
Maddog78 wrote:You didn't say conservatively in your first post using 10%.
Employment was little changed in June, leaving total net losses during the last three months at 13,000, much smaller than the 273,000 decline in the first three months of the year. The unemployment rate edged up 0.2 percentage points to 8.6% in June, as more people looked for work.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests