[deMolay]

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."

[copious.abundance]

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."

And exactly where did I distort anything? All I did was post charts of government statistics. If you don't like aforementioned government statistics, then - fine. But don't go around telling us the government is lying about its statistics by providing a link to a Seeking Alpha article where the writer of the article describes a doomsday scenario by . . . citing government statistics. And if that weren't dumb-enough, you turn around and call me a a liar simply because I pointed out to you how contradictory your actions were.

[DantesPeak]

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.

To clarify I mean the unemployment rate reported monthly, for example, 9.5%, 10%, etc., will be gradually escalating with a possibility of one or two months where that rate will drop in 2009.

I think we are in basic agreement that the number of new unemployed per month will fall from peak levels of 600,000 to (my guess) of 400,000, with a possibility of a one month surprise low outlier figure when the auto industry tries to start up its oil starved engine again.

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.

[shortonoil]

DantesPeak said:

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.

50% would also be my WAG, but the markets are now being so highly manipulated that it is hard to tell when the last wheel will fall off. The only thing that we can be sure of is that at some point a GREAT BIG Black Swan is going to come swooping in. The fundamental structure of the financial system has now been too badly damaged for any other alternative to occur. At which point everyone will stand around and testify on stacks of ancient clerical testaments that no one could have seen it coming!

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."

[Dreamtwister]

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.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well? OF COURSE the statistics are complete fantasy. First, there's the whole "birth-death model". This is straight from the DoL website:

-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.

Translation: We have no way of knowing how many new jobs were created, so we are guessing.

-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.

Translation: Not only do we guess how many jobs were created in the previous month, we now deliberately exclude a portion of the lobs lost as well.

-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.

Translation: And finally, we assume a projection based on a best-fit extrapolation of data from the previous 5 years.

The entire foundation of the job creation figure is literally predicated on a guess by some Washington bean counter.

Then there's the way unemployment figure is calculated. For one thing, it doesn't take into account all of those MBA's who are working at Burger King and engineers with foriegn credentials who are driving cabs. In short, the formula does not in any way shape or form deal with people who are underemployed.

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.

They lie in other ways, as well. For example, all of those wounded vets laid up in VA hospitals. They are considered employed for this purpose. Prisoners aren't count at all, not even the ones who are assigned to work crews. Members of organized crime don't get counted at all either. The list goes on and on.

But that's OK. You go right ahead believing those government statistics.

[Novus]

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.

[jasonraymondson]

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.

True (full) unemployment is right around 15%... this is the total population of (workers) who are unable to find any work. This number includes your basic homeless to the people still living on savings or off family members (such as recent grads) as well as those those able to draw.

The real numbers to look at are those that are under employed. Now this includes anyone who is working at jobs well below the standard of living wage, and who can not draw full or partial unemployment as they have never made enough, and those that are working 5 - 20 hours a week at; a grocery store, restaurant, mill... wherever and this is all of the money they have coming in.

Between actual unemployment and partial you are looking at a number well over 30% mark. This number will most likely exceed 40% before Christmas of this year.

The only way for the US to continue without rounding up the poor and killing them for wasting resources that useful members of society need, is for us to become a socialist welfare state that within 5 - 10 years will be create a country so inflated that we will be paying 8 - 10 for a loaf of bread, and it only gets worse from there.

The first will never happen, at least not in our lifetime, the second is guaranteed.

[kmann]

But that's OK. You go right ahead believing those government statistics.

Your rant hasn't told me a thing I didn't already know. Understanding limitations of data is important. Just because data is imperfect does not make it useless.

[oxj]

Tense information from the World Socialist Web Site:

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.

linky-poo

[davep]

They have backed down now.

[deMolay]

Is there something wrong with us here at PO. Everyone sees green shoots, and many of us see impending DOOM. I see the descent into chaos and it has just begun. It is like a jigsaw picture without the picture on the front of the box. A surprise jigsaw. We know we are building a jigsaw, but it hasn't developed enough yet for us all to see the whole picture.

[Maddog78]

And in Canada, at 10% unemployment, we've just begun.

8.6%

[threadbear]

And in Canada, at 10% unemployment, we've just begun.

8.6%

I would put it conservatively at 10%, factoring in underemployment.

[deMolay]

10% is very conservative. On every street in Alberta in my area at least 2-3 per street are laid off or fired.

[deMolay]

Detroit jobless rate officially over 17% now. http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/ec ... 2009072910

[Maddog78]

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%?

[threadbear]

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%?

I qualified, with "conservatively". It amounts to the same thing.

[Maddog78]

You didn't say conservatively in your first post using 10%.

threadbear wrote:
And in Canada, at 10% unemployment, we've just begun.

[lowem]

You didn't say conservatively in your first post using 10%.

Not sure if there are equivalents for Canada, but are you folks talking about the U-3, U-6 or SGS figures?

[Maddog78]

I'm not sure about the equivalents to U.S. stats.
I got the 8.6% from Statistics Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm

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.