Daily Kos Official Unemployment Rate Hits 8.9%. 'U6' Now at 15.8%

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...al-Unemployment-Rate-Hits-8.9.-U6-Now-at-15.8

Official Unemployment Rate Hits 8.9%. 'U6' Now at 15.8%

Employment losses slowed in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a decline of 539,000 jobs. That improvement, together with a rising stock market and other signs, has convinced many economists that recovery may come more quickly than was being predicted even a month ago. But such news won’t put many smiles on the faces of Americans who were laid off last month. Since December 2007, what is now the longest recession since the Great Depression has forced 5.7 million Americans out of work. That puts the official rate of unemployment - labeled U3 by the BLS - at 8.9%.

Of the 13.7 million people now officially unemployed, 27.2% have been out of work longer than six months, a record.

An alternative measure of unemployment, which the BLS calls U6, includes workers who have become so discouraged they’ve stopped looking for jobs as well as people forced to work part time because they cannot find full-time employment. That rate hit 15.8% in April.

The BLS revised upward job loss numbers for February, from 651,000 to 681,000, and for March, from 663,000 to 699,000.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that continuing jobless claims – that is, unemployment benefits drawn by workers in the week that ended April 24 - reached 6.35 million, another record. But new applications for jobless benefits were considerably lower than expected, prompting some economists to suggest that a peak may have been reached. Continuing claims have risen 14 consecutive weeks. According to the BLS, only about 36 percent of unemployed Americans received unemployment benefits.

State-by-state figures won’t be available until May 22.

For the fourth time in five months, enrollment in the food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, exceeded the previous record. The government reported Thursday that 32.55 million people received food stamps at the latest count. The average monthly benefit is $112.82 per person. In his fiscal 2010 budget, President Obama seeks $60 billion for the food stamp program, a $6 billion increase over this year.

"Dr. Doom," economist Nouriel Roubini, who predicted much of the current crisis, thinks the economy is starting to heal, but he doesn’t see as many "glimmers of hope" as the general consensus of economists do. He believes recovery from a recession now entering its 17th month will be not be fast or smooth. And, while the consensus predicts a peak of around 10% unemployment before the jobless rate starts declining, Roubini expects that it may hit 12%, well beyond the 10.8% peak of the 1981-82 recession. That would make it the worst unemployment situation since the 1930s.

In testimony before Congress Tuesday, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke conceded:

Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

In other words, even when net layoffs cease, job creation will be slow at best, and no quick rehiring will take place. If you look at the recession of 2001 from the perspective of economic growth, it lasted only eight months, March to November. But the recovery that followed was for more than three years a jobless one. During the year after the recovery began, 562,000 net jobs were cut, and in the year after that, another 193,000 net jobs were lost. Indeed, the BLS payroll survey's pre-recession job numbers were not surpassed until February 2005. During the remaining years of George Bush’s two terms, the official unemployment rate never returned to the 4.2% where it stood when Bill Clinton turned over the White House keys.

So, lots of jobs, including the best high-paying ones, are not likely to reappear for years, especially in key sectors – manufacturing, particularly automobiles, as well as housing and financial services. And if getting back to work wasn’t going to be tough enough in this Great Recession, many people lucky enough to get rehired at their old job or find a new one, will be working for lower pay and reduced benefits. Workers in their late 40s or older may find it impossible to fully recover the income they have lost even if they put off retirement.
 
so much for 'saving' all of those jobs, eh?
I liked how it turned from "create" to "save or create" in one speech and hasn't been changed since. There is no way to determine the amount of "saved" jobs, so it's a safe political stance to say you'll "save" jobs and then assign whatever number makes you look good.

"My plan has already saved Eleventy-Billion Jobs!"
 
I liked how it turned from "create" to "save or create" in one speech and hasn't been changed since. There is no way to determine the amount of "saved" jobs, so it's a safe political stance to say you'll "save" jobs and then assign whatever number makes you look good.

"My plan has already saved Eleventy-Billion Jobs!"


This is quite choice coming from the guy that supported the Republican "plan."
 
This is quite choice coming from the guy that supported the Republican "plan."
Please...

There are several things we can learn from the past. The recession of 1920 might have an interest for you, pay particular attention to the government response and the indicators that it was deeper than the original hit in the later "Great Depression". You can start there, then you can compare what we are doing with what the Japanese did during their lost decade... when we get the same result will you continue to process your information through the Obama filter?

I'll wait for an educated response rather than this inanity. We'll see if you can actually be honest and factual. When the whole of your "education" on this is still 'better than Bush', then you are lost. This isn't better than Bush, it is the same thing he was doing with a different face attached to the podium.
 
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_recession[/ame]

An article written by Austrians to justify their retarded non-scientific theories about how a running into a wall actually fixes your car.
 
I can't come to a factual conclusion on the 1921 (Post WWI) recession because all of the wiki sources have been polluted by obvious Austrian bias.
 
I can't come to a factual conclusion on the 1921 (Post WWI) recession because all of the wiki sources have been polluted by obvious Austrian bias.

translation for those who have a hard time reading WM remarks - "the wiki article doesn't prove my theories that conservative policies suck, so i'll just say the article is biased and untrue."
 
translation for those who have a hard time reading WM remarks - "the wiki article doesn't prove my theories that conservative policies suck, so i'll just say the article is biased and untrue."

1. It cites no sources.

2. It makes obvious claims with Austrian bias, like claiming that the "quick recovery" was due to lack of unions and regulation.


It is clearly nothing other than an Austrian opinion piece. This is one of the favorite tactics of the Austrians, and I've seen it many times before. They go and create articles on Wikipedia (or find little trafficed articles made by someones else) and fill them with crap that supports their belief, then use that as a reference to support their beliefs. If the Wikipedia article has any cites, they will all be from the Mises institute. Usually, like with this article, it has no cites and so can't be taken seriously as a reference source at all.
 
http://recession.org/history/post-wwi-recession

The post WWI recession was a temporary recession caused by returning soldiers driving up unemployment. Lack of government intervention was probably the main cause of its extended three year length, which was avoided after WWII due to sensible policies.

http://recession.org/history/1945-recession

The post WWI recession has much more in common with the 1945 recession than the great depression, and that only goes to bolster the case that government intervention leads to much shorter recessions, and that ramming you car into a wall doesn't fix it.
 
http://recession.org/history/post-wwi-recession

The post WWI recession was a temporary recession caused by returning soldiers driving up unemployment. Lack of government intervention was probably the main cause of its extended three year length, which was avoided after WWII due to sensible policies.

http://recession.org/history/1945-recession

The post WWI recession has much more in common with the 1945 recession than the great depression, and that only goes to bolster the case that government intervention leads to much shorter recessions, and that ramming you car into a wall doesn't fix it.
Translation: When the first information I gathered didn't bode well for my opinion, I sought out somebody who would justify what I want to believe rather than used information and thought to come up with an idea of my own based on actual data.
 
Translation: When the first information I gathered didn't bode well for my opinion

Damotard,

THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE CITED NO SOURCES. IT WAS AN UNCITED, AUSTRIAN OPINION PIECE, AND COULDN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. DON'T BE TOO SURPRISED IF ITS DELETED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
 
Damotard,

THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE CITED NO SOURCES. IT WAS AN UNCITED, AUSTRIAN OPINION PIECE, AND COULDN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. DON'T BE TOO SURPRISED IF ITS DELETED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
As if that is the only available information, how deep did you have to go to find somebody who tried to justify the position you wanted to take?

Basically, instead of seeking information you literally sought only what you wanted to hear. This place sometimes shows of people's willingness to ignore facts in order to relate an idea that they want so badly they can taste it.
 
As if that is the only available information, how deep did you have to go to find somebody who tried to justify the position you wanted to take?

Basically, instead of seeking information you literally sought only what you wanted to hear.

[ame="http://www.google.com/search?q=post+world+war+I+recession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a"]403 Forbidden[/ame]

Third link on the page.
 
403 Forbidden

Third link on the page.
At least with this you admit that you sought no information after finding something that supposedly justified your position.

Educate yourself. If you tried this with a good professor they'd slam dunk your behind before you could try to turn it in. My basic point was that people will justify rather than learn something, and so far all you've done is prove me correct.
 
At least with this you admit that you sought no information after finding something that supposedly justified your position.

Damo, please tell me where it justified my claims? It only contained objective information, and made no subjective statements like "this depression was surprisingly short because of no unions and no regulation".

And I click on the first three links after the wikipedia article. They all said the same thing, so I only posted one source, the most concise of the three.
 
Everybody see how Damo is slithering around by constantly changing his argument to pretend that he hasn't been debunked three times on one page? What a dishonest person.
 
Back
Top