Total US unemployment rate hits 17.5%

Discussion in 'Economics' started by WallStWhizKid, Nov 6, 2009.


    The 10.2 percent unemployment rate does not include people without jobs who have stopped looking for work or those who have settled for part-time jobs. If you counted those people, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

    "It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."
  2. The unemployment numbers should also include retirees as non productive workers receiving social security benefits.

    With more and more companies utilizing 1099 contractors the unemployment numbers will not reflect independents out of work.
  3. We do not need so many people employed with increased employee productivity and advancements in automation.

    And child labor is real inexpensive so using chinese kids for industrial labor makes Americans non competitive.

    We need to cull the American population to a tune of 25million americans.

    And if some kind of disease appeared that dropped the average lifespan back to 65 would also help in the process.

    And maybe another world war.
  4. a good "epidemic" reducing world population by 25% would certainly make the tree huggers and cap and tax folks happy.

    Best way to reduce carbon IMO.
  5. Don't be so cavalier about the broad brush - lest you fall under its stroke.
  6. 20% of working population has no jobs this is insane
  7. Of course, the stock market is completely disconnected from the main street. For the last 6 months, the market ignored the rising unemployment numbers and shot up anyway. Even if it didn't closed up much like today, just avoiding a major selloff is itself a major triumph for the bulls.

    But WTF?!!

    Today, the market held its ground because it supposedly lost fewer workers than last month. So my next question follows:

    • Suppose the unemployment rate reaches 50%. Can the market still shrug the number off as nonevent if it comes in less than the preceding month?
    Moreover, why do they not take into account those who are already our of work? That is, why don't they provide us a monthly comparison of those who have reentered the workforce just like they are currently doing for the unemployed? From what we're told, we know that there's less number of unemployed last month than the prior month. But what we're not told is how many of that number have actually returned back to work. Is that number greater or less than the previous month?

    True, the government keeps tally of the beneficiaries of unemployment benefits. But there's a limit to receiving those damn benefits. They end after approximately 39 weeks (26 and 13 additional weeks of extension). But what happens if you can't find work before the benefits run out? Are you then included in the tally? What happens if you were self-employed and are currently not eligible for the benefits?

    But the stock market, being what it is, claims that it looks forward in time by as much as 6 months. So does this mean that the situation will improve in 6 months? Better yet, the market shot up more than 60% since March of this year. Hence it must have known 6 months ago that the overall economy would have improved in six months time (which is now). But is the main street any better now than 6 months ago?

    I'll leave you to reach your own conclusion. As for me, I can only say the Wall street is utterly aloof from reality.
  8. spinn


    I lost my job when our health insurance premiums got jacked 20% and I got laid off.....

    I am not sure what im going to do after February, my condo and car are paid off but I still have day to day expenses, condo fee utilities, food etc....I admit I am getting worried..........

    I did the right things and still might get hammered next year.
  9. For comparison, the equivalent measure peaked around 40% during the Great Depression.
  10. Bill Clinton changed how unemployment figures are reported in 1993; they are no longer reliable or objective. Real unemployment is now 21%, including those whose UI benefits have expired or do not qualify for UI benefits because they quit or were fired from any one job in the last 12 months. Much like the Fed announcing they would no longer publish M3, the total money supply, to hide the short-term evidence of their printing presses running 24/7. The long-term evidence is inflation, of course... increase the quantity of any precious resource, and the price goes down. Anyway, govt and govt agencies play games to keep secrecy, and hide problems from the taxpayer long enough for the elite to cash out and get out of the way of the wrecking ball. Such people know the taxpayers are helpless against them, and any such legislative effort (such as the de-masculated audit-the-Fed bill) is met with insider action to quash the will of the people. This is one reason why revolt and civil war will result, but that is another thread.

    I called the "D" word on this fiasco almost a year ago. Government and the media are a year behind, by design and intent to mislead. Figures, everything in government works slower...
    #10     Nov 6, 2009