Ironically, pundits were speculating on CNBC or Bloomberg that part of the reason for market strength today is that people ARE still losing jobs. That means no Fed rate increases and continued free money for Wall Street. So yes, there is a huge disconnect between main street and wall street. I also caught the talking heads touting some upcoming interview where a so-callled expert would be recommending abolishment of the minimum wage. We might as well throw out that pesky 40-hour work-week, overtime laws and any other employer-paid benefits as well. Then maybe we will have jobs for everyone, as well as a thriving pet-food industry, because that's what all those new sub-minimum wagers will be able to afford to eat.
I think our wonderful governement has created a new form of communism....Back in Russia, everyone used to be broke and had no say about the governement or would be sent to the goulag. Now, our phone calls are recorded (we're all potential terrorists) - the governement has successfully engineered the greatest wealth transfer in history, protected the institutions that were part of the scheme with our tax money - while destroying decades of savings and dreams. Obama, McCain, Bush - makes no difference. Coincidentally, the last scam leading to the creation of the fed dated to october 1907. The current market top was precisely 100 years later in october 2007. Things are sometimes self fulfilling prophecies - this time I think not.
so offcial employment tops 10% now? i just read in the newspaper OFFCIAL umemplyment is 9.8% today novemeber 7
I very much doubt the 17% figure. Historically unemployment by women wasn't counted as unemployment, but nowadays are. So it's very much likely that total unemployment is in line with history. However, we should all be worried about the depreciation of wages for the regular folks, and the increase in wages for the bankers and the rich. It could create a country like brazil, which is fiscally very healthy, but socially very much in trouble. We are already seeing the slums rise in the US. It's only a matter of time before the suburbs and gang controlled areas become real slums for the white american.
Hey, I'm no fan of war, but let's be objective about it. Without our war spending, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gone, many technologies would not exist, we'd have more people to employ if they were not active military, resources especially oil would be very expensive, there is an implied agreement between us and much of the developed world - we keep the middle east somewhat stable so oil supply is stable, they'll buy our treasuries. That's what politicians mean when they say we need to be the "world's police" or the world's "indispensable nation." The military industrial complex is bloated, yes, but it also has served an many important purposes. Most important - we have not had a world war in almost 70 years.
What is wrong with that explanation, even if I agreed with it, is that it ignores the "free rider" phenomenon of not just the developing world, but developed regions of Europe and Asia as well. Plus, most of the countries "we" have bombed and occupied in recent decades had committed no acts of war against "us." THE DEVELOPED WORLD free riders are not going to be going into the Third World shitter with us. We are going all by ourselves this time because the welfare warfare state has permanently bankrupted this country and this country alone. I guess "we" could fire off all the nukes as we go under and the fedgov officially defaults, in a sort of "if Uncle Sam ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" fit.
And the market bottomed at 666. A reference perhaps to www.goldmansachs666.com. GS showed 'em who's in charge
The US elites designed that system just after WWII. The free rider issue, though I believe it's not as significant as you do, does not affect our elites. They are the first to make money from wars, defending Europe, maintaining exorbitant defense budgets, etc... The bottom 99% is increasingly irrelevant and not part of the dialogue. Your point is moot to the decisionmakers.
In the Zacks analysis (http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report), it closes with: "All in all, a disappointing jobs report. Yes we are making some progress, but it is not nearly fast enough. The unemployment rate is now far above the peak seen even in the "more adverse" scenario of the bank stress tests. People who are out of work for extended periods of time are going to have a hard time paying their mortgages. This means more foreclosures are going to be in the pipeline, and hurting the earnings of major mortgage lenders like Bank of America as well as Fannie and Freddie. By extension, it is also going to hurt us, the taxpayers, who now own 80% of both of them." Apparently the average unemployment right now is just over 6 months. That's a long time, unemployment benefits or not. I think I was out about 5 years ago for the 13 weeks but found a job OK at the end (and I didn't even start looking until 2-3 weeks in). Today forget about it. Funny though, I quit my TV job a month ago; job posting's been up for 6 weeks and looks like it's not been filled. Something like that would have stacks of people applying and no problem finding a replacement, even though it doesn't pay much at all. Of course now I'm doing much better as an IC/1099 and have a shot to parlay it into even bigger money-making opportunities. (contract with the company I'm with right now is for 2 years but is in the mortgage/real estate side so the job itself won't be going away anytime soon) It's a fight out there and Darwinism is really going to take shape in many spots.