U-6 UE Number Falls 2.1% Layoffs at a 13 Year Low

[verrip1]

I wish I could say that government policies will help us out of the unemployment mess. But I can't.

On one side, you have the Party who wants to create jobs by government subsidy, ie buy jobs. They don't have to be particularly long lasting jobs; they just need to be any old sort of job. They like government jobs a lot, because more government jobholders will likely vote for their Party. Infrastructure jobs are also relished. They give support to their union voter base. They create the need for future government employment and spending to staff the infrastructure and maintain it. Their hope is that unemployment goes down before the next election and that government grows over the long term - their ultimate win-win scenario.

On the other side, you have the Party who only wants private industry jobs. They don't want no stinkin' government jobs of any kind. They'd rather have higher unemployment than to have more government jobs. In fact, they actually want to eliminate government jobs. Their solution is laissez faire capitalism, and they want it now. Cut corporate taxes. Cut all government programs to the bone. Eliminate regulations by the bushel full.

Although there's a lot to be said for reducing the size of government, there couldn't be a worse time to implement it than now. There's a growing number of people today who want statism reined in. Supporters see their strength is as high now as it ever has been, so they want to strike while the iron is hot. Unfortunately, to do so now is the worst thing they could possibly do to fix the current economic problems. Some of them will relish throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because they only care about the bathwater, not the baby. I'm not revolutionary enough to support the ends at any means. But a lot of others are.

Though I won't come out actively to promote massive new numbers of public sector jobs, to me it is essential that we stanch the flow of losing more public sector jobs and find ways to, at least temporarily, increase them somewhat. To do that, there is little choice than to find ways to increase revenues over the short term and limit the amount of decreased spending. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but that's what is needed. They can also make some moves toward laissez faire which do not compromise total employment, such as reduction of regulation. Reducing the government payrolls will just have to take a back seat for the moment until U6 gets low enough that we are no longer in a jobs crisis.

[usaone]

Initial jobless claims PLUNGE down to 391,000.

www.thestreet.com/story/11262672/1/initial-jobless-claims-plunge.html

[usaone]

ADP reports 91,000 New Jobs created in September.

[usaone]

109K jobs added in Sept.

U3 stayed at 9.1%

[usaone]

U6 at 15.2%

Lowest number in 3 years!!

[Steady As She Goes]

Still not rosy ... but definitely appears headed in the right direction. I like the trend of late.

[usaone]

Weekly claims number DROPPED SHARPLY to 350K.

[Driftr]

Cool. And the streak has been kept alive on the revisions too. Looking back the last few weeks:
Initial / Revised
352 /
399 / 402
372 / 375
381 / 387
364 / 366
I seriously doubt next week's revision will bring the 352 up more than 5 or so. So in closing.... Nice!

[decoy409]

nice?

Say sport, that was Dec. 28,2011 that the number was jumbled that you are reporting on today in roundabout fashion.

Dec. 28,2011 - EUR/USD: Trading the US Unemployment Claims

www.forexcrunch.com/eurusd-trading-the-us-unemployment-claims/

#3358 - Jan. 19,2012 - U.S. Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest in Almost Four Years

excerpt - Jobless claims were projected to decrease from 399,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 363,000 to 405,000. The Labor Department revised the previous week’s figure up to 402,000.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19....four-years.html

excerpt - The number of people on unemployment benefit rolls rose, while those receiving extended payments decreased.

Jan. 12,2012 - Jobless Claims in U.S. Rose More Than Forecast

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12....last-week.htm l

As the amount decreases on jobless claims,those that were recieving run out and the vast majority simply fall off the cliff into the abyss. This number of participants was covered in length and how SHAM WoW works in this area 3 years ago.

That sure is cool.

[usaone]

U6 includes people not actively looking for work.

That number is now down to 15.2%

3% lower than the fall 2009 high of 17.2%

Total work force participation has bottomed at 64%.
Same number as in early 1986. That was 4 years into the recovery after 1982.

Recovery continues.

[Driftr]

Jan 19, 2012 15:55:36 GMT -5 usaone said:

Total work force participation has bottomed at 64%.
Same number as in early 1986. That was 4 years into the recovery after 1982.

You do realize that in the period 1975-1990 the total workforce participation rate did not drop once right? Equating the current 64% to 4 years into a recovery post 1982 has been tried before and failed just as badly the last time you did it. Stick with your Boomers retiring mantra. That one actually made a little sense.

[decoy409]

ok......

[usaone]

But even after the drop we are still where we where in 1986. Thats the point. We have been here before.

And we have the added head winds of the Boomers.

[usaone]

It took a decade.....1981 to 1991 to increase the workforce 3%.

63% in 1981 to 66% in 1991. It will likely take nearly as long this time.

[Driftr]

Jan 19, 2012 17:06:58 GMT -5 usaone said:

But even after the drop we are still where we where in 1986. Thats the point. We have been here before.

Then why make the statement 'that was 4 years into the recovery after 1982'? Makes no sense when you can see that for the four years after 1982 we had increases in the participation rate, but in the last few years all we've had are flat or decreasing participation with a couple monthly pauses and a three month period (Aug-Sep '11)where it actually looked like we may have bottomed in July only to be followed by a November number that dropped again (stayed the same in Dec). Tough to make the call that we've bottomed until after we start back up again, but I hope you're right.

It sure would be nice if we could cut the .gov spending levels back to where it was when we were here before wouldn't it?

[Driftr]

Jan 19, 2012 17:10:14 GMT -5 usaone said:

It took a decade.....1981 to 1991 to increase the workforce 3%.

63% in 1981 to 66% in 1991. It will likely take nearly as long this time.

And the whole time we have spending set at a level that wasn't even being fully paid for in taxes when we were at our highest participation rate.

At some point something is going to give. I don't know what or where, but it'll be 'interesting times' in the Chinese curse sense (IMO) when it happens. I'm betting on more printing, but we shall see.

[usaone]

I would agree with you Driftr, but looking at the historical data, I dont see a correlation with government spending and workforce participation in that sense.

[usaone]

We paid off the debt after WWII with a MUCH LOWER participation rate than 64%.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

And a lower Debt to GDP ratio. With WAYYYY less opportunity for business to prosper long term.

[Driftr]

Jan 21, 2012 18:24:56 GMT -5 usaone said:

We paid off the debt after WWII with a MUCH LOWER participation rate than 64%.

Point?
You think things today even remotely resemble things from just after WWII?

[usaone]

Yes they do. Europe was a mess then and its a mess now.

[Driftr]

Jan 23, 2012 9:47:28 GMT -5 usaone said:

Yes they do. Europe was a mess then and its a mess now.

Yeah. Same thing.

[decoy409]

'We paid off the debt after WWII '



How long after did you say?

'Point?
You think things today even remotely resemble things from just after WWII? '

I would love to hear that answer.

[usaone]

It took us 30 years to pay down the debt after WWII. Debt was much higher than today.

[Driftr]

Jan 23, 2012 15:27:23 GMT -5 usaone said:

It took us 30 years to pay down the debt after WWII. Debt was much higher than today.

What do you mean by 'pay down the debt'? I see a few years in the late 40s and in the 50s where total debt outstanding decreased, but I don't see any 'paying down' happening further out.

From Treasury Direct:

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04
06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33
06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99
06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67
06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93

[usaone]

Debt to GDP. I think it was 138% in 1948. By the early 1970's it was down to 45%.

[decoy409]

driftr, what stretch hey.

I wonder if the old WW2 debts have seriously ever been collected in whole. According to the paperwork of the anglo-american loan deal between the UK and the US,why the last payment was made in 2006,

Quote: The last payment was made on 29 December 2006 for the sum of about $83m (£45.5m), the 29th being the last working day of the year.[7][12] The final payment was actually six years late, the British Government having suspended payments due in the years 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because the exchange rates were seen as impractical.
(end)

Wish I could do that with my bills! When they seem impractical after I have recieved credit,simply don't pay them until they seem they are.

[Driftr]

Jan 23, 2012 16:47:55 GMT -5 usaone said:

Debt to GDP. I think it was 138% in 1948. By the early 1970's it was down to 45%.

Still has nothing to do with anything, but at least makes a little sense. Although how you start with debt to GDP % falling in your head and end up with paying down debt when you type is beyond me.

[usaone]

It sure does have everything to with it. Our Debt in 1946 was 138% of GDP.

GDP is always growing. That helps us pay off our debts.

[usaone]

When debt to GDP falls from 138% to 45% thats a hell of a lot.


If a guy making 10k a year has 10K in debt thats not as good as a guy making 100k a year with 10k of debt.

They both have 10k of debt but there is a difference.