You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Could unemployment really be 18%?
- Thread starter traderdragon2
- Start date
For sure. I have been a member on Mr. William's site for some time now.
I got out of school almost a year ago... among myself and my good bros:
I'm laid off
2 marketing guys are laid off
MBA: guy is working at Lowes
another is delivering mattresses.
I got out of school almost a year ago... among myself and my good bros:
I'm laid off
2 marketing guys are laid off
MBA: guy is working at Lowes
another is delivering mattresses.
No way. Ya need to look at how the data was compiled.
As an example,
Answer this: Did home prices rise or fall in Q4 of 2008?
Now everyone would say they fell but according to OFHEO, which everyone hates since they only count the conforming side of the housing market which makes up the majority of that market, home prices in 28 out of the 50 states saw an increase in price. Excluding the 4 problem states, the states with declines experienced a modest 1% fall in price. Not bad.
Now back to the original thread.
What if we used the following to gauge the level of employment:
<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png>
61% of the population is employed as compared to what, 63%, during the height of this last boom. Does this look so bad?
As an example,
Answer this: Did home prices rise or fall in Q4 of 2008?
Now everyone would say they fell but according to OFHEO, which everyone hates since they only count the conforming side of the housing market which makes up the majority of that market, home prices in 28 out of the 50 states saw an increase in price. Excluding the 4 problem states, the states with declines experienced a modest 1% fall in price. Not bad.
Now back to the original thread.
What if we used the following to gauge the level of employment:
<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png>
61% of the population is employed as compared to what, 63%, during the height of this last boom. Does this look so bad?
Covertibility,
Thanks for the chart. The civilian population employment ratio(CPER) is more telling to me than unemployment rate.
61% is not too bad, especially compared to 56% in 1950. However, I guess now we have more families that both husbands and wives have to work, so the CPER is high. Even so, more families cannot make the ends meet. This is disturbing.
Thanks for the chart. The civilian population employment ratio(CPER) is more telling to me than unemployment rate.
61% is not too bad, especially compared to 56% in 1950. However, I guess now we have more families that both husbands and wives have to work, so the CPER is high. Even so, more families cannot make the ends meet. This is disturbing.
Quote from freewilly:
Covertibility,
Thanks for the chart. The civilian population employment ratio(CPER) is more telling to me than unemployment rate.
61% is not too bad, especially compared to 56% in 1950. However, I guess now we have more families that both husbands and wives have to work, so the CPER is high. Even so, more families cannot make the ends meet. This is disturbing.
You have to admit that some of those families that 'can't make end meet' is a little self-imposed due to debt and reaching beyond means.
CPER sounds like a good metric, but only if the government isnt playing funny with it.
Are they discounting people who have been looking for work over 6 months and other such nonsense???
Are they discounting people who have been looking for work over 6 months and other such nonsense???