Members Brother Mango Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 At 8% unemployment, why is there such widespread and intense devastation? In other situations, 92% success would be outstanding. Why not in this situation? Out of a population of 100 people, why can't 92 workers carry the day? At the other extreme, 2% unemployment is too low. We want something like 4% and we're ok. And that makes the question even more puzzling: what do we get from 94/100 workers that we don't get from 92/100 and why is the difference so painful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think it's more of the impact that having 8% of the potential workforce not earning any money has on the economy.C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ec437 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 In Spain, the unemployment is currently hovering around 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gonzobassman Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Some of you all don't remember the mid-late seventies,early eighties. Double digit unemployment,and interest rates! And I'm not talking 11-12%. I'm talking 18-24% on both unemployment,and interest rates! We have a long way to go to get back to that bad,but we are headed that way IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BoundandBlocked Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Some of you all don't remember the mid-late seventies,early eighties. Double digit unemployment,and interest rates! And I'm not talking 11-12%. I'm talking 18-24% on both unemployment,and interest rates! We have a long way to go to get back to that bad,but we are headed that way IMO. No...Obama told us that this is the worst it's been since the great depression. Why would he lie to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Some of you all don't remember the mid-late seventies,early eighties. Double digit unemployment,and interest rates! And I'm not talking 11-12%. I'm talking 18-24% on both unemployment,and interest rates! We have a long way to go to get back to that bad,but we are headed that way IMO. Listen to this man, I was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 8% historically in the US isn't really that bad. Your use of the phrase "widespread and intense devastation" says to me that perhaps the coverage of this recession has been overstated; a lot more competition for eyeballs has lead to hyperbole. I think that our tolerance for any kind of pain when it comes to an economic downturn has lessened. More people were living on credit and when the economy turned down, people were in trouble quicker than in the past. As ec437 points out, much of Europe has chronic unemployment higher than 8%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 IMHO, if we took all of the whole sale broad-based fear about the economy out of the media circus, we would see a significant improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ezstep Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 On a Sunday CBS news show, the editorial was a guy (Ben Stein) shouting how everything was NOT so bad...92% employment...92% of all home mortgages are up-to-date, etc. He got back to the "the only thing to fear is fear itself" train of thought. Of course, he was encouraging everyone to purchase stocks and bonds and mutual funds, not to put off large purchases, etc. After all, we have great numbers showing a stable economy (according to him). Interesting, coming from the same media and same network that told us the sky was falling before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Why not in this situation? Out of a population of 100 people, why can't 92 workers carry the day? Because the other 92 grouse so much about how lazy good for nothings the other 8 are that only about 80 are really working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Perfessor Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 On a Sunday CBS news show, the editorial was a guy (Ben Stein) shouting how everything was NOT so bad...92% employment...92% of all home mortgages are up-to-date, etc. He got back to the "the only thing to fear is fear itself" train of thought. Of course, he was encouraging everyone to purchase stocks and bonds and mutual funds, not to put off large purchases, etc. After all, we have great numbers showing a stable economy (according to him). Interesting, coming from the same media and same network that told us the sky was falling before the election. You don't think Ben Stein would lie to you do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members livndablues Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Here you go: At 4% it is said that this is mostly people who can't work and people moving from job to job. the economy is balanced. below 4% and conmpanies have a very hard time finding labor and the country's total production ability suffers. At 8% you just doubled the unemployment rate. The government needs to spend twice as much on unemployment benefits. That load then carries over to the rest of the working. It more than doubles the amount of workers looking for jobs, because at 4% you had job switchers and those who cannot work. so the amount of job seekers actually goes up 3 to 4 times (estimate). Like anything else when you have a surplus the price goes down (supply and demand) In this case wages. When wages decrease, so does the amount people have to spend, and it becomes a vicious cycle. This is why a stimulous package was thought to work, because it would give people more to spend boosting the economy and demand for production. Unfortunately, the government decided that it could best decide where the money was to be spent. Instead of giving it to the people, making them feel more secure about spending. It decided to give it to companies that were failing and probably needed to go Chapter 11 to reorganize and become stronger. The difference between now and the 70's is that in the 70's interest rates were rediculously high and the majority of the baby boomers were of working age.The government by lowering the interest rates and reducing taxes, did the same thing a the stimulous package should have. Today we have the baby boomers retiring, looking for their social security, taxes fairly low, and intrest rates almost non existent. Aside from boosting consumer's confidence, reducing government spending and keeping taxes low for everyone, it will be very difficult for the government to spend our way out of this one. On the whole if government could control its spending, 8% unemployment could be carried by the working 92%. Unfortunately, the government is like a Beverly Hills teenager with her father's credit card and doesn't know control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 It isn't here. I was out Sat. night @ Market Street and saw two new Lambo Gallardo's w/ the paper tags still on them. :facepalm: Just, freaking... yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Hard Times today = Slight Inconvenience in our parent's and grandparent's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Here you go: The government is like a Beverly Hills teenager with her father's credit card and doesn't know control. Ain't it great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 9, 2009 Hard Times today = Slight Inconvenience in our parent's and grandparent's time.They didn't have 24 hour cable news and internet forums to fuel namby pambyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members solderjunkie Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Hard Times today = Slight Inconvenience in our parent's and grandparent's time. word :poke: The only "recession" I've seen is the one propagated by the news agencies. There is no recession except for the one caused by fear and rumour. Example: We had a gas-shortage in Nashville in September 2008. There was no interruption in supply, only an increased demand over 48 hours. The news reported that a shortage was possible... people who normally would not fill their tank (having 1/2 or more) all mobbed stations and filled their cars to the top, then morons began filling gascans. It took a week to return to normal. Rumour created panic, and panic created the shortage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted March 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Here you go:At 4% it is said that this is mostly people who can't work and people moving from job to job. the economy is balanced.below 4% and conmpanies have a very hard time finding labor and the country's total production ability suffers.At 8% you just doubled the unemployment rate. The government needs to spend twice as much on unemployment benefits. That load then carries over to the rest of the working. It more than doubles the amount of workers looking for jobs, because at 4% you had job switchers and those who cannot work. so the amount of job seekers actually goes up 3 to 4 times (estimate). Like anything else when you have a surplus the price goes down (supply and demand) In this case wages. When wages decrease, so does the amount people have to spend, and it becomes a vicious cycle.This is why a stimulous package was thought to work, because it would give people more to spend boosting the economy and demand for production.Unfortunately, the government decided that it could best decide where the money was to be spent. Instead of giving it to the people, making them feel more secure about spending. It decided to give it to companies that were failing and probably needed to go Chapter 11 to reorganize and become stronger. The difference between now and the 70's is that in the 70's interest rates were rediculously high and the majority of the baby boomers were of working age.The government by lowering the interest rates and reducing taxes, did the same thing a the stimulous package should have. Today we have the baby boomers retiring, looking for their social security, taxes fairly low, and intrest rates almost non existent. Aside from boosting consumer's confidence, reducing government spending and keeping taxes low for everyone, it will be very difficult for the government to spend our way out of this one.On the whole if government could control its spending, 8% unemployment could be carried by the working 92%. Unfortunately, the government is like a Beverly Hills teenager with her father's credit card and doesn't know control. Ok. Lots of info here. Thanks very much! It helps me see a little clearer. Some comments:-- Those who can't work aren't counted in the unemployment rate. Neither are those who've just given up and are living on savings or going back to school. Therefore, 8% unemployment doesn't merely reflect the number of warm bodies. It's counting people who are able and seeking work. So, when you count children, the infirm, students, and people who've given up, maybe we're really looking at: Population of 100 people, 15 are people who can't work or aren't looking for work. Of the 85 people who are left, if 8% (7 people) can't find work, 78 people are trying to carry the day for the entire 100. The 22 who aren't working are still using the roads, using social services, etc. Regarding the stimulus plan, it's the idea to provide funds to get people back working in some capacity? George Bush's stimulus, giving people $600 was often criticized because enough people didn't go spend the money. Now, we're giving it to companies and various government entities to hopefully hire people or at least avoid laying off more people. And we hear that some companies aren't using the money the way it was intended. Also, I appreciate you observation that the unemployment rate was higher in the 70s but differences between now and then are the interests rates and other economic indicators. So, it's not just the 8% unemployment rate that makes things so weird right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Ok. Lots of info here. Thanks very much! It helps me see a little clearer.Some comments:-- Those who can't work aren't counted in the unemployment rate. Neither are those who've just given up and are living on savings or going back to school. Therefore, 8% unemployment doesn't merely reflect the number of warm bodies. It's counting people who are able and seeking work.So, when you count children, the infirm, students, and people who've given up, maybe we're really looking at:Population of 100 people, 15 are people who can't work or aren't looking for work. Of the 85 people who are left, if 8% (7 people) can't find work, 78 people are trying to carry the day for the entire 100. The 22 who aren't working are still using the roads, using social services, etc.Regarding the stimulus plan, it's the idea to provide funds to get people back working in some capacity? George Bush's stimulus, giving people $600 was often criticized because enough people didn't go spend the money. Now, we're giving it to companies and various government entities to hopefully hire people or at least avoid laying off more people. And we hear that some companies aren't using the money the way it was intended.Also, I appreciate you observation that the unemployment rate was higher in the 70s but differences between now and then are the interests rates and other economic indicators. So, it's not just the 8% unemployment rate that makes things so weird right now. But the unemployment numbers have always been calculated ignoring those (maybe with some small changes). If we are measuring against historical levels to see what effects are, we can't start counting them now, it throws off the equation. Interest rates and unemployment were much higher in Carter's/early Reagan time than now, but we may reach them this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted March 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 8% historically in the US isn't really that bad. Your use of the phrase "widespread and intense devastation" says to me that perhaps the coverage of this recession has been overstated; a lot more competition for eyeballs has lead to hyperbole.I think that our tolerance for any kind of pain when it comes to an economic downturn has lessened. More people were living on credit and when the economy turned down, people were in trouble quicker than in the past.As ec437 points out, much of Europe has chronic unemployment higher than 8%. I can agree with the media spreading fear. They aren't in the "good news" business. However, I'm hearing about a lot of people who are experienced, educated and talented who've ben layed off and have been looking for a job more than a year. About 5 years ago, when the media were railing about how awful things were, it made no sense to me. I didn't personally know anyone who was in a mess. Now I know several. That's not my proof that we're in a living hell but I'm reluctant to dismiss the fear as being completely unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted March 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Hard Times today = Slight Inconvenience in our parent's and grandparent's time. That was a whole different time. Our grandparents may have been able to raise chickens in the yard. That's illegal in most cities. Our grandparents probably didn't have student loans. Our grandparents didn't have 2-yr cell phone contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Double digit unemployment,and interest rates! And I'm not talking 11-12%. I'm talking 18-24% on both unemployment,and interest rates! I was there. I don't believe you. The worst I could find for unemployment was 10.8% in 1982. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 9, 2009 Our grandparents didn't have 2-yr cell phone contracts.And it really makes one wonder with all the "benefits" technology has afforded us, if it's really provided us something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 I was there. I don't believe you. The worst I could find for unemployment was 10.8% in 1982. But it stayed over 10% for 10 months and over 9% for 19 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ec437 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Share Posted March 9, 2009 Here you go:At 4% it is said that this is mostly people who can't work and people moving from job to job. the economy is balanced.below 4% and conmpanies have a very hard time finding labor and the country's total production ability suffers.At 8% you just doubled the unemployment rate. The government needs to spend twice as much on unemployment benefits. That load then carries over to the rest of the working. It more than doubles the amount of workers looking for jobs, because at 4% you had job switchers and those who cannot work. so the amount of job seekers actually goes up 3 to 4 times (estimate). Like anything else when you have a surplus the price goes down (supply and demand) In this case wages. When wages decrease, so does the amount people have to spend, and it becomes a vicious cycle.This is why a stimulous package was thought to work, because it would give people more to spend boosting the economy and demand for production.Unfortunately, the government decided that it could best decide where the money was to be spent. Instead of giving it to the people, making them feel more secure about spending. It decided to give it to companies that were failing and probably needed to go Chapter 11 to reorganize and become stronger. The difference between now and the 70's is that in the 70's interest rates were rediculously high and the majority of the baby boomers were of working age.The government by lowering the interest rates and reducing taxes, did the same thing a the stimulous package should have. Today we have the baby boomers retiring, looking for their social security, taxes fairly low, and intrest rates almost non existent. Aside from boosting consumer's confidence, reducing government spending and keeping taxes low for everyone, it will be very difficult for the government to spend our way out of this one.On the whole if government could control its spending, 8% unemployment could be carried by the working 92%. Unfortunately, the government is like a Beverly Hills teenager with her father's credit card and doesn't know control. I nominate this as the highest quality first post in the history of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.