99 Weeks Later, Jobless Have Only Desperation

[CatholicGerman]

I guess Geithner doesn’t realize that a lot of people who are making $200,000 don’t really get to spend it on whatever they want.

Another thing that is never mentioned: a lot of people making over $200k are older, married couples who live in high cost-of-living areas, and are heavily subsidizing their children and grandchildren. That includes my parents and most of my older relatives. They *are *wealthy, but they aren’t necessarily hoarding all of that money. My parents pay my sister’s mortgage, are financing the repairs to our house, pay for my children’s therapies, supporting multiple relatives, writing big checks to charities, etc. They are basically bleeding money right now, and the tax increase will hit them like a ton of bricks.

This is a common situation that goes largely ignored in the media. They picture these people as 20-something party people who spend their weekends on yachts. But that is to ignore the difference between having a high salary and being genuinely rich.

 

[josephdavid]

From your link, something interesting:

Wow… It’s bad if even the intact families and fathers are ending up in there. Maybe foreclosures? The unemployment statistics must be grossly underestimated.

The unemployment statistics you hear in the news are U3 which is a nice one because it only includes those who recently filed for unemployment and still covered under unemployment benifits.

The 99’ers are off the chart. The U6 is what you want to really know. This is true unemployment /underemployment (part time jobs). It is a scary figure.

 

[CatholicGerman]

The 99’ers are off the chart. The U6 is what you want to really know. This is true unemployment /underemployment (part time jobs). It is a scary figure.

A scary figure? Like, how about 16.5%? That’s 1 out of 6, and it looks like this:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,8.0,8.3,8.1,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.5,8.4,8.4,8.5,8.8,9.1,8.9,9.0,9.2,9.7,10.0,10.5,10.9,11.2,11.9,12.8,13.7,14.0,15.0,15.6,15.8,16.4,16.5,16.4,16.8,17.0,17.4,17.2,17.3,16.5,16.8,16.9,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1&chds=-0,20&chg=9.090909090909092,10,9.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|2000|||||||||2001|||||||||2002|||||||||2003|||||||||2004|||||||||2005|||||||||2006|||||||||2007|||||||||2008|||||||||2009|||||||||2010|||||||||||1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20|2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20

Yeah, that’s scary. But it gets worse. Add in all of the people who are long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994), and you get a chart that looks like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Now *that *is scary, and it is even scarier if you realize it’s safe to assume that the government’s numbers aren’t completely accurate. That’s quite a few family men in shelters. Once significant numbers of family men start showing up looking for a place to house their children, you know things are pretty darn bad. How’s that recovery going, folks?

 

[josephdavid]

A scary figure? Like, how about 16.5%? That’s 1 out of 6, and it looks like this:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,8.0,8.3,8.1,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.5,8.4,8.4,8.5,8.8,9.1,8.9,9.0,9.2,9.7,10.0,10.5,10.9,11.2,11.9,12.8,13.7,14.0,15.0,15.6,15.8,16.4,16.5,16.4,16.8,17.0,17.4,17.2,17.3,16.5,16.8,16.9,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1&chds=-0,20&chg=9.090909090909092,10,9.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|2000|||||||||2001|||||||||2002|||||||||2003|||||||||2004|||||||||2005|||||||||2006|||||||||2007|||||||||2008|||||||||2009|||||||||2010|||||||||||1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20|2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20

Yeah, that’s scary. But it gets worse. Add in all of the people who are long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994), and you get a chart that looks like this:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1281102146

Now *that *is scary.

This shows where the President and Congress missed the boat. The Stimulous saved the jobs from totally going over the cliff but instead of addressing healthcare and Wall Street reform, they should of been fixing the job market. Getting more jobs in here.

Also what was sad is that Congress spent more time in gridlock instead of working together. A total diservice to the American people. Sadly this was also fueled by the Corporate Media further causing a divide in this country.

 

[CatholicGerman]

MRM + Feminists + Big Business + Big Government + Politicians + Public Sector Unions = The Earthly Powers That Be

They all work together, in a beautiful dance of symbiosity. In order to make things as bad as possible, for as many as possible. They often complain about each other, but they rarely do anything against each other. They like to talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.

 

[edwest2]

Or, I guess the government could spend 30 billion less. But I guess that’s too hard for them to figure out.

I guess Geithner doesn’t realize that a lot of people who are making $200,000 don’t really get to spend it on whatever they want. Lots of small business people make that much, at least theoretically, but they don’t live it up. Most live modestly and put the remainder back into the business or use it to pay down principal on business debt. So, I guess Geithner and Obama are content to have no job creation those people could generate if they felt sufficiently secure to do it.

I think the media doesn’t want to ask business why they’re not hiring because they already know the answer and don’t want to say it. Anybody in business could tell them, and no doubt have. They’re not hiring because they’re afraid of this government. It spends wildly on borrowed money, threatening ultra-high interest on debt when the drunken orgy of spending plays itself out. It comes up with ideas like adding to their tax burden, making them give 1099s to all kinds of purveyors of goods and services they never had to give them to before. It passes 2,000+ page bills that nobody understands except that they empower “regulators” to do just about anything to them. It just can’t wait to make energy cost more, making everything they use cost more. It still hasn’t given up on “card check”, so the business people don’t know for sure they won’t come in some morning to find that they have to deal with a union steward about every decision.

That’s why businesses aren’t hiring. Everybody who knows anything at all about business knows that.

But it gets worse. All business people do things that are “forward looking”. They buy that machine for future production that they really don’t need right now. They buy the lot next door for expansion. They hire somebody they can’t fully employ because they think maybe they will have that person do something new. That “forward looking” investment is starting to go away for the same reasons businesses won’t hire. When it becomes pervasive, we can then call this the “Obama Depression” because that’s exactly what it will be. And no, it won’t be soup lines and dusty shotgun shacks this time. Welfare will prevent those things. It will simply be a long-term adjustment to a lower level of business activity, and a higher level of unemployment. That’s what a depression really is; a pervasive adjustment to lowered efforts and expectations.

So, telling the truth would just be bad press for Obama? I know a guy who was making $200,000. This is all about credit. The two football teams will be fighting over a “jobs package” – actually a Credit Package – until the end of September, and then, at the very last microsecond, they will hammer out a “deal.”

Obama gets to go before reporters in his armor and on his horse, lance in hand, and announce that he has “saved the country.” He did it! The New GM will announce their Initial Public Offering on cue and there will be an “unexpected” ton of hiring. And then, when everybody’s not looking, the growth percentage will go up by a fraction.

Cheers will erupt as Obama announces the government is getting out of the car business, but he will be buying 2,000 Volts for “government” use. The government-military-business axis gets to decide, it will just appear to be an accidental/coincidental connvergence of events. The Democrats have just got to stay in power. This will give it to them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[TedDC]

So, telling the truth would just be bad press for Obama? I know a guy who was making $200,000. This is all about credit. The two football teams will be fighting over a “jobs package” – actually a Credit Package – until the end of September, and then, at the very last microsecond, they will hammer out a “deal.”

Obama gets to go before reporters in his armor and on his horse, lance in hand, and announce that he has “saved the country.” He did it! The New GM will announce their Initial Public Offering on cue and there will be an “unexpected” ton of hiring. And then, when everybody’s not looking, the growth percentage will go up by a fraction.

Cheers will erupt as Obama announces the government is getting out of the car business, but he will be buying 2,000 Volts for “government” use. The government-military-business axis gets to decide, it will just appear to be an accidental/coincidental connvergence of events. The Democrats have just got to stay in power. This will give it to them.

God bless,
Ed

Yup, you’ve got it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, telling the truth would just be bad press for Obama? I know a guy who was making $200,000. This is all about credit. The two football teams will be fighting over a “jobs package” – actually a Credit Package – until the end of September, and then, at the very last microsecond, they will hammer out a “deal.”

Obama gets to go before reporters in his armor and on his horse, lance in hand, and announce that he has “saved the country.” He did it! The New GM will announce their Initial Public Offering on cue and there will be an “unexpected” ton of hiring. And then, when everybody’s not looking, the growth percentage will go up by a fraction.

Cheers will erupt as Obama announces the government is getting out of the car business, but he will be buying 2,000 Volts for “government” use. The government-military-business axis gets to decide, it will just appear to be an accidental/coincidental connvergence of events. The Democrats have just got to stay in power. This will give it to them.

God bless,
Ed

Oh, I fully expect some announcement that Nirvana has arrived, complete with bogus numbers to support it, right before the election, combined with some new and illusory promise to subsidize yet another segment of the population, at the expense of “the rich”.
The only real thing about it will be some new tax.

 

[Sabda]

More Media of Fear.

No one in the Media is asking business owners when they expect to start hiring, or, if not, why not.

Obama is pulling US troops out of Iraq at the end of the month. The cost to deploy one soldier for a year in Iraq? $ 390,000. So those savings should start to add up.

Meanwhile, Timothy Geithner is against extending the Bush initiated tax cut for those making more than $250,000 a year. Why? The government would have to borrow 30 billion if it’s extended for one year.

There’s a lot of money out there.

God bless,
Ed

He may be pulling them out of Iraq but there is going to be quite a few of them going to Afghanistan in March 2011. My cousin is going to be one of them as is a friend of my nephews. He may also be going, we don’t know yet. My nephew’s friend and my cousin are both in different units. My nephew hasn’t been assigned to a unit yet.

 

[Sabda]

I took the liberty of searching for some jobs for the lady. SimplyHired.com alone pulls up 8,164 job postings within the last 30 days for positions within 10 miles of Brentwood. Sorry, don’t buy her story.

Yep and I can tell you that for those 8,000 jobs you found there are at least 20,000 applying for them most likely more. Just because you can find a job doesn’t mean you will get it. For those 50 and over it’s even harder for them to find a job. No one wants them. The job market is extremely competitive right now and the employers have the upper hand.

Yes, it is bad out there.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Easy for you to say that, but we have some fellow Catholics on this Forum, family men, who have been out of work for that long, have been looking for work, who are desperate for work, but can’t find it. No need to show any charitable spirit towards them, huh?

I don’t doubt their stories. But sometimes I wonder whether some of those people are living in the wrong areas for the present. Things are pretty good in my area. Yes, there have been foreclosures due to people getting loans in the last few years who should never have gotten them. But that’s about it. From what I have heard people say, Texas is a good place too. But I guess it’s hard for people to seek employment from afar, and I don’t envy anyone who undertakes it. For one thing, a person would just have to know what’s there in order to know. I have been told, for instance, that employment is bad in St. Louis, which is in my state. But it’s good in my part of the state. I don’t know how anyone who lives a long way from here would know that. Probably there are parts of Texas where it’s better than other parts, as well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yep and I can tell you that for those 8,000 jobs you found there are at least 20,000 applying for them most likely more. Just because you can find a job doesn’t mean you will get it. For those 50 and over it’s even harder for them to find a job. No one wants them. The job market is extremely competitive right now and the employers have the upper hand.

Yes, it is bad out there.

Hmmm. I would have expected Oklahoma to be in better shape than that. Is that true in the whole state, or just in some parts?

 

[Good_News_1]

I guess Geithner doesn’t realize that a lot of people who are making $200,000 don’t really get to spend it on whatever they want.

I would suspect Geithner has statistics on that. Do you?

Lots of small business people make that much, at least theoretically, but they don’t live it up. Most live modestly and put the remainder back into the business or use it to pay down principal on business debt.

If it goes back into the business, it isn’t income.

That’s why businesses aren’t hiring. Everybody who knows anything at all about business knows that.

I know many very successful people, I am a business owner myself, I read financial magazines…and I have seen and heard zero support for this view. In fact, it was clear, from every economic source that I read, before Obama took office, that we were going to face a long period of high unemployment after the popping of the housing bubble. The primary reasons were the collapse of the financial system, which would inhibit lending long term, the need to pay down debt on all fronts, business and personal, and the retrenchment of consumer spending which would be caused by the decrease in personal net worth. I can’t think of any article I read, at the time of the financial crisis, that wasn’t predicting a very slow jobs recovery - that is, 3-5 years before normal employment levels resumed.

 

[Sabda]

Hmmm. I would have expected Oklahoma to be in better shape than that. Is that true in the whole state, or just in some parts?

I don’t know about the whole state but the Tulsa area has been pretty bad.
We live almost an hour from there. My mom lives closer to Tulsa. She was laid off in November of 08 and has in the past week managed to find a full time job. It’s been rough though. Most everybody that she knows who is on unemployment are all over 50. They even had someone in the unemployment office who admitted that age discrimination is alive and well in the work force.

Those of us who are working have also been hit. I work as a sub in the school and from January on I didn’t work. I even had one of the principals tell me back in May that this next school year is expected to be worse. My sil works in another school and she told me it’s been really over there for them. Dh’s work has had lay offs and loss of benefits. Just recently they restored those benefits to us so there is some improvement. We might be on the other side but at this point we’re just going to wait and see.

bbarrick8383 would be able to tell you about his part of the state.

 

[edwest2]

He may be pulling them out of Iraq but there is going to be quite a few of them going to Afghanistan in March 2011. My cousin is going to be one of them as is a friend of my nephews. He may also be going, we don’t know yet. My nephew’s friend and my cousin are both in different units. My nephew hasn’t been assigned to a unit yet.

I figured that. But by removing Iraq from the logistical supply line, they’ve shaved off some dollars. And the political aspect is that “those Americans are finally leaving my country.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would suspect Geithner has statistics on that. Do you?
Geithner, not I, has the burden of proof. He’s running the economy, not me, and has many bureaucrats at his disposal to come up with a persuasive case for his belief (if he has it) that adding to the tax burden of the upper middle class (and particularly entrepreneurs) benefits the economy. To date, I have not seen it. Perhaps you can post it.

If it goes back into the business, it isn’t income. ** Wrong. Call your CPA. Debt reduction is paid with after-tax dollars. You can’t deduct land either. Oh yes, buildings can be deducted over 29 years…not a sufficient incentive for most.**

I know many very successful people, I am a business owner myself, I read financial magazines…and I have seen and heard zero support for this view. In fact, it was clear, from every economic source that I read, before Obama took office, that we were going to face a long period of high unemployment after the popping of the housing bubble. The primary reasons were the collapse of the financial system, which would inhibit lending long term, the need to pay down debt on all fronts, business and personal, and the retrenchment of consumer spending which would be caused by the decrease in personal net worth. I can’t think of any article I read, at the time of the financial crisis, that wasn’t predicting a very slow jobs recovery - that is, 3-5 years before normal employment levels resumed.

Well, I guess we read different things, then, and know different people. I will admit that what I said has not, to my knowledge, been said in the MSM, which is invested in this administration. However, I have read it in both the WSJ and Forbes. Sometimes one finds a supporting article even on CNN online, which I have. I recommend the latter if you can’t stand to open the pages of a publication some consider conservative.

But I’ll admit that most of my information is anecdotal. I know a lot of business people and a lot of bankers. I don’t know a single one of either of them who is not “treading water” business-wise due to fear of what this government is doing and is likely to do.

I might have another advantage as well. I’m old enough to have lived through the Carter Recession. It was a lot worse than this. Yet, the recovery was swift and solid once Carter was gone, the painful disinflation was over and business had some reasonable basis for expecting a future it could live with.

Inhibit lending long term? It really can be educational to talk to bankers, and I recommend it. I do a lot. They’re dying for loans, particularly business loans. I get lunch invitations from their reps all the time (which is nice) because they want to make business loans to me. But nobody will borrow, and especially not businesses. They understand as I do and as their potential business customers do, that yes, one may borrow to expand at 3.5% interest now. But will it be 20% in 2013 when the Obama rent comes 'round because of the current overspending and overborrowing? Most business people believe that, and if the ones you know don’t believe it, then I would say they’re highly unusual. Probably even more conservative than the business people I know; people who will jump on opportunities presented during “low points” in the business cycle. The difference this time is that we have a strange government that acts on some kind of leftist ideology instead of practical solutions.

And the financial system didn’t collapse. One could argue that Paulsen’s TARP1b aided solvent banks in absorbing failed banks (probably true). One could even argue that the perverse use of those funds to bail out the insolvent “too big to fail” banks was a good thing. But the system didn’t collapse. It just plain didn’t. Some think it might have but for TARP, but a lot of people thought the world would end with Y2K as well.

 

[CatholicGerman]

And the financial system didn’t collapse.

It’s growing rapidly, actually. Every economic system has winners and losers. A debt-based system benefits those that trade in debt.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/F/07/US_FNSHR0710.gif

 

[Black_Rose]

If you’re out of work for 99 weeks then maybe you just aren’t cut out for work.

It just isn’t that hard to find work when you are willing to do anything. Go and start cleaning out toilets or mowing lawns. Unemployed usually just means unemployable in this country.

I am calling your hand, but I suppose their is little prestige and self-satisfaction for mke for “winning” debates on Internet forums, especially when I take a position contrary to most of the members and have a numerical disadvantage, to make it worth my while.

But here I go:

Are you yourself willing to “start cleaning out toilets or mowing lawns”? Have you done known a few people (more than two simple to eliminate the possibility of coincidences) who have found employment by taking low-skilled “humiliating” jobs? Did you base your post on the allegedly ease of finding work on any empirical evidence or was it mainly influenced by negative prejudice of the initiative and virtue of the unemployed such as automatically assuming that they are lazy and have an “attitude of entitlement”?

Actually, chart two from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the “job openings rate” is ~ 2.0% in the beginning of 2010 while the U-3 was just a tick below 10%; there are also plenty of good reasons why the U-3 can be considered an understatement of the “true” unemployment. How ironic that American religious conservatives tend to defend the unborn against utilitarian attacks against their “personhood”, but their economic views regard discouraged workers not worthy of their sympathy and empathy because of their moral deficiencies. In a sense, the U-3 reflects these sentiments by denying “discouraged workers” personhood because they are not counted as “employed”.

And why would one criticize her for “buying” a car (she still had car payments on it) though) which presumably is a requirement to live since it facilitates transportation to their place of employment and stores or a relatively cheap mobile phone (if she does talk a lot, then her plan might be expensive, but phones at most cost about $200). Must she be reduced to absolute penury to merit sympathy?

 

[Good_News_1]

I will admit that what I said has not, to my knowledge, been said in the MSM,

I can never follow who is the MSM, and who isn’t. Is Fox the MSM? MSNBC? Is Rush Limbaugh more MSM than Rachael Maddow?

I’m old enough to have lived through the Carter Recession.

Why should I accept your word on the “Carter Recession” anymore than anecdonal tales of the current recession?

Yet, the recovery was swift and solid once Carter was gone,

It recovered, and then fell back into recession in 1981. The business cycle, and economic recessions are almost never the fault of the sitting president. Presidents have very little control over the economy, and whatever harm or good they manage to do is usually felt after they leave office. Unfortunately, we live with myths that say otherwise - the myth of FDR, and of Reagan - because they are politically useful.

.

And the financial system didn’t collapse.

Bank failures:

ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/bank-failures/

And bank failures are just one small piece of the financial collapse - the failures are only the FDIC insured institutions, and among those, only the ones that TARP couldn’t salvage.

When we pump tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into financial institutions to keep them afloat, and still 140 banks are shuttered, that’s a collapse of the financial system.

 

[estesbob]

You ain’t seen nothing yet -wait until the Bush tax cuts expire on On December 31And if The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 passes it will be even worse as small businesses are forced to pay self-employment tax on their earnings.

I really see no hope for the economy till after the 2012 presidential elections. We may be able to limit the damage this fall but as long as we have administration with absolutely no experience in how businesses work the best we can hope for is to keep our heads above the water,