6.3% unemployment and six years of free money....
MGLICKER
Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭
6.3% seems reasonable if not low. Of course the fed has dropped the 6.5% target. Hell they don't even trust their own figures.
One must wonder, what is the new target for tightening? 4%? 3%?
One must wonder, what is the new target for tightening? 4%? 3%?
0
Comments
6.3% comes from people falling off the far end and not being counted as unemployed . They are no longer unemployed , whether they are employed is another question.
<< <i>6.3% comes from people falling off the far end and not being counted as unemployed . They are no longer unemployed , whether they are employed is another question. >>
Agree, they are admitting that their numbers are virtually worthless. Maybe they will come around on the grossly understated inflation numbers.......
"Who needs risk management when you’ve got guaranteed bailouts? - Jesse Felder
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>The FED will tighten when the market deems it so. The market is still not demanding higher rates so the FEDs job remains quite easy. >>
Sort of like the demanding action on mortgage impropriety in late 2008.
<< <i>
<< <i>The FED will tighten when the market deems it so. The market is still not demanding higher rates so the FEDs job remains quite easy. >>
Sort of like the demanding action on mortgage impropriety in late 2008. >>
No.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The FED will tighten when the market deems it so. The market is still not demanding higher rates so the FEDs job remains quite easy. >>
Sort of like the demanding action on mortgage impropriety in late 2008. >>
No. >>
How will the markets "demand" higher rates, when the fed is holding Trillions of Dollars in free reserves?
With a small after-the-fact paragraph that will get ignored:
<< <i>The drop in the unemployment rate from March’s 6.7 percent came as the agency’s survey of households showed the labor force shrank by more the 800,000 in April. The so-called participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, decreased to 62.8 percent, matching the lowest level since 1978, from 63.2 percent a month earlier. >>
<< <i>800k quit labor force in april
With a small after-the-fact paragraph that will get ignored:
<< <i>The drop in the unemployment rate from March’s 6.7 percent came as the agency’s survey of households showed the labor force shrank by more the 800,000 in April. The so-called participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, decreased to 62.8 percent, matching the lowest level since 1978, from 63.2 percent a month earlier. >>
>>
I saw that. About 20% of working age men are out of the work force today.
Eventually we could reach 0% unemployment by narrowly defining the labor force as anyone who is currently working.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>The unemployment picture becomes more real when one understands that 20% of American families do not have a member of that family who has a job. >>
No it doesn't (that number is only about 2.5% higher than in 2008):
<< <i>It would be interesting to find out why 800,000 people quit the labor force in a single month, and whether this trend is likely to continue.
Eventually we could reach 0% unemployment by narrowly defining the labor force as anyone who is currently working. >>
Exactly, slip the voodoo in while no one paying much attention anymore.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The FED will tighten when the market deems it so. The market is still not demanding higher rates so the FEDs job remains quite easy. >>
Sort of like the demanding action on mortgage impropriety in late 2008. >>
No. >>
How will the markets "demand" higher rates, when the fed is holding Trillions of Dollars in free reserves? >>
When the economy is strong enough. And since the consensus here is that the economy stinks, then waiting for a increase in rates will most likely prove an exercise in futility.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>It would be interesting to find out why 800,000 people quit the labor force in a single month, and whether this trend is likely to continue.
Eventually we could reach 0% unemployment by narrowly defining the labor force as anyone who is currently working. >>
Its really not that interesting. The month before there was a INCREASE in the labor force of over 500,000. Also, in January 1.3 million people lost their unemployment benefits. Isnt one supposed to be looking for a job (participant in labor force) to get benefits in the first place? When the benefits run out, whats the sense of even looking for a job?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>When the economy is strong enough. And since the consensus here is that the economy stinks, then waiting for a increase in rates will most likely prove an exercise in futility. >>
And the weak economy along with the ACA add to the deficit. The printing of cold hard cash fires up inflation. At some point investors get tired of losing 5%+ in real terms when buying government paper. When that occurs, interest rates rise.
US investors are not the only market for US debt. What do you think Russian billionaires are buying? Or Japanese pension funds? Or Chinese corporations? Believe me, they are not tired of losing 5%, because they are not.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>How many of those 92 million are under 18 or over 65 years of age? That number is ugoing to continue to grow as we have a growing population that is aging. Yup, the ticket to a healthy and thriving economy is to put our children and elderly to work. >>
I've had a paycheck job since age 14 and will keep one long past 65 if I make it. Teenagers working is definitely good for the economy. Not having to stress the family income for clothes, car, gas, date monies is most definitely positive. Spitting out subpar GED and immigrant workers who make a McDs career choice that robs teens of these jobs hurts more than it helps.
Here's a brief summary, in millions-
313 population
145 workforce
______
168 balance
92.5 no job
75.5 age ineligible
Within that group of 75.5 are youth and seniors. A lot of 18yr &65yr people wouldn't mind working I'd surmise.
<< <i>So the contrarian won't assume incorrect facts to establish a fallacious arguement, as to what constitutes workforce-
Here's a brief summary, in millions-
313 population
145 workforce
______
168 balance
92.5 no job
75.5 age ineligible
Within that group of 75.5 are youth and seniors. A lot of 18yr &65yr people wouldn't mind working I'd surmise. >>
Ok, well, lets really look at the facts, instead of some popular "zerosomething" blog.
Since you didnt provide a definition of "workforce", I will...The civilian labor force includes all persons over sixteen able to work and actively seeking work. This definition obviously excludes large portions of the population; full-time students and prisoners (no, they are not the same thing), homemakers, and members of the military are not counted in this measuremen
US Population is about 314 million.
23.5% are under age 18--74 million.
14% are over age 65--44 million.
So that alone is 118 million people without jobs. Right?
That leaves 196 million who could be eligible to work.
20 million are college students.
2.5 million are in prison.
1.4 million are military.
25-30 million are homemakers.
So now we have our workforce.
So lets go back to your numbers which are misinformative--typical of that zero website.
Age ineligible is about 118 million, not 75 million. So your 168 balance gets reduced to about 50 million that supposedly have "no job".
So lets break that down. Of the 50 million, 25-30 million are stay at home mommies. Another 20 million are full-time college students. And 4 million are either in the military or jail.
So by your reasoning, the USA is a mess because we have too many young, too many old, too many mommies, too many students and too many soldiers. I'll give you the prisoners.
So the contrarian won't assume incorrect facts
On this board, I assume most "facts" are either incorrect or opinion disguised as fact.
And BTW---the number of "people without jobs" IS going to increase over the next decade. This is not news to anyone who understands the role demographics (especially your age group) play in this economy. This "fact" is not a sign of a terrible economy as the fear mongers want to present, but rather a sign of a population bulge.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
One of our Founding Father's knew what what eventually happen and stated it simply, "Our great republic will end when the people realize they can vote themselves money". That's our biggest problem and the income disparity that drove us here isn't going away.
<< <i>How many of those 92 million are under 18 or over 65 years of age? That number is ugoing to continue to grow as we have a growing population that is aging. Yup, the ticket to a healthy and thriving economy is to put our children and elderly to work. >>
Banning child labor in the late 1800's was the beginning of our economic downfall. I blame the children. Putting the elderly to work is absurd, where else are we going to get food? We have 76 million BB's retiring. They can feed the Nation for years to come.