Shhhh…It’s Even Worse Than The Great Depression

[Moot]

Did you forget about the burning of food and killing of cattle by FDR that PUT people in bread lines? I think you did. There was no freaking food because it was all being ****ing burned!

Do you mean the Agricultural Adjustment Act that subsidized land owners to not grow cotton or tobacco and essentially ended share cropping and tenet farmers? I can't find anything that supports your claim that FDR actually burned food or killed cattle but instead did find that a lot crop burning was taking place long before the Agricultural Adjustment Act was even introduced. Apparently, farmers were producing more than they could sell which was reducing the price of their crops to the point their crops were worth less than what it cost to produce them and it was bankrupting a lot of farmers. Sometimes the farmers actually had to pay to get rid of their crops. Did you forget to mention that?


Agricultural Adjustment Act

Agricultural Adjustment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moot]

Most people would agree that QE1 was needed and helped fill a liquidity problem. Many seem to think that QE2 and "operation twist" have had much if any positive effect. It has allowed the government to keep running high levels of deficit without raising interest rates as they bought much of the new supply of treasuries. However it did not lead to real growth in the economy as evidenced by the approximately 1.5 trillion in excess bank reserves being held at the Fed. Not sure what the benefits of QE3 would be except to raise stock prices.

I think the point of quantative easing was to get the lenders to start lending again by buying up their debt securities to help get them off their books. Apparently, our economy is based on credit and so if credit and lending slows or dries up, then so does the liquidity and growth in the economy.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Tyler Durden...zerohedge...major whackjob alert.

A couple of other phony things that are floating around...

There are no tricks at all employed in the monthly unemployment numbers.

The supposed $76 an hour number included health benefits for retired auto workers as if they were being paid to current workers.

The main "trick" is once you have been unemployed so long you no longer qualify for unemployment and or you give up even looking for work you are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

"Not included in the 8.3 percent of unemployed workers are the 2.8 million "marginally attached" workers, and among them, 1.1 million "discouraged workers."
Discouraged workers are those who are not currently looking for work, believing employment opportunities are currently unavailable to them."




'Who is counted as unemployed?'

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search


The questions used in the interviews are carefully designed to elicit the most accurate picture of each person's labor force activities. Some of the major questions that determine employment status are: (The capitalized words are emphasized when read by the interviewers.)
1.Does anyone in this household have a business or a farm?
2.LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either) pay (or profit)?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:
3.LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:
4.LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.
5.LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?
6.What was the main reason you were absent from work LAST WEEK?
For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:
7.Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
and, if "no,"
8.Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:
9.Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
10.What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
11.LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed.


How the Government Measures Unemployment

 

[imagep]

Did you forget about the burning of food and killing of cattle by FDR that PUT people in bread lines? I think you did. There was no freaking food because it was all being ****ing burned!

Apparently, there was plenty of food, so much that they had to give it away.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The main "trick" is once you have been unemployed so long you no longer qualify for unemployment...

Bad news. The unemployment rate is calculated from interviews with 60-70 thousand households each month. The number of people eligible for or receiving unemployment benefits has exactly nothing to do with it.

...and or you give up even looking for work you are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

People who are not looking for work have NEVER been counted as unemployed. A stay-at-home-Mom is not unemployed. A Sun Belt retiree in her late 70's is not unemployed. A full-time student is not unemployed. Maybe you need to read all that BLS text that you copied and pasted a little more carefully. Well, a lot more carefully, actually.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Did you forget about the burning of food and killing of cattle by FDR that PUT people in bread lines? I think you did. There was no freaking food because it was all being ****ing burned!

Do you have any sort of a back up for the statement that FDR burned food and put people in bread lines?

 

[Helix]

the current mess is not worse than the great depression, at least partially because some of the stopgaps that we put in place after the great depression worked.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Bad news. The unemployment rate is calculated from interviews with 60-70 thousand households each month. The number of people eligible for or receiving unemployment benefits has exactly nothing to do with it.


People who are not looking for work have NEVER been counted as unemployed. A stay-at-home-Mom is not unemployed. A Sun Belt retiree in her late 70's is not unemployed. A full-time student is not unemployed. Maybe you need to read all that BLS text that you copied and pasted a little more carefully. Well, a lot more carefully, actually.

It's not stay at home moms, it's people that once worked and have now given up looking for work, they don't get counted. I will repost the official gov stats on this for you.


"Not included in the 8.3 percent of unemployed workers are the 2.8 million "marginally attached" workers, and among them, 1.1 million "discouraged workers."
Discouraged workers are those who are not currently looking for work, believing employment opportunities are currently unavailable to them."

Heres an article you may find helpful to understand how this works.

The unemployment rate is 8.1% but is that the real number of people out of work in America? Not even close.

As reported, 115,000 jobs were added in April, which is considerably lower than previously predicted. But still the number of jobs added brought the jobless rate down by .1 percent, which sure seems like things are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

But the devil is in the details, and the truth is that the numbers hide a disturbing trend of people exiting the work universe by not even trying to find a job.

"The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month's decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.


"In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years."

So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.


"Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent,"


Read more: The real unemployment rate

Bernie Sanders agrees, this is from his web site.

Unemployment

"The United States economy added only 69,000 jobs in May. The Labor Department said the official unemployment rate rose to 8.2, up 0.1 percent from April. When workers forced into part-time jobs and those who gave up looking for work are counted, the real unemployment rate was 14.8 percent."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=f1cc4ab0-80cd-43aa-859e-efe889712e5e

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Here is an obama "trick" to keep unemployment numbers artificially low.

"Last week, the White House claimed that unemployment dropped for the fifth consecutive month to 8.3 percent — the lowest it has been in nearly three years — after adding 243,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But financial experts are saying the figures may have been manipulated — and that the significant drop in employment was because of the fact that the federal agency charged with computing key economic data has significantly decreased the number of Americans in the workforce.

“If you hold the workforce participation rate constant over the past year, unemployment would be about 8.9 percent instead of 8.3 percent,” GOP economist Matt McDonald of Hamilton Place Strategies said Monday on CNBC’s Squawk Box. "So it is a weird number that is out there, and I think people have to be looking at that carefully.”

The same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that showed unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent showed total workforce participation — the number of people either working or looking for work — declining by 1.2 million people in one month.

The unemployment rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed job-seekers by the total labor force. By reducing the number of workers in the overall workforce, the Obama administration can show actual unemployment dropping, when, in fact, improvement has been marginal at best.

Many economists feel the official statistics seriously underestimate how bad the unemployment situation really is. They maintain that the key measure is the number of people who would like to have a job, but can’t find one.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Unemployment Tricks: Jobs Claim Made by 'Shrinking' Workforce
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Here is an obama "trick" to keep unemployment numbers artificially low.

"Last week, the White House claimed that unemployment dropped for the fifth consecutive month to 8.3 percent — the lowest it has been in nearly three years — after adding 243,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But financial experts are saying the figures may have been manipulated — and that the significant drop in employment was because of the fact that the federal agency charged with computing key economic data has significantly decreased the number of Americans in the workforce.

“If you hold the workforce participation rate constant over the past year, unemployment would be about 8.9 percent instead of 8.3 percent,” GOP economist Matt McDonald of Hamilton Place Strategies said Monday on CNBC’s Squawk Box. "So it is a weird number that is out there, and I think people have to be looking at that carefully.”

The same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that showed unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent showed total workforce participation — the number of people either working or looking for work — declining by 1.2 million people in one month.

The unemployment rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed job-seekers by the total labor force. By reducing the number of workers in the overall workforce, the Obama administration can show actual unemployment dropping, when, in fact, improvement has been marginal at best.

Many economists feel the official statistics seriously underestimate how bad the unemployment situation really is. They maintain that the key measure is the number of people who would like to have a job, but can’t find one.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Unemployment Tricks: Jobs Claim Made by 'Shrinking' Workforce
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

I can't find the source to back this up right now but I believe Clinton changed how things are measure back in his Welfare reform to only measure those collecting UE checks.

This isn't an Obama trick, its been in place for a while now.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Do you have any sort of a back up for the statement that FDR burned food and put people in bread lines?

Production was limited under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Quotas drove up the price of food to parity. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example of how far this was taken (Summary: Fillburn was fined by the Federal Government for growing wheat for the purpose of being consumed on his farm, under the justification that him doing so meant that he was affecting the price of wheat on the national level as he was not then purchasing it).

Though I'm too lazy to look up specifically when food was destroyed, I am fairly certain it happened and fits the necessity to meet the low quotas.

The AAA also spread wage farm labor on a wide scale and benefited food processing companies sometimes at the expense of the farmers.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

It's not stay at home moms, it's people that once worked and have now given up looking for work, they don't get counted.

How simple do I have to make this: People who are not looking for work are not part of the labor force and never have been. Contending to the contrary is an admission of utter ignorance of the situation.

I will repost the official gov stats on this for you.

Thank you, but these data show up in my inbox within seconds of each monthly release becoming official.

"Not included in the 8.3 percent of unemployed workers are the 2.8 million "marginally attached" workers, and among them, 1.1 million "discouraged workers." Discouraged workers are those who are not currently looking for work, believing employment opportunities are currently unavailable to them."

You are citing NOT unemployment numbers, but alternate measures of labor underutilization. It's a shame when people can't tell or otherwise don't know the diffeence, but there you are.

Heres an article you may find helpful to understand how this works.

I know EXACTLY how it works, and it isn't in accordance with the irrational ramblings and musings of right-wing whackjobs.

The unemployment rate is 8.1% but is that the real number of people out of work in America? Not even close.

The unemployment rate is that portion of the total labor force that is not employed divided by the total labor force. The number for July 2012 was actually 8.3% and any fourth-grader can calculate it. Divide the number unemployed (12,794K) by the sum of that number plus the employed (142, 220). That's 12,794/(12,794 + 142,220). Let us know if you get something different from 8.3%.

As reported, 115,000 jobs were added in April, which is considerably lower than previously predicted.

I see. The actual number must be wrong because some bunch of out-of-the-loop boneheads had predicted a different number. That makes a lot of sense

But the devil is in the details, and the truth is that the numbers hide a disturbing trend of people exiting the work universe by not even trying to find a job.

There is no such things as a "work universe". There is such a thing as the workforce, aka labor force, and the definition of it is one of long standing. Each month, the workforce number either goes up or down or it stays substantially the same. In the first seven months of 2012, there were 3 monthly increases and 4 monthly declines. Overall, the workforce is up by 1,126K versus last December and by 1,655K since July of a year ago. This would certainly suggest that the workforce is in fact increasing, not decreasing as your phony people claim.

The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.

That was true a year ago, ten years ago, fifty years ago, and at every point in between. It is also true in the data of every other nation that produces unemployment statistics.

In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years.

What a fraud. In April of 2012, that percentage was higher than it had been in June, July, or August of 2011. That's a little less than 30 years. The figure referred to is meanwhile called the labor force participation rate, and propagandists love to mislead people with it. Here is some of its history...

Jan 1950: 55.1%
Jan 1955: 55.7
Jan 1960: 56.0
Jan 1965: 55.7
Jan 1970: 58.0
Jan 1975: 56.4
Jan 1980: 60.0
Jan 1985: 59.9
Jan 1990: 63.2
Jan 1995: 63.0
Jan 2000: 64.6
Jan 2005: 62.4
Jan 2010: 58.5

That steady rise over the latter half of the 20th century is WOMEN getting sick and tired of being shoved into that "Happy Homemaker" role, and instead demanding an education and then demanding the jobs that their education had qualified them for. The gender factor was expected to peak in the late 1990's, but the economy was so strong until Bush got his hands on it that the peak actually came a little later. The dominant demographic effect today is no longer women, but retirees. As more and more baby-boomers take their pensions and go off to paint in the south of France, the LFPR will decline -- unless their exodus in matched by an influx of immigrants.

So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.

No, what you get is U-6 when the real unemployment rate is and always has been U-3. Some such as loopy NY Post spinsters simply aren't willing to play the game by the rules. Other names for that include "cheating" and "lying".

[

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Here is an obama "trick" to keep unemployment numbers artificially low.

LOLOL! The numbers of the employed and unemployed come from the same survey and are then simply added together to determine the level of the labor force. Your claims are pure "alien abduction" or birther-level nonsense.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I can't find the source to back this up right now but I believe Clinton changed how things are measure back in his Welfare reform to only measure those collecting UE checks. This isn't an Obama trick, its been in place for a while now.

No, it has never been in place and isn't now. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is nowhere near the total number of people unemployed. Recent graduates who have never paid into the UI system are not eligible for benefits. Self-employed people are not eligible either unless they had voluntarily contributed to the system along the way. People who were let go for cause are not eligible for benefits. And believe it or not, many people who would be eligible for benefits simply don't apply for them.

The only role that the number of UI beneficiaries plays is as one among many variables used in reestimation of seasonal adjustment factors done each year. Otherwise, de nada.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

No, it has never been in place and isn't now. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is nowhere near the total number of people unemployed. Recent graduates who have never paid into the UI system are not eligible for benefits. Self-employed people are not eligible either unless they had voluntarily contributed to the system along the way. People who were let go for cause are not eligible for benefits. And believe it or not, many people who would be eligible for benefits simply don't apply for them.

The only role that the number of UI beneficiaries plays is as one among many variables used in reestimation of seasonal adjustment factors done each year. Otherwise, de nada.

I am not arguing against that.

I am saying UE3 measurements measure those that collect UE benefits, which is what is reported on the news.

The actual unemployment numbers are probably doubled what UE3 says.

 

[ChuckBerry]

People post a lot of stuff. Most of it isn't worth reading. I read stuff posted by people I've known a while whose judgement I tend to trust due to postive experiences with same, and if the subject interests me.

Then I have to wonder why you bothered posting in this thread since you tacitly admit that you didn't read the link the OP posted that provides evidence of his assertion.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I am not arguing against that. I am saying UE3 measurements measure those that collect UE benefits, which is what is reported on the news.

No, that's entirely false. The number of people receiving UI benefits does not enter into the calculation at all. The unemployment rate is derived from responses received from some 60-70 thousand households included in the Current Population Survey conducted each month during the week in which the 12th of the month happens to fall.

Unemployment in July (not seasonally adjusted): 9,493,000
UI Benificiaries in the week ended July 28 (NSA): 5,680,545

The actual unemployment numbers are probably doubled what UE3 says.

U-3 is the DEFINITION of actual unemployment, and it has been for decades. Alternate measures of labor underutilization such as U-4, U-5, and U-6 have no history prior to 1993 when questions to prompt for data sufficient to their estimation were added to the CPS at the accumulated urging of scholars and researchers interested in such novel side topics.

 

[Goshin]

Then I have to wonder why you bothered posting in this thread since you tacitly admit that you didn't read the link the OP posted that provides evidence of his assertion.

I was addressing the title, which as I noted, is somewhat deceptive as it speaks in a general sense.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

View attachment 67132823View attachment 67132824View attachment 67132825
Lines for free food to eat . . . lines for jobs . . . lines for loaves of bread.
What we're going through right now is nothing compared to the Great Depression.

If there was no welfare or other aspects of the social safety net, we'd probably see those lines again as well.
Instead the hungry are fed in other ways these days.

and there ARE lines for jobs

.

 

[MaggieD]

If there was no welfare or other aspects of the social safety net, we'd probably see those lines again as well.
Instead the hungry are fed in other ways these days.

and there ARE lines for jobs

.

Excellent post, Simon. You're exactly right.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I can't find the source to back this up right now but I believe Clinton changed how things are measure back in his Welfare reform to only measure those collecting UE checks.

This isn't an Obama trick, its been in place for a while now.

Not obama's invention, he is just utilizing it.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

How simple do I have to make this: People who are not looking for work are not part of the labor force and never have been. Contending to the contrary is an admission of utter ignorance of the situation.


Thank you, but these data show up in my inbox within seconds of each monthly release becoming official.


You are citing NOT unemployment numbers, but alternate measures of labor underutilization. It's a shame when people can't tell or otherwise don't know the diffeence, but there you are.


I know EXACTLY how it works, and it isn't in accordance with the irrational ramblings and musings of right-wing whackjobs.


The unemployment rate is that portion of the total labor force that is not employed divided by the total labor force. The number for July 2012 was actually 8.3% and any fourth-grader can calculate it. Divide the number unemployed (12,794K) by the sum of that number plus the employed (142, 220). That's 12,794/(12,794 + 142,220). Let us know if you get something different from 8.3%.


I see. The actual number must be wrong because some bunch of out-of-the-loop boneheads had predicted a different number. That makes a lot of sense


There is no such things as a "work universe". There is such a thing as the workforce, aka labor force, and the definition of it is one of long standing. Each month, the workforce number either goes up or down or it stays substantially the same. In the first seven months of 2012, there were 3 monthly increases and 4 monthly declines. Overall, the workforce is up by 1,126K versus last December and by 1,655K since July of a year ago. This would certainly suggest that the workforce is in fact increasing, not decreasing as your phony people claim.


That was true a year ago, ten years ago, fifty years ago, and at every point in between. It is also true in the data of every other nation that produces unemployment statistics.


What a fraud. In April of 2012, that percentage was higher than it had been in June, July, or August of 2011. That's a little less than 30 years. The figure referred to is meanwhile called the labor force participation rate, and propagandists love to mislead people with it. Here is some of its history...

Jan 1950: 55.1%
Jan 1955: 55.7
Jan 1960: 56.0
Jan 1965: 55.7
Jan 1970: 58.0
Jan 1975: 56.4
Jan 1980: 60.0
Jan 1985: 59.9
Jan 1990: 63.2
Jan 1995: 63.0
Jan 2000: 64.6
Jan 2005: 62.4
Jan 2010: 58.5

That steady rise over the latter half of the 20th century is WOMEN getting sick and tired of being shoved into that "Happy Homemaker" role, and instead demanding an education and then demanding the jobs that their education had qualified them for. The gender factor was expected to peak in the late 1990's, but the economy was so strong until Bush got his hands on it that the peak actually came a little later. The dominant demographic effect today is no longer women, but retirees. As more and more baby-boomers take their pensions and go off to paint in the south of France, the LFPR will decline -- unless their exodus in matched by an influx of immigrants.


No, what you get is U-6 when the real unemployment rate is and always has been U-3. Some such as loopy NY Post spinsters simply aren't willing to play the game by the rules. Other names for that include "cheating" and "lying".

View attachment 67132865[

You put alot of work into that, impressive. As I stated earlier Bernie Sanders agrees with me and he is the most left wing Dem out there so talk to him about this. Call thom's show on Friday, Bernies always on. Give him an earful.:lol: By the way, you seem to have alot of time on your hands, are you working?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Excellent post, Simon. You're exactly right.

You have been being way too nice lately. Are you sure you belong on the internet?

 

[MaggieD]

You have been being way too nice lately. Are you sure you belong on the internet?

You've just been on my radar lately, Simon. You could be right, though. Ooooo, I'm so tempted to say something nasty. :rofl

 

[Cardinal Fang]

You put alot of work into that...

No, very little. Only the very basics are necessary when schooling people who have no clue at all.

As I stated earlier Bernie Sanders agrees with me...

Why should I even begin to care?

...and he is the most left wing Dem out there so talk to him about this.

He's not posting here. You are.