Financial News

[NorthSideSox72]

The very graphs you cited show the recovery has been steeper than, from what I can tell, any other to date since the Depression.

 

I think you are confusing the speed of recovery, with the length of the recession. Two different things. We went DOWN for a lot longer than others, which is of course why it was such a deep recession (chicken and egg there, but whatever). From the point we actually started recovery in the job losses, the curve has been very steep. Its right there in the graphs you provided.

Oh crap, disregard this post, I was looking at the wrong line.

 

Which make sense, since the recovery has been very gradual, as I've been saying for months, and everyone else knows as well. That's what made me scratch my head and realize I was looking at the wrong curve.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I think what is entirely possible is that the stimulus impact will start declining in the 2nd half of 2010, and because the stimulus included so many tax cuts it wasn't really designed to boost job growth as much as GDP growth, so when the stimulus impact starts to decline off, we're going to find ourselves having lost a lot of jobs and having done nothing to set up for future growth. Thus, the tax cuts go away, the government decides to focus on deficit concerns, unemployment benefits dry up for a lot of people, and the bottom drops out again.

 

(Not saying I know for certain this will happen. Just saying, this is how the jobs situation could filter back and cause the 2nd dip)

 

One other point now that I reread your post; by the standard of past recessions other than 1930, the "recovery" hasn't been that fast, it's been very, very slow. It's a combination of the deepest employment hole since 1930 and the new modern slow-job-recovery recession together. That's what we've not seen.

 

I think you're confusing length with speed.

 

This may be an economic recession, but make no doubt, this is an employment depression.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you're confusing length with speed.

 

This may be an economic recession, but make no doubt, this is an employment depression.

You may be right if we can't improve in the next couple years, but right now, in terms of unemployment by ANY of the measures, this is nowhere near the Great Depression.

 

[Balta1701]

I think you're confusing length with speed.

Please go to those curves, or any other graph for that matter, and tell me which derivative I should be looking at to see your point. At best, we've been stalled for 4-5 months, or losing ground slowly, after about 12 months of freefall.

[Balta1701]

You may be right if we can't improve in the next couple years, but right now, in terms of unemployment by ANY of the measures, this is nowhere near the Great Depression.

The thing I'd like to point out in reply is that the Great Depression didn't become the Great depression because of what happened in 1929. That kick started it, but the Depression became a 25% hole because of the "Great contraction" from 1930-the day of Roosevelt's inauguration.

 

We had a kick last year the magnitude of what happened in 1929. We've just managed to, so far, avoid the great contraction. That doesn't mean we the threat of it is permanently gone.

[Rex Kickass]

Please go to those curves, or any other graph for that matter, and tell me which derivative I should be looking at to see your point. At best, we've been stalled for 4-5 months, or losing ground slowly, after about 12 months of freefall.

 

What that chart doesn't account for is the technical end of that recession.

 

We're just getting to the point where we are approaching break even on employment in this recession, since there's no job recovery yet (minus about 4,000 jobs in November), there's no way to say how slow the jobs recovery is - because we haven't seen one start yet.

 

[jasonxctf]

So you are saying you think a double-dip is likely purely because the recovery has been so fast (thus far)?

 

 

notice from the graph that the longest recovery cycles have been the most recent recessions.

 

Now that may be a factor due to this chart being modeled in %'s. With a larger population you need a larger number of job additions to move the % numbers. Mathematically speaking.

 

2001 took longer than 1990 which took longer than 1981

[NorthSideSox72]

notice from the graph that the longest recovery cycles have been the most recent recessions.

 

Now that may be a factor due to this chart being modeled in %'s. With a larger population you need a larger number of job additions to move the % numbers. Mathematically speaking.

 

2001 took longer than 1990 which took longer than 1981

 

My personal opinion is that the longer recovery cycles, and the less job-full ones, being recent, is a function of the types of jobs we are adding versus losing. We lose all manner of jobs, but only replace service and technology (and not a ton of NEW tech hardware, but smaller technologies and software). Manufacturing doesn't come back. Now, heavy manufacturing isn't per se the way to grow for this country anymore anyway - but this goes to one of my big harping points. We have, and have had, an opportunity to give ourselves a 90's-like run up - to be in FRONT of something again. The opportunity is alternative energy and fuels. Meanwhile, we keep falling behind.

 

We cannot compete globally with older technology. Its not happening. We need to get in front, innovate, and spread new tech. That, combined with improving out education system, are the keys to future economic growth in the next decade.

 

[jasonxctf]

keep in mind though...

 

The US Population was

 

226,545,805 in 1981

 

It grew 9.78% by 1990 to 248,709.873

 

It grew by another 11.80% by 2001 to 278,058,881

 

And it grew by another 10.93% by 2009 to 308,448,604

 

The US Population is 36.15% larger in 2009 versus 1981. It's certainly going to take a longer period of time, to push this bigger block back.

[southsider2k5]

keep in mind though...

 

The US Population was

 

226,545,805 in 1981

 

It grew 9.78% by 1990 to 248,709.873

 

It grew by another 11.80% by 2001 to 278,058,881

 

And it grew by another 10.93% by 2009 to 308,448,604

 

The US Population is 36.15% larger in 2009 versus 1981. It's certainly going to take a longer period of time, to push this bigger block back.

 

It depends on if the business sector has grown with it. If there are 36% more jobs/employers, it shouldn't make a difference.

[jasonxctf]

well that's the thing. many jobs are "fixed jobs" not "variable jobs". Meaning that regardless of a company size or growth, no additional positions would functionally be added. (CEO's, CFO's, IT Manager's, etc) Now other jobs, are definitely variable jobs based upon sales/volume etc. (Customer Service, Line Personnel, Sales People, etc)

 

A crude example... you have a company janitor. His job is to keep the office clean. Regardless of the companies size/growth/increase, that position remains stable. He's still cleaning the same space. Now if the company adds more variable workers or grows in space, then there may be a second fixed position added. But until then, nothing changes.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

well that's the thing. many jobs are "fixed jobs" not "variable jobs". Meaning that regardless of a company size or growth, no additional positions would functionally be added. (CEO's, CFO's, IT Manager's, etc) Now other jobs, are definitely variable jobs based upon sales/volume etc. (Customer Service, Line Personnel, Sales People, etc)

 

A crude example... you have a company janitor. His job is to keep the office clean. Regardless of the companies size/growth/increase, that position remains stable. He's still cleaning the same space. Now if the company adds more variable workers or grows in space, then there may be a second fixed position added. But until then, nothing changes.

 

The pyramid of a company varies a lot at almost all positions. Really the volatility grows as you move towards the base of the pyramid. Its why you see layoffs in bad times, and hirings in good times.

[NorthSideSox72]

well that's the thing. many jobs are "fixed jobs" not "variable jobs". Meaning that regardless of a company size or growth, no additional positions would functionally be added. (CEO's, CFO's, IT Manager's, etc) Now other jobs, are definitely variable jobs based upon sales/volume etc. (Customer Service, Line Personnel, Sales People, etc)

 

A crude example... you have a company janitor. His job is to keep the office clean. Regardless of the companies size/growth/increase, that position remains stable. He's still cleaning the same space. Now if the company adds more variable workers or grows in space, then there may be a second fixed position added. But until then, nothing changes.

You are working from the assumption of the number of companies being static. Often, one of the primary drivers out of any recession is new, small businesses cropping up or growing.

 

[jasonxctf]

You are working from the assumption of the number of companies being static. Often, one of the primary drivers out of any recession is new, small businesses cropping up or growing.

 

oh absolutely. the only problem with that, in this environment, is that new small businesses can't obtain credit to grow/acquire what they need to get things off the ground. Better have some angel investors lined up.

[kapkomet]

oh absolutely. the only problem with that, in this environment, is that new small businesses can't obtain credit to grow/acquire what they need to get things off the ground. Better have some angel investors lined up.

 

 

And that's not happening. Money's still more or less locked up.

[Balta1701]

oh absolutely. the only problem with that, in this environment, is that new small businesses can't obtain credit to grow/acquire what they need to get things off the ground. Better have some angel investors lined up.

And no one wants to lose their health coverage and go into the individual market to start a small business either.

[mr_genius]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aHA4PMI1G2ks

 

Some people are just giving up on having a job.

 

About 1.7 million Americans opted out of the workforce from July through December, representing a 1.1 percent drop that marks the biggest six-month decrease since 1961, the Labor Department report showed. The share of the population in the labor force last month fell to the lowest level in 24 years.

 

December’s 10 percent unemployment rate matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. It was shy of the 26-year high of 10.1 percent reached two months earlier.

 

The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...agazine_related

 

I think the trend of using temps permanently is here to stay and will increase in practice. Don't have to pay their health care, or for unemployment insurance, and the temps are easy to discard.

 

The Disposable Worker

Pay is falling, benefits are vanishing, and no one's job is secure. How companies are making the era of the temp more than temporary:

 

...Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says the brutal recession has prompted more companies to create just-in-time labor forces that can be turned on and off like a spigot. "Employers are trying to get rid of all fixed costs," Cappelli says. "First they did it with employment benefits. Now they're doing it with the jobs themselves. Everything is variable." That means companies hold all the power, and "all the risks are pushed on to employees."

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e436fa80-fc87-11...144feab49a.html

 

Will there be a dreaded 'double dip' in the economy by summer? December was a bit of a let down on the jobs front.

 

The US figures were particularly disappointing because a relatively good November jobs report – revised up to a 4,000 job gain – and other labour market data had raised hopes of a flat or even positive month in December.

 

“One step forward, 85,000 steps back,” said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan. About 661,000 people stopped looking for work in the US in December. If they had not done so, the unemployment rate would have gone up to roughly 10.4 per cent.

[Balta1701]

I think the trend of using temps permanently is here to stay and will increase in practice. Don't have to pay their health care, or for unemployment insurance, and the temps are easy to discard.

So, in other words, it's another reason to set up a universal health care system; it puts permanent workers on an even playing field with temporary workers.

[Balta1701]

Well, this should make for another fun chance to bring out the pitchforks.

Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be? Despite calls for restraint from Washington and a chafed public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay out bonuses that rival those of the boom years. The haul, in cash and stock, will run into many billions of dollars.

 

Industry executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around — six-, seven- and even eight-figure sums for some chief executives and top producers — will probably stun the many Americans still hurting from the financial collapse and ensuing Great Recession.

 

Goldman Sachs is expected to pay its employees an average of about $595,000 apiece for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.

 

Many executives are bracing for more scrutiny of pay from Washington, as well as from officials like Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, who last year demanded that banks disclose details about their bonus payments. Some bankers worry that the United States, like Britain, might create an extra tax on bank bonuses, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, is proposing legislation to do so.

 

Those worries aside, few banks are taking immediate steps to reduce bonuses substantially. Instead, Wall Street is confronting a dilemma of riches: How to wrap its eye-popping paychecks in a mantle of moderation. Because of the potential blowback, some major banks are adjusting their pay practices, paring or even eliminating some cash bonuses in favor of stock awards and reducing the portion of their revenue earmarked for pay.

[mr_genius]

So, in other words, it's another reason to set up a universal health care system; it puts permanent workers on an even playing field with temporary workers.

 

see how i set up that up for you guys? pretty good huh

 

 

[Balta1701]

see how i set up that up for you guys? pretty good huh

It wasn't you that set that up; it was the current health care system

[southsider2k5]

So, in other words, it's another reason to set up a universal health care system; it puts permanent workers on an even playing field with temporary workers.

 

Well except it is going to get more regular workers fired as companies pay for the new system...

[Rex Kickass]

So, in other words, it's another reason to set up a universal health care system; it puts permanent workers on an even playing field with temporary workers.

 

Freelancer's Union

[southsider2k5]

That is the sound of billions of dollars circling the drain...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9527995

 

Ten months into President Barack Obama's first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.

 

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."

 

Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."

 

Construction spending would be a key part of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to revive the nation's lethargic unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The House approved the bill 217-212 last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked the floor for an hour; the Senate is expected to consider it later in January.

 

AP's analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed that strategy hasn't affected unemployment rates so far. And there's concern it won't work the second time. For its analysis, the AP examined the effects of road and bridge spending in communities on local unemployment; it did not try to measure results of the broader aid that also was in the first stimulus like tax cuts, unemployment benefits or money for states.

 

"My bottom line is, I'd be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we've seen broader effects from the first stimulus," said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who reviewed AP's analysis.

 

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP's analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.

[Y2HH]

That is the sound of billions of dollars circling the drain...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9527995

 

I hope this doesn't actually surprise anyone.