Weird Unemployment Data

[jasonxctf]

Funny to see the similarities here...

 

Reagan takes office Jan/Feb 81. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (7.4-8.9%)

 

GWB takes office Jan/Feb 01. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (4.2-5.7%)

 

Obama takes office Jan/Feb 09. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (8.2-9.7%)

 

 

 

Now there is a difference between the time it takes for the rates to start to decline.

 

Reagan- Started at 7.4%. Peaks at 10.8% 23 months later. Rate starts its continual decline 24 months after inaug.

GWB- Started at 4.2%. Peaks at 6.3%, 28 months later. Rate declines for next 24 months before plateau and taking off again.

Obama- Started at 8.2%. Peaks at 10.1% 9 months later.

[NorthSideSox72]

We've also got some odd fluctuation in the weekly filings reports. We were well below projected last report, now this week's report is well above. The thought is that the storms on the eastern seaboard screwed things up somehow. 4 week moving average is still falling, though.

 

 

[Harry Chappas]

Interesting thing I heard on the radio yesterday morning. Two individuals with three kids could get about $50,000 a year tax free from the governement if unemployed and receieving all the benefits they could which includes compensation, food, and health.

 

[JorgeFabregas]

I'd like to see the breakdown on that.

[bmags]

I mean, if it was from reagan until obama it would be a weird coincidence but 3/5 presidents especially, 3 out of 44, I'm not that impressed.

[Cknolls]

Funny to see the similarities here...

 

Reagan takes office Jan/Feb 81. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (7.4-8.9%)

 

GWB takes office Jan/Feb 01. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (4.2-5.7%)

 

Obama takes office Jan/Feb 09. 12 months later, the unemployment rate has risen 1.5%. (8.2-9.7%)

 

 

 

Now there is a difference between the time it takes for the rates to start to decline.

 

Reagan- Started at 7.4%. Peaks at 10.8% 23 months later. Rate starts its continual decline 24 months after inaug.

GWB- Started at 4.2%. Peaks at 6.3%, 28 months later. Rate declines for next 24 months before plateau and taking off again.

Obama- Started at 8.2%. Peaks at 10.1% 9 months later.

 

 

Has it peaked yet?

[Balta1701]

Has it peaked yet?

I think it's currently at a plateau. I'm not sold yet on it having peaked. It could be doing the ^3 style of plateau rather than the ^2 style of inverted parabola. Thankfully there's still serious stimulus dollars hitting for the next 8 months or so.

[Harry Chappas]

I'd like to see the breakdown on that.

 

Off the time of my head it was something like this

 

Compensation $400/week each for 12 months $41,600

Food Stamps $225 /mo each $5,400

Federally fund day care not sure

Federally fund health care not sure

 

The point was that in certain cases it is more profitable to stay unemployed and the duration is as helpful as it seemed.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Jenks Heat

[southsider2k5]

Off the time of my head it was something like this

 

Compensation $400/week each for 12 months $41,600

Food Stamps $225 /mo each $5,400

Federally fund day care not sure

Federally fund health care not sure

 

The point was that in certain cases it is more profitable to stay unemployed and the duration is as helpful as it seemed.

 

There would probably be a nice sized EITC in there as well.

[Brian]

Reagan- Started at 7.4%. Peaks at 10.8% 23 months later. Rate starts its continual decline 24 months after inaug.

 

I love this because I know a guy who thinks Reagen was the greatest President ever and rips Obama for the unemployment rate right now. He is one of the Republicans that other Republicans would be ashamed to be associated with.

[Texsox]

Off the time of my head it was something like this

 

Compensation $400/week each for 12 months $41,600

Food Stamps $225 /mo each $5,400

Federally fund day care not sure

Federally fund health care not sure

 

The point was that in certain cases it is more profitable to stay unemployed and the duration is as helpful as it seemed.

 

Last I knew, unemployment insurance pays 4% weekly of your highest previous quarter of salary in the past year. So the person receiving $400 per week was earning somewhere near $40,000 per year before losing their job. As a couple they were at $80,000. $50,000 is a steep cut if they were living close to their income. If they were saving a a bunch, they probably could get by with less stress for the year.

 

I'm not certain but I do not believe day care and health kicks in for a while.

 

It certainly explains why an out of work middle manager isn't eager to go work in a packing shed or meat processing plant for $20,000 per year. I guess demand for those positions will not be seeing much of a jump.

 

I am happy that only two of my friends are still looking for work. I pray each day their search will be over. I find it interesting that so far everyone seems to be finding employment close to their previous positions and wages.

[Texsox]

There would probably be a nice sized EITC in there as well.

 

 

that is a nice bump. It will be the last one I see for a while (hopefully)

[Rex Kickass]

Off the time of my head it was something like this

 

Compensation $400/week each for 12 months $41,600

Food Stamps $225 /mo each $5,400

Federally fund day care not sure

Federally fund health care not sure

 

The point was that in certain cases it is more profitable to stay unemployed and the duration is as helpful as it seemed.

 

Unemployment compensation is based on a formula of what you earned previously. And once you get your first extension, depending on the state, it can be cut - pretty drastically. In New York, you would have to have earned around 50K a year previously to qualify for $400 a week in UI benefits.

 

So in this scenario, in New York State, you have a previously six figured family income now living "comfortably" on roughly half that.

[Harry Chappas]

The jist of the stroy was more geared to those lower income families. Obviously someone making $100K that is out of work is not jonesing for the food stamps and federally fund health and day care but those in the lower income to lower middle income side was the focus.

[Texsox]

The jist of the stroy was more geared to those lower income families. Obviously someone making $100K that is out of work is not jonesing for the food stamps and federally fund health and day care but those in the lower income to lower middle income side was the focus.

 

And was noted, the lower income earner does not get anywhere near the same amount in unemployment. Someone earning $24,000 per year would receive somewhere around $240 per week or $12,000 per year.