Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

TMFEditorsDesk (< 20)

1 in 10 People are Out of Work

Recs

23

November 06, 2009 – Comments (18)

The unemployment rate hit double digits (10.2%) for October. Per this morning's CNNMoney story:

Friday's report comes one day after Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks. There are now a record 5.6 million people who have been unemployed for six months or longer, as the average time an unemployed person has been out of a job hit 26.9 weeks. 

Kind of like Dow 10,000, 10% unemployment is just a number that has a psychological impact. To put it in perspective, 1 in 4 people were unemployed during the Great Depression. For some insight into more recent years, check out this cool graphic by the WSJ.

-Anand Chokkavelu (TMFBomb), who is good friends with one or two of those unemployed for six months or longer folks..it's the individual stories that bring home the rough economy.

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 06, 2009 at 10:07 AM, russiangambit (99.18) wrote:

> . To put it in perspective, 1 in 4 people were unemployed during the Great Depression.

I think we 've been through that many times, to make a comparison you have to look at U6. Where is it now, at 18%? Not such a big of a difference when we are supposedely in a recovery vs. depression.

We are in a depression, in the beggining of it.

 

Report this comment
#2) On November 06, 2009 at 10:20 AM, TMFHousel (< 20) wrote:

russiangambit,

You can poke holes in this calculation, but some estimate U6 hit over 37% in 1933.

Page 8: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13282170/Unemployment-1930s-vs-Today 

Report this comment
#3) On November 06, 2009 at 10:22 AM, bigcat1969 (98.24) wrote:

Actually over 4 in 10 people don't work!  Of course the market for toddlers to run heavy machines is fairly light.  The Employment to Population Ratio continues downward as shown in this cool graph.  Unfortunately it doesn't show numbers past the late 40s.  Does anyone know the EM ratio from the Great Depression?  I suspect it was fairly low before WW2, since woman generally were only able to work outside the home as teachers or nurses until the mid 40s.

We have fallen from a high of almost 65% to 58 and a half %.  If we hit 57%, we will have totally wiped out the job growth of the 80s and 90s.

Thanks for that cool graph Bomber, it is very interesting and has neat colors.

Report this comment
#4) On November 06, 2009 at 10:34 AM, russiangambit (99.18) wrote:

> You can poke holes in this calculation, but some estimate U6 hit over 37% in 1933.

Right, so at 17.5% we are just at the beggining of a regular depression vs. a great depression.

Report this comment
#5) On November 06, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Teacherman1 (92.21) wrote:

Not to make light of those who are out of work. I feel a great deal of compassion for them, having been in that position myself during my lifetime; but let's not lose track of the fact that 90% are employeed. I realize also that many who are employeed are under employeed which makes it hard to get by day to day.

I am ready for the administration to focus 110% of their (our) time, effort and money on creating jobs.

It doesn't have to be a huge, one big shot at it, but there are many things that can be done to achieve that if congress would stop their infighting and posturing to get re-elected, as well as wasting countless hours on fixing blame, and just get on with the real job.

Sorry for the rant, but there has been so much wasted money and poorly run "programs" that I am getting fed up with it.

For those who are employeed, appreciate it. For those who are not, what are you doing here reading this instead of out beating the bushes to find a job?

Good luck to all who are seeking, and may you be blessed in your search.

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 06, 2009 at 1:18 PM, TMFEditorsDesk (< 20) wrote:

@russiangambit,

Yup, many ways to look at the employment numbers. Thanks to Morgan (TMFHousel) for the apples to apples U6 comparison.

@bigcat1969,

Nice graph as well...on a side note, we really need those toddlers to pull their weight...forget bootstraps, Huggies Pull-Ups!

Teacherman1,

For those who are not, what are you doing here reading this instead of out beating the bushes to find a job?

I self-interestedly disagree. :)

-Anand (TMFBomb)

 

Report this comment
#7) On November 06, 2009 at 4:00 PM, jesusfreakinco (31.59) wrote:

Teacher...

I am ready for the administration to focus 110% of their (our) time, effort and money on creating jobs.

Don't hold your breath...

JFC

Report this comment
#8) On November 06, 2009 at 4:15 PM, motleyanimal (99.01) wrote:

Every time I look for work, they always seem to want friendly and energetic people.

Screw those morons, I going to take a nap.

Report this comment
#9) On November 06, 2009 at 5:34 PM, x1x2x3x4444 (< 20) wrote:

I have never understood these jobless numbers. All of a sudden people are focusing on the decline in "non-farm" payroll jobs - which dropped about 190,000 last month. Everyone says this is, somehow, an improvement......but the actual number of "officially" unemployed in the U.S. increased last month (Oct.) by 558,000, to 15.7 million - and the unemployment rate jumped .4 percent - which is huge for one month and the largest percentage increase in months - yet no one blinked.

 And then there are the "marginally attached" unemployed. In the words of the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "About 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in October,
reflecting an increase of 736,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-onally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

 So at least 18.1 million unemployed. Not to mention all the others the government doesn't count for some reason or other - so, can anyone explain why a decline of 190,000 in nonfarm payroll is a good thing?

 

Report this comment
#10) On November 06, 2009 at 10:30 PM, truthisntstupid (65.32) wrote:

Whose problem is it?  I bet people that make $9 - $12 dollars an hour aren't feeling any stress or worry at all.  I know I'm not.  People that think they're worth $30K, $40K and up that didn't even go to college get no sympathy from me.  They would be engaged mostly in unskilled labor, as I am,  although my 15 years of experience as a cook may be worth something.  Mostly we paid manual laborers/peons are paid to toil and sweat, though.  So if some manual laborers/peons out there seem to think each ounce of their sweat is correctly valued the same as a half-pound of mine, perhaps it was high time for a reality check. Now, people who actually went to college, racked their brains, spent sleepless nights studying till they had headaches and had to go to class the next day, and piled up tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, have earned the right to expect more out of life.  My rant is not about them.  I hope there aren't too many people suffering through this that don't deserve to.  But I have not an ounce of compassion in me for people that banded together in groups (UNIONS)  and blackmailed their employers into paying them more than they were worth.

Report this comment
#11) On November 06, 2009 at 11:06 PM, CFOTOCEO (37.77) wrote:

Amen, to post above, spot on!

Report this comment
#12) On November 07, 2009 at 6:05 AM, truthisntstupid (65.32) wrote:

I am very secure. I also know I could find another job if I had to.  Employers paying my going wage rate get their money's worth.  That is job security.

Report this comment
#13) On November 08, 2009 at 9:52 AM, TMFBomb (97.50) wrote:

@truthisntstupid,

Very interesting comment...made me consider some things on a beautiful Sunday morning...which, of course, is the point.

-Anand

Report this comment
#14) On November 08, 2009 at 5:46 PM, truthisntstupid (65.32) wrote:

Anand

Not sure what your getting at; what "the point" is.  If I was someone making $60K a year you could think I was being a bit hard on people less fortunate than I am.  I am not.  I'm a cook in a restaurant that lives frugally and invests my money for dividend income.  That dividend income is slowly raising my standard of living.  I resent union people that go on strike while making 3 or 4 times as much as I do, have healthcare benefits which I don't, and a pension plan to boot.  I particularly resent it when there is currently a strike or impending labor dispute at a company in which I hold shares.  Some of these people, not all, but at least some, perform jobs that another person could learn in a couple days or a week's time.  If they believe that "each ounce of their sweat is correctly valued about the same as a half pound of mine,"  perhaps they should consider trying to bottle and sell that crap.  My point is very clear, but I don't understand yours.

Report this comment
#15) On November 08, 2009 at 6:56 PM, alexxlea (73.02) wrote:

What saddens me is how those who help society function properly are compensated so poorly in such a "rich" nation, and yet those whose acts are destructive to society are the ones benefitting the most from massive asset pumps. If we recover in a real way, again it shall be those doing the least, or perhaps even those doing the most harm, that shall reap the most benefits.

 

We squabble over things that people in other countries have easy access to while our gini score gets clowned... where did we go wrong? Also, I find it funny that people in America are so happy when the price of their home and stocks go up... when will people realize that this push to put all of our disposable income into such asset classes are just a way to take away from our current enjoyment of goods and services in order to further enrich the super wealthy? I have no idea how it's not transparent enough as is. 

Report this comment
#16) On November 08, 2009 at 10:37 PM, dwot (99.98) wrote:

Interesting discussion here and interesting sentiment about unions.  I'd say that in Vancouver we had major union busting over the past 20 years.

I had one friend who had an almost lifelong career in a grocery store when she made far more then I did as a teacher.  Part one of the of the fall of the grocery store union was that old worker's wages were grandfathered and new workers came in very close to market rates.  What kind of support does a union that plays massive favortism to certain employees have?  The model worked for about 10 years I guess, and then as stores were closed, workers found themselves out of a job and new stores took on new staff.

So, this friend found herself making about half of what she'd become accustom to.  but, she had the benefit of a very high wage for an anyone can do job for about 30 years.

I remember feeling very little support for union's crazy demands when entry level jobs were paying 3.5 times the minimum wage.

And when I look back, that was an era that you could still actually live on minimum wage as a single person.

Report this comment
#17) On November 08, 2009 at 11:28 PM, AvianFlu (83.11) wrote:

There is a reason why unions have traditionally been closely allied with organized crime...

Report this comment
#18) On November 09, 2009 at 9:38 AM, russiangambit (99.18) wrote:

> We squabble over things that people in other countries have easy access to while our gini score gets clowned... where did we go wrong? Also, I find it funny that people in America are so happy when the price of their home and stocks go up... when will people realize that this push to put all of our disposable income into such asset classes are just a way to take away from our current enjoyment of goods and services in order to further enrich the super wealthy? I have no idea how it's not transparent enough as is. 

Yep, those who never leave the box don't know there is anything outside the box.

I always get back to the idea of Adrian's wall - after Rome conquered all the known world  the soldiers were getting bored and getting ideas, so they were put back to work building the wall. You need to have your population occupied and give them goals ( like build a stock protfolio, buy and remodel a house) to keep it quiet and manageable. People with lots of free time might actually start thinking about the purpose of life and such.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners