Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (35.36)

Welcome to 9.09.....40% Unemployment!!!!!!!

Recs

17

September 07, 2009 – Comments (19)

Unemployment in California should be really reported as 40% if we wanted to make and apples to apples comparison to The Great Depression. In the thirties there was no government social safety net keeping tens of millions off the streets and not standing in food lines waiting for a meal.

Today, 2/5 working age people in CA do not have a job.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/06/state/n000211D96.DTL#ixzz0QOTlkz7S

The irony is the furloughed state workers suffering massive wage loss are the ones now being forced to stand in food lines.

California state workers swallow pride at food banks
Jasmine Bess has held down a good job at the Department of Motor Vehicles for the past seven years. She isn't used to asking for charity.
Three unpaid furlough days each month, erasing 14 percent of her income, have hit her budget so hard that by the end of August, she couldn't afford to feed her 9-year-old daughter....

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2164703.html

With the consumer accounting for 70% of GDP......goverenment consuming 50% of GDP.....and health care consuming 20% of GDP.....soon all will realize America has very little economy when Americans are not consuming.

With Benny Bin Laden and the bailed out bankers tightening credit and RAISING interest rates on citizens and business....fewer and fewer consumers are able to consume and the economy is imploding as consumption and service revenues are extinguishing.

As credit it tightened and interest rates rise, MORE AND MORE loans will default further suffocating incomes and consumption.

The credit-card business is becoming an increasing burden for Bank of America, which has seen its default rate rise to almost 75 percent higher than its largest competitor, J.P. Morgan Chase.

The largest bank in California saw its credit-card default rate hit 13.81 percent....

“The losses being absorbed on credit-card portfolios are simply unprecedented. They reached 10.01 percent in the second quarter” for banks overall said analyst Dick Bove with Rochdale Securities. In response, credit-card issuers are raising rates, cutting credit lines and calling in loans through higher minimum payments.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/09/07/story12.html?b=1252296000^2045981

THE RESPONSE IS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM...AS CREDIT IS TIGHTENED AND RATES RAISED ON AN OVERLEVERAGED SWAP INFECTED ECONOMY, MORE AND MORE WILL DEFAULT.  THAT FACT THAT WE JUST BAILED OUT WALL STREET BANKERS, AND BENNY BIN LADEN WAS ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE PROBLEM AND IS DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT....MAKES HIM NOTHING MORE THAN AN ACCOMPLICE TO ECONOMIC TERRORISM.

Since over 90% of our economy is based on consumer consumption, government consumption, and health care consumption, it will be very interesting to see what happens to our nation WHEN tens of millions of unemployed lawyers, doctors, nurses, accountants, architects and others are just standing around and staring at each other not knowing what to do as the bankers drain the money from the system and we bail them out....

It will not be very long before America must make a choice:

Massive Depression or Massive Government.

Niether choice is very appealing, but often the choice between personal liberty and freedom versus totalitarianism has been historically challenging. Especially when the politicians don't want to adjust their lifestyle and they can take everything you own.

You think America is angry about health care "reform" and Presidential speeches????  Just wait until you Fools finally find out that you have been unknowingly bent over, in gang type fashion, by Benny Bin Laden and his banker buddies and many of you have been cheering it along as they have been controlling you and your family the whole time.

It was never hard to see, just hard to watch as so few really knew....even The Gardner Brothers were clueless.

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 07, 2009 at 3:14 PM, ResearchLover (31.21) wrote:

And socialism wasn't a dirty word in the '30s.

Report this comment
#2) On September 07, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Teacherman1 (56.09) wrote:

Hi Alstry

I have seen a lot of posts here by you, warning about the impending collapse of our "way of life", and have even read a few.

What I have not seen (and may have missed it), is what you think should be done about it.

If you don't have a solution, then what is the purpose of the warning?

Just curious.

Report this comment
#3) On September 07, 2009 at 3:23 PM, alstry (35.36) wrote:

The solution is to purge and/or restructure the debt so we can have a durable foundation from which to grow the economy.

Simply bailing out the bankers and leaving the debt burden to suffocate the economy/citizens is a guaranteed path to absolute destruction of our economy and our nation.  You are already starting to see the social and political fallout.

There is absolutely no legal, moral, or ethical reason to bailout out insolvent bankers and then allow them to tighten credit and raise interest rates on debt burdened citizens.

You bailout both or you bailout none, but either way you restructure the debt to a sustainable level.  There are a variety of different legal and acceptable ways to accomplish this.

Report this comment
#4) On September 07, 2009 at 4:10 PM, QwertyHero (< 20) wrote:

The solution is smaller government.

Good luck with that though - if it wasn't hard enough already, four years of a hyper liberal, non-citizen, president Obama - and a uber liberal congress will make our government even larger and more unwieldy. 

Taking away entitlements is 335.789% harder than granting them.  We are so f-ing screwed.  Welfare state, here we come.  Followed shortly by the bankrupt state.

Report this comment
#5) On September 07, 2009 at 4:23 PM, alstry (35.36) wrote:

Nobody grew government like Bush......but you are still right.

The problem is that if you were government and you could take all that the citizens had or fire yourself....what would you do?

It is a mess...but my guess is that this was all part of the plan.

Report this comment
#6) On September 07, 2009 at 5:03 PM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

Consevatives are simply idiots.

 It is ok to spend 1 trillion for a bullshit war. But it is too expensive to spend 1 trillion on health care. I am not a fan of HC etiher. But that just showed you how stupid they really are.

Report this comment
#7) On September 07, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Nosignal100 (< 20) wrote:

The article said; 

"A report released Sunday says two of five working-age Californians do not have a job, underscoring the challenges in one of the toughest job markets in decades."

Where did you get 40%? Not all working age people want to work or need to work.




 

 

Report this comment
#8) On September 07, 2009 at 6:42 PM, aqua2 (< 20) wrote:

Miliu01

Actually I am a conservative and to me and all conservatives I know the main issue with healthcare is we don't trust Washington bureaucrats to be involved.  So before you group us all in the stupid catagory maybe you should not be so stupid and ask us why we are against it.  The secondary issue with us IS how are we going to pay for it, whether the war was right or not, the money has been spent,so in your mind is ok to go further in debt.  2 wrongs dont make a right.

AND, am tired of stating this, whether Demo or Repu politician, they are all lying scum, the fault is not with one group but all.  Throwing out one party will not solve the problem.  When will you open your eyes and see that many different administrations contributed to this problem.

 

Alstry,

Jasmine Bess has held down a good job at the Department of Motor Vehicles for the past seven years. She isn't used to asking for charity.
Three unpaid furlough days each month, erasing 14 percent of her income, have hit her budget so hard that by the end of August, she couldn't afford to feed her 9-year-old daughter....

Sorry just dont buy the story, 14% pay decrease and cant afford to feed child... bullshit, try unplugging the cable box honey or some othe cost saving.  First law of survival is too procur food, so find hard to believe a small decrease in salary puts her in the starving refugee camp.  What a load of crap.

Government employees better get used to it, they should be getting let go and not stupid short term furloughs.  Does government really think in a short period of time revenues will be back to pre-crash levels?  More imcompetance from our elected  losers.

 

Report this comment
#9) On September 07, 2009 at 7:16 PM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

>>the main issue with healthcare is we don't trust Washington bureaucrats to be involved.<<

Ah yes, the old saw about bureaucrats. Because people who work for the government aren't the same human beings that work for Aetna. They're a strange race of pod people bent on the destruction of our world through deliberate criminal incompetence. Let's fire them all. They don't deserve to be paid, respected, fed, housed, clothed ... 

This is why so many conservatives suck. They're like little frightened kids, just terrified that "They" (bureaucrats, monsters, ACORN, Bigfoot, Guantanamo detainees, Martians, gays, chupacabaras) are coming to get them and take their kids, pickups, bibles (NIV), and semi-automatics. Don't trust the solutions that might actually do some good ... because those Bad People that the DJ and the moose-huntin' chick warned us about are behind it.

Hunger makes people do funny things. And stupid people do stupid things. Either start thinking with the more advanced regions of your brain, or keep on going with the emotional bogeyman garbage and consider yourself grouped. The last thing we need in the months and years ahead is the same old solutions that didn't work before and aren't working now.

We really just might be heading for that Socialism or starvation situation we've heard tell about. Which do you choose? Are you sure your answer will be the same when you've got no job, no insurance, are running out of food, and your kid has a temperature of 104? "It's OK, daddy, I know it's both parties' fault. I'm just glad you didn't let the one that actually got elected try to help us."

Report this comment
#10) On September 07, 2009 at 7:44 PM, QwertyHero (< 20) wrote:

Mawnck,

You are an idiot.

The bureaucrats suck at everything they undertake.  Everything enterprise they touch is slower, more expensive, and less efficient than any competing private sector service.  EVERYTHING.

The LAST thing I EVER want is DC bureaucrats in charge of MY healthcare.  Maybe you are ok with it - seems you are.  I am not.  Kindly respect that I have enough self-discipline, capability, self-confidence and intestinal fortitude to leave the decision of what healthcare I choose for me and my family to me and my family.

You call conservatives "frightened kids" but it seems to me like you are the typical bed-wetting, liberal pu$$y who goes running to big-brother whenever someone tells him a scary story!  Look how quickly you are ready to throw your own healthcare out the window for government run healthcare!  Just how much of your individual freedoms are you prepared to cede to the government?  Seriously?  How much? 

Instead, why don't you grow a pair of balls and take care of yourself instead of depending suits in washington playing with more and more of my money to do it for you? 

The government which governs best is that which governs least.  Pave the roads, fight the wars then get the hell out of the way.

Report this comment
#11) On September 07, 2009 at 7:46 PM, russiangambit (29.27) wrote:

> "A report released Sunday says two of five working-age Californians do not have a job, underscoring the challenges in one of the toughest job markets in decades."

Where did you get 40%? Not all working age people want to work or need to work.

----------------------------------------------------------

Really, what do they live on , then? Most families these days are 2 income, especially in California  where everything is so expensive. The reason the wife doesn't have a job is not because she doesn't want or need to work. It is because she cannot find a job or can't afford the daycare for the kids. 

 

Report this comment
#12) On September 07, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Nosignal100 (< 20) wrote:

Just responding to Alstry's "40% Unemployment" number. That's NOT what the article said. The current reported unemplyment number in California is 12.1%.

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1006

Report this comment
#13) On September 07, 2009 at 8:30 PM, russiangambit (29.27) wrote:

> Just responding to Alstry's "40% Unemployment" number. That's NOT what the article said. The current reported unemplyment number in California is 12.1%.

His point is that this offical number misrepresents the true unemployement. It is the same with the aggregrate number for the whole of the US - 9.5%, when  in reality it is closer to 20% when you count all the people who fell of the rolls, are discouraged, in temporary training, out of the workforce, independent contractors, working part time etc. When you count on these people in Californi, you'llprobably get 25-305.

Report this comment
#14) On September 07, 2009 at 9:17 PM, angusthermopylae (38.64) wrote:

I'm with russian--the numbers game gets old, distracting, and erodes confidence in anything the government says about the economy (not that some people have any confidence left to be eroded...)

I still think an employment percentage would be a better measure:  300 million citizens, 150 million employed = 50% employment.  Next quarter, it's 49.9%...was it because the system got more efficient, or did 300,000 jobs just go away...or did the population grow?   That's up to the politicians and talking heads to decide.  BLS just reports the numbers, not interprets them.

Break it down by job type, and you have a much clearer picture of how it's all working (or isn't).

Report this comment
#15) On September 07, 2009 at 9:26 PM, alstry (35.36) wrote:

Sammy,

Who cares about the "reported" rate...it is the actual rate that dictates the economy....and any idiot knows that the "reported' U6 rate in California is now approximately 20% with many counties suffering U3 reported "rates" of 20%.

It doesn't matter what the reported rate is....what really matters is what the functional rate is....and the functional rate of unemployment in CA is substantially higher than the reported rate.

But if you feel better thinking that the "reported" rate is simply 12%....that is your perogative.  It was reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in the end, if you were a dead American soldier or dead Iraqi, it really didn't matter what was reported did it?

What mattered to you and your family was you were dead.

Report this comment
#16) On September 08, 2009 at 12:40 AM, dwot (50.85) wrote:

Debt is money owed to someone so one man's purge is another man hardship.  I think there is too much debt to reasonably restructure.

Report this comment
#17) On September 08, 2009 at 1:23 AM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

>>You call conservatives "frightened kids" but it seems to me like you are the typical bed-wetting, liberal pu$$y who goes running to big-brother whenever someone tells him a scary story!<<

Sticks and stones, Mr. Poopoo Pants. Your "bureaucrats suck at everything" rant proves my point even better than my own post did. ALL beaurocrats? Every single last living one? Wow! What are the odds? Idjit.

What sort of healthcare decisions do you plan to make for your family when all your money is worthless and you no longer have insurance? Or have you not been paying attention to alstry all this time?

Report this comment
#18) On September 08, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Nosignal100 (< 20) wrote:

I agree with you on Iraq. But in this case, your headline of 40% unemployment was wrong.

You said; 

Who cares about the "reported" rate...it is the actual rate that dictates the economy....and any idiot knows that the "reported' U6 rate in California is now approximately 20% with many counties suffering U3 reported "rates" of 20%

 So you agree, it's not 40%

Sensationalizing the numbers sometimes skews the thought process, just like in the Iraq decision.

 

Report this comment
#19) On September 08, 2009 at 7:43 AM, alstry (35.36) wrote:

Sammy,

I do thing functinal unemployment is approaching 40% in California if you factor welfare and other social safety net payments.

These payments are not really much different than unemployment checks and the money must come from somewhere...the taxpayer.

DWOT,

You could restructure the debt by creating a new entity to refinance it at a much lower rate, very similar to how we bailed out the banks.  Those that are owed money would be paid in full.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement