Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

sourclams wrote:Yeah, social safety nets are a good idea.

Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Unemployment insurance? Good idea. Unemployment insurance for more than a year? Two years? Eventually you're just prolonging the inevitable; that individual's skills have badly decayed or the market has changed for that skill set and they will have to accept a significantly worse role than what they had before.

Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has a valuable economic effect in holding down the cost of labour.

Kilkrazy wrote:Unemployment has a valuable economic effect in holding down the cost of labour.

And a not so valuable economic effect of reducing demand.

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

Huh? Care to explain this?

biccat wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

Huh? Care to explain this?

Yup, I would like to know where you get those claims. Minitruth? Fox News? some other reputable source?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Latest surveys are 15.1% undermployment, 8.3% seasonally adjusted unemployment.

This is a drop of about 1% decline in the indices in both metrics since the stagnation levels of 2011 Q2-Q3. For CY 2012 the US is setting up for a significant snapback in general economic recovery, a considerable outperformance of pretty much everyone's (including mine) intermediate-term forecasts. Unemployment might begin to 'consolidate' a little bit around 8% for a couple months, but the momentum is clearly in favor of breakouts to the low end.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

No the RATE has been dropping. Actual unemployment, underemployement, and people who are discouraged and quit looking (hence dropped from the rolls) not so much. I love me's statistics.

No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

Lordhat wrote:

biccat wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

Thanks for posting that.

Makes me think how much I'm prepared to spend on modeling, and how little on my fellow man.

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

No, actual unemployment is not down. Everybody I knew 3 years ago who was looking for work... is still looking for work.

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

For real unemployment to drop you need 400,000 to 500,000 in new jobs a month. 200,000 is literally just breakeven.

And before anyone goes off their rocker, I'd love 500,000 a month in employment gains for the next three years, even if means Obama retains the White House.

loki old fart wrote:

Lordhat wrote:RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

Thanks for posting that.

Agreed, thanks for the RoW link.

Lordhat wrote:

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

No, actual unemployment is not down. Everybody I knew 3 years ago who was looking for work... is still looking for work.

Well, that's not really indicative.

The labor participation rate is generally a better indicator of employment trends. And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

Frazzled wrote:There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

I'm looking at shorter- term trends; what would be referred to as the change 'at the margin'. The margin is really where interactions become interesting.

The aggregate economic environment is not going to be at pre-pop 2008 levels for quite some time. They are, however, going to improve markedly versus 2009-2010. And it looks like 2012 is going to be quite a bit better than 2011.

And 500k would be quite a bit better than b/e. In 2008 you averaged about 250k lost per month, 500k in '09. 2010 was b/e, 2011 was up, and now 2012 is starting out at a greater rate than 2007, believe it or not (I'm looking at labor force net changes MoM btw).

So yeah, we have a long way to go, no disagreement, but we've 'made the turn', so to speak. There's a reason equities have been En Fuego (S&P, DJIA, NASDAQ), and as those run so too will employment.

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

sourclams wrote:

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

No, the labor participation rate is based on the number of people 16 and up. There is no distinction between someone leaving the labor force due to retirement and someone leaving the labor force due to losing their job.

Therefore, the labor force participation rate does not accont for people dropping out of the labor market due to retirement.

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

I'm looking at shorter- term trends; what would be referred to as the change 'at the margin'. The margin is really where interactions become interesting.

The aggregate economic environment is not going to be at pre-pop 2008 levels for quite some time. They are, however, going to improve markedly versus 2009-2010. And it looks like 2012 is going to be quite a bit better than 2011.

And 500k would be quite a bit better than b/e. In 2008 you averaged about 250k lost per month, 500k in '09. 2010 was b/e, 2011 was up, and now 2012 is starting out at a greater rate than 2007, believe it or not (I'm looking at labor force net changes MoM btw).

So yeah, we have a long way to go, no disagreement, but we've 'made the turn', so to speak. There's a reason equities have been En Fuego (S&P, DJIA, NASDAQ), and as those run so too will employment.

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Again, if jobs start coming in at 500K a month, and as long as we have Congress and the President from differing parties, I'll drink to that.

Frazzled wrote:You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Okay, here's the things though:

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.
***5% you might recheck that figure.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.
***$8 oil for any period of time will kill a global recovery no matter how strong it is. Expect a wave of terrorist attacks on US targets across the globe, including inside US territory if attacks occur.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.
***Didn’t hurt granted. It will be a drag though.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.
****Mmmm…ok…no. If all three are impacted Germany goes into a recession. Say what you want but the EU really is just Greater Deutschland/France at this point (I never consider the UK as Euro).


Hopefully you’re right. Again, the great thing about being a pessimist is that, if you’re wrong, you can still be a happy man.

Chongara is trolling, but regardless your response is bs.

And, Yes because telling people their is "only one true and good view"

There IS! It's right there for you to read whenever you want, closing your eyes and turning your back on your soul doesn't change that. The truth is there for you to see and the, bells you hear every sunday are calling you to it! The only way to not understand that truth is to wifully refuse to you. It is the WRONG choice. It is the answer to ALL THINGS in CREATION as it was handed to the CREATOR of ALL THINGS in CREATION.

It also extremely relevant to this thread! As Biccat has already so wonderfully and accurately pointed out (his point being the one I was orginally endorsing) that if these hungry people simply picked up a bible, they'd have the wisdom to not be hungry.

biccat wrote:No, the labor participation rate is based on the number of people 16 and up. There is no distinction between someone leaving the labor force due to retirement and someone leaving the labor force due to losing their job.

Therefore, the labor force participation rate does not accont for people dropping out of the labor market due to retirement.

Ah, I see. I look at the employment total in labor force net changes, so retirement would be corrected for by that means.

Please stay on-topic. That is, drop this sparkly Bible conversation.

Thanks.

Frazzled wrote:Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.
***5% you might recheck that figure.

So I went and double checked and I was way off, actual is about 17%. I was going off of memory from what I heard Bernanke say in a Fed meeting w/Congress. I might have been thinking in terms of GDP, which would be 2% on an annualized basis, either way mine was a sloppy number.

Still, EU Exports repreenting 2% of GDP, I'm just not that worried. The real danger is risk-off mentality, but it looks like the US is finally de-coupling from Eurozone headwinds.

AAAH! *crosses fingers*

Bad Biccat. How DARE you post a picture of Al Gore. You'll summon his supporters, and NOBODY wants that!

Anyway. Greece is not anywhere near indicative of waht will happen to the USA. Greece has never been stable...

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Okay, here's the things though:

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

The European Union is the single largest trading partner of the USA.

Yeah, if you combine a lot of nations in to one...

But if you combine, say, Canada and Mexico in to noe group they'd exceed the EU, those two countries combined bringing in twice as much total trade as the EU does.

sourclams wrote:
War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Two things:

1) There's no guarantee that the US could stop an armed attack by Israel, though we will certainly try so long as there is a Democrat in the White House, and most likely any foreseeable Republican (except Santorum) as well. Also, Iran would interpret anything short of shooting down incoming Israeli aircraft as complicity in the strike; and even that might not stop that interpretation. Really, there is an argument to be made if Israel decides to strike, we should help them because we lose nothing in doing so, and a successful strike becomes our best possible option.

2) The proper war against Iran would be over quickly, yes, but the aftermath would be very much like Iraq, only much worse. Theoretically we could just leave, and not worry about rebuilding, but I find that to be an unlikely outcome; and not a necessarily desirable one either.

Tom summarize, while invasion isn't on the table at the moment, air strikes very much are, and that could escalate to invasion if Iran decides to start screwing with crude shipments.

Frazzled wrote:
$8 oil for any period of time will kill a global recovery no matter how strong it is. Expect a wave of terrorist attacks on US targets across the globe, including inside US territory if attacks occur.

It would, but I doubt we would hit 8 USD gas due to war with Iran. It would definitely increase prices, but not double them, and they aren't that significant of a supplier. More importantly, you can basically guarantee any hostile action again Iran to be preceded by a large buildup of US naval assets in the gulf, possibly to the point directly escorting tankers.

Terrorism is a minor concern, economically, unless someone happens to have been planning a 9/11 scale attack, and coincidentally decides to engage the plan shortly after any air strike. That said, someone very well might start planning such an attack because of an air strike.

But still proximate events are likely to be small in size, and targeted at Israel and Europe.