When will Unemployment break below 7.5%?

[Person Man]

Basically, that's not a good number, but that means the economy actually has some life.

[War on Want]

By mid to late 2010.

[phk]

It really depends.

It could be awhile, especially if productivity growth remains high in the early part of the recovery (like it did in the early 2000s recession) causing a lag in job creation, where productivity growth remained high and job creation didn't meaningfully occur till output growth exceeded productivity growth (which wasn't till sometime in Q1 2004).

I have seen this in various parts of San Diego, such as fast food restaurants and grocery stores using automated multiple automated cash registers supervised by one person, instead of multiple lanes.

This might hold true as people are generally risk-averse and would probably have a greater peace of mind with investing in technology first and labor later.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's a bit subjective because there is still a possibility that we will still see a double dip recession. If that's the case, we could see an uptick in jobs late this year and early next, followed by the next leg down in mid 2010. I'm not convinced we are out of the woods, especially since home defaults still climb and the latest report that half of home will be worth less than their mortgage by 2010.

[phk]

It's a bit subjective because there is still a possibility that we will still see a double dip recession. If that's the case, we could see an uptick in jobs late this year and early next, followed by the next leg down in mid 2010. I'm not convinced we are out of the woods, especially since home defaults still climb and the latest report that half of home will be worth less than their mortgage by 2010.

It honestly depends... I would suppose there's a decent "Craigslist" economy where people are simply "employed-under the table", already going on. Are these people truly unemployed? Perhaps to a degree.

[Person Man]

It really depends.

It could be awhile, especially if productivity growth remains high in the early part of the recovery (like it did in the early 2000s recession) causing a lag in job creation, where productivity growth remained high and job creation didn't meaningfully occur till output growth exceeded productivity growth (which wasn't till sometime in Q1 2004).

I have seen this in various parts of San Diego, such as fast food restaurants and grocery stores using automated multiple automated cash registers supervised by one person, instead of multiple lanes.

This might hold true as people are generally risk-averse and would probably have a greater peace of mind with investing in technology first and labor later.

Yes. That has been a concern of mine since 2002, when pundits were talking about a "jobless recovery". I am thinking that there will have been some economic leadership that will create an industry that is not yet automated and still requires a degree of at least initial creativity.

[phk]

It really depends.

It could be awhile, especially if productivity growth remains high in the early part of the recovery (like it did in the early 2000s recession) causing a lag in job creation, where productivity growth remained high and job creation didn't meaningfully occur till output growth exceeded productivity growth (which wasn't till sometime in Q1 2004).

I have seen this in various parts of San Diego, such as fast food restaurants and grocery stores using automated multiple automated cash registers supervised by one person, instead of multiple lanes.

This might hold true as people are generally risk-averse and would probably have a greater peace of mind with investing in technology first and labor later.

Yes. That has been a concern of mine since 2002, when pundits were talking about a "jobless recovery". I am thinking that there will have been some economic leadership that will create an industry that is not yet automated and still requires a degree of at least initial creativity.

One of my hypothesis was that the reason why productivity growth had remained high from 2001 to 2004 was that the massive investments that many firms and individuals made in IT was finally paying dividends at a lagged pace. When computers had finally become more reliable/faster/useful than the Windows 3.1/9x era.

This inconveniently coincided with a asset bubble in the Nasdaq bursting causing a recession and a loss of jobs followed by lagged productivity growth afterward crimping job growth.

Technology changes demand for labor through two mechanisms:
A. Substituting for some human tasks
B. Complementing other human tasks

Or perhaps a hitherto combination of the above.

The 1990s saw a lot of B, the early 2000s saw a lot of A.

Can computers eliminate teachers for example?

[Person Man]

Actually, I predict that computers/droids will do a lot of B for a lot of professionals by 2020 or 2030. A lot of A could happen by 2045 or 2050 to anyone.

[phk]

Actually, I predict that computers/droids will do a lot of B for a lot of professionals by 2020 or 2030. A lot of A could happen by 2045 or 2050 to anyone.

So I guess going into entrepreneurship might just be it. Self-employment in a sole proprietorship configuration might just be the way to go.

[phk]

NEW YORK — Money spent on computing technology by U.S. companies delivers gains in worker productivity that are three to five times those of other investments, according to a study published Tuesday. But the study also concluded that the information technology industry itself was unlikely to be a big source of new jobs.

The report is a wide-ranging look at the role that information technology plays in the U.S. economy, based on an assessment of existing research and the authors' analysis. The study was done by a year-old research organization, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, whose work is supported by companies like IBM, Cisco Systems and eBay, as well as by the Communications Workers of America and foundation grants. It is available at www.itif.org.

The study concludes that the economic significance of information technology is less in the technology itself than in the capacity of computer hardware, software and services to transform other sectors of the economy.

Policy, according to the study, should focus less on incentives to use certain technology products or help particular companies than on encouraging market forces to hasten the pace of technology- aided change in industries.

Robert Atkinson, the foundation president, said health care, electric utilities and transportation were sectors that could benefit from computing technology.

In health care, for example, the U.S. government has prodded industry to set standards for sharing information as a step toward building a national health information network. Medicare and industry groups are moving to require hospitals and clinics to report their performance in meeting safety standards and patient health goals. To meet those standards, health care providers must adopt modern computing tools.

"The policy issue is, how do you get digital transformation in these other sectors?" Atkinson said. "This is not about tax breaks for IBM or Cisco or other technology companies."

The report notes that employment in computing has recovered somewhat since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, to account for 3.76 million jobs. Still, it says, the growth potential is limited.

The most provocative and controversial parts of the report, "Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution," are its claim of major productivity gains from investments in computing technology and its policy focus on industry sectors.

The report cites studies to back its assertion of productivity benefits, but many economists are not convinced. "It could be that investments here pay off more than other investments, but the evidence is still not in, in my view," said Robert Litan, an economist and director of research and policy at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/technology/13iht-tech14.4898984.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are we stll talking about the bogus official U3 rate?

[Person Man]

Actually, I predict that computers/droids will do a lot of B for a lot of professionals by 2020 or 2030. A lot of A could happen by 2045 or 2050 to anyone.

So I guess going into entrepreneurship might just be it. Self-employment in a sole proprietorship configuration might just be the way to go.

In fact, it is conceivable that the income of most people by mid-century could be from wealth and invesments and not in actual wages.

[phk]

Are we stll talking about the bogus official U3 rate?

Jobs aren't really the end all, be all, ya know.

[Person Man]

Although, at this time, it is for me. I am have no other access to wealth besides the Welfare State or my parents and I am trained in a profession that will likely be one of the last two or three (competing with medicine and research) to be automated. At this point, we have condensed the thousands of books we need and our papers into an router, a WestLaw subscription and a harddrive.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are we stll talking about the bogus official U3 rate?

Jobs aren't really the end all, be all, ya know.

Silly me thought that this was a thread about unemployment.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The White House is now projecting unemployment to cross 10% this year and remain at 9.8% in 2010. If that's the case, the Democrats are in serious trouble. They could be fudging the numbers, though, so if it's better than that, they can claim victory. I just don't trust anything that comes out of this administration.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The White House is now projecting unemployment to cross 10% this year and remain at 9.8% in 2010. If that's the case, the Democrats are in serious trouble. They could be fudging the numbers, though, so if it's better than that, they can claim victory. I just don't trust anything that comes out of this administration.

As usual, the White House projections are authored by Rosey Scenario.

[Mint]

The White House is now projecting unemployment to cross 10% this year and remain at 9.8% in 2010. If that's the case, the Democrats are in serious trouble. They could be fudging the numbers, though, so if it's better than that, they can claim victory. I just don't trust anything that comes out of this administration.

Every number we get is fudged. Unemployment that doesn't factor in people that are off the rolls, 'inflation' that doesn't factor in the cost of food or gas, bank assets that have been 're-valued' at whatever the bank feels like... How can anyone take any of these official numbers even remotely seriously?

[phk]

Its possible to see a jobless recovery btw.

[Mint]

Its possible to see a jobless recovery btw.

How? Our economy is based almost entirely on consumption at this point. If real unemployment remains in the double digits and people's wages are depressed, how can we possibly return to the sort of growth we had a few years back? The people left in the work force aren't going to be able to pick up the slack.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's funny to see most people think we'll be back to 7.5% unemployment in 2010.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Around February of 2010.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's funny to see most people think we'll be back to 7.5% unemployment in 2010.

They probably believe that Commisar Obama will have the unemployment numbers "adjusted" to reach 7.5%.

[opebo]

It's funny to see most people think we'll be back to 7.5% unemployment in 2010.

They probably believe that Commisar Obama will have the unemployment numbers "adjusted" to reach 7.5%.

Dude, there isn't much more than a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Obama, and you're calling him 'commisar'?  I've no idea what the unemployment rate will be, but it wouldn't be any less under an extreme rightist compared to the current center-rightist.

[titaniumtux]

It's funny to see most people think we'll be back to 7.5% unemployment in 2010.

They probably believe that Commisar Obama will have the unemployment numbers "adjusted" to reach 7.5%.

Dude, there isn't much more than a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Obama, and you're calling him 'commisar'?  I've no idea what the unemployment rate will be, but it wouldn't be any less under an extreme rightist compared to the current center-rightist.

Center-rightist?! Obama is more fascist than anything else (bail-out, mandatory medical insurance, etc.). He's authoritarian but economically nothing he does seems to make sense either right or left!

Obama won't cure unemployment. Possible solutions? Lower income tax, outsource and eliminate more government jobs (ironic to leftists maybe, however the "stimulus package" of Dear Leader Obama will increase America's debt, worsening its economy), open immigration, etc.