Unemployment expected to fall to 8.6% in 2012

[Mr.Phips]

The UCLA forcast released a couple days ago has the unemployment rate falling to 8.6% in 2012.  This assumes 3.4% GDP growth in 2010, 2.4% growth in 2011 and 2.8% growth in 2012 and no double dip recession. 


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-anderson-forecast-u-s-recovery-160346.aspx

This means that unemployment will be a full point higher in 2012 than when Barack Obama first got elected.  No President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment this high and FDR only did so after unemployment fell from 25% in 1933 to 17% in 1936.  What does this mean for Obama's reelection.

[Bo]

I don't trust these (or any) projections too much. In 2008, they projected unemployment right now would be 5%. It's actually near 10%. Projections can be way off even regarding small periods of time.

[Mr.Phips]

I don't trust these (or any) projections too much. In 2008, they projected unemployment right now would be 5%. It's actually near 10%. Projections can be way off even regarding small periods of time.

The problem is that these projections are almost always overly optimistic.  They usually rely on past business cycles and the trends that happened during them.  They dont seem to pick up the fact that the bounceback to each downturn is less and less robust.  This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

[Beet]

This isn't the worst case scenario. In fact if this scenario came about and even if Obama lost, I wouldn't be too upset. Yeah the economy would have structural problems but we all knew that. The thing to real fear is a complete meltdown where 2012 brings some very crazy people into power with a large mandate from a desperate electorate to do crazy things.

[Mr.Phips]

This isn't the worst case scenario. In fact if this scenario came about and even if Obama lost, I wouldn't be too upset. Yeah the economy would have structural problems but we all knew that. The thing to real fear is a complete meltdown where 2012 brings some very crazy people into power with a large mandate from a desperate electorate to do crazy things.

Luckily, I would think that American voters would hold back some in downballot races if they knew Republicans were almost certain to take the White House.  This might allow Dems to hold the Senate in 2012, but the House would likely go GOP(temporarily) through redistricting changes.  

If the unemployment rate is 7.5% or higher in October 2012, Obama is probably toast.  Just look what happened to Gerald Ford in 1976 when unemployment peaked at 9% in 1975 and fell to 7.6% in October 1976.  It still wasnt enough to beat Carter.  I see Obama much like Gerald Ford in his political skills rather than Reagan as many seem to think.  Ford was quite clumsy politically and made a lot of gaffes, much like Obama.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

This isn't the worst case scenario. In fact if this scenario came about and even if Obama lost, I wouldn't be too upset. Yeah the economy would have structural problems but we all knew that. The thing to real fear is a complete meltdown where 2012 brings some very crazy people into power with a large mandate from a desperate electorate to do crazy things.

In 2012 we would have to worry about junk bonds maturing in the commercial real estate sector, and many economists are probably scratching their head trying to think about why it hasn't crashed yet?

[opebo]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

And why is that different?  Bad government policy.

[Torie]

2012 is a long way away, with a lot of stuff out there percolating away. So I label this prediction GIGO. Sorry.

[Sasquatch]

Why worry about unemployment in 2012? Aren't we all going to die on December 21, 2012?

[Bo]

Why worry about unemployment in 2012? Aren't we all going to die on December 21, 2012?

No.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oh joyous day... EIGHT POINT SIX PERCENT!?!?!?  By 2012?

*hysterical laugh that transitions into loud gasping sobs*

I believe hte same report said 6.5% in MN by late 2010.  I think it's almost time we began hiking taxes on the big companies while lowering them drastically on the little guys.  It's clear they're the only ones who will hire anyone.

The big guys feel they can forever get more out of the employees they already have or just hire overseas.  Let's tighten up their position and subsidize small competitors that will benefit our economy rather than wringing it for every penny they can get.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's

[Derek]

Let's throw a party what was the rate that Obama said unemployment wouldn't go above if he were in office?

[memphis]

It's total bs to begin an examination of Obama's tenure with his election. Unemployment was shooting up faster than a rockstar backstage  during Bush's lame duck months.

[Bo]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years.  

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's

No, my point is valid. At the end of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%. That was when the recession ended. In early 1984, a little more than a year after the end of the recession, unemployment was already below 8%.

[Ameriplan]

Let's throw a party what was the rate that Obama said unemployment wouldn't go above if he were in office?

7.5%.

[Derek]

It's total bs to begin an examination of Obama's tenure with his election. Unemployment was shooting up faster than a rockstar backstage  during Bush's lame duck months.

Are you going to say that in 2012?

[Mr.Phips]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's

No, my point is valid. At the end of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%. That was when the recession ended. In early 1984, a little more than a year after the end of the recession, unemployment was already below 8%.

The recession ended in 2009.  If things were still the way they were in the 1980's, unemployment would now be under 8%.  The economy is structurally far different than in the early 80's.

[Derek]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's

No, my point is valid. At the end of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%. That was when the recession ended. In early 1984, a little more than a year after the end of the recession, unemployment was already below 8%.

The recession ended in 2009.  If things were still the way they were in the 1980's, unemployment would now be under 8%.  The economy is structurally far different than in the early 80's.

The recession ended? Tell that to the near 10% who are out of work. Ended according to whom? Obama's so called experts?

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's
[/quote]

No, my point is valid. At the end of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%. That was when the recession ended. In early 1984, a little more than a year after the end of the recession, unemployment was already below 8%.
[/quote]

The recession ended in 2009.  If things were still the way they were in the 1980's, unemployment would now be under 8%.  The economy is structurally far different than in the early 80's.
[/quote]

The recession ended? Tell that to the near 10% who are out of work. Ended according to whom? Obama's so called experts?
[/quote]
Can we please stop posting inside of the quotes?  Thank you
[/quote]

[memphis]

It's total bs to begin an examination of Obama's tenure with his election. Unemployment was shooting up faster than a rockstar backstage  during Bush's lame duck months.

Are you going to say that in 2012?

I'll say anytime that if you want to examine a presidency, you begin with the inauguaration.

[opebo]

If things were still the way they were in the 1980's, unemployment would now be under 8%.  The economy is structurally far different than in the early 80's.

That's precisely the point - the economy is badly designed in the first place, even in the best of times.  Or rather, it is designed with only 0.1% of population in mind.

Thirty years of neo-liberalism has created a situation where most people are doomed, no matter what.

[Mr.Phips]

This isnt like the 1940's through mid 1980's when after a downturn ended, it only took a year for unemployment to fall 3%.  Now, that would take about five years. 

you obviously weren't alive during the 80's

No, my point is valid. At the end of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%. That was when the recession ended. In early 1984, a little more than a year after the end of the recession, unemployment was already below 8%.

The recession ended in 2009.  If things were still the way they were in the 1980's, unemployment would now be under 8%.  The economy is structurally far different than in the early 80's.

The recession ended? Tell that to the near 10% who are out of work. Ended according to whom? Obama's so called experts?

Yes, it did.  GDP growth has been positive for three quarters now.