Unemployment Rate

[Mechaman]

At least OVER 9000! percent and rising! Mothers will eat their babies!
Just kidding, I think it'll probably most likely be 11%,

If the national official unemployment rate hits 10.9%, that will be higher than at any time since world war 2!

Something else to consider.

If consumers decide to be frugal in the upcoming Christmas season (which I expect), then many retailers, suppliers and some manufacturers will be going bankrupt in January of next year.

I can't imagine it getting worse than WW2.......

[CARLHAYDEN]

At least OVER 9000! percent and rising! Mothers will eat their babies!
Just kidding, I think it'll probably most likely be 11%,

If the national official unemployment rate hits 10.9%, that will be higher than at any time since world war 2!

Something else to consider.

If consumers decide to be frugal in the upcoming Christmas season (which I expect), then many retailers, suppliers and some manufacturers will be going bankrupt in January of next year.

I can't imagine it getting worse than WW2.......

Uh, please reread, as I explicity was noting the unemployment rate.

Also, the unemployment rate from 1942 throught the first half of 1945 was minimal.

[Lief 🗽]

At least OVER 9000! percent and rising! Mothers will eat their babies!
Just kidding, I think it'll probably most likely be 11%,

If the national official unemployment rate hits 10.9%, that will be higher than at any time since world war 2!

Something else to consider.

If consumers decide to be frugal in the upcoming Christmas season (which I expect), then many retailers, suppliers and some manufacturers will be going bankrupt in January of next year.

I can't imagine it getting worse than WW2.......

Uh, please reread, as I explicity was noting the unemployment rate.

Also, the unemployment rate from 1942 throught the first half of 1945 was minimal.

What we need is a good old-fashioned war. If the government isn't go to pay people to dig holes in the ground, then they might as well pay them to make bullets and use those bullets to kill foreigners.

[phk]

At least OVER 9000! percent and rising! Mothers will eat their babies!
Just kidding, I think it'll probably most likely be 11%,

If the national official unemployment rate hits 10.9%, that will be higher than at any time since world war 2!

Something else to consider.

If consumers decide to be frugal in the upcoming Christmas season (which I expect), then many retailers, suppliers and some manufacturers will be going bankrupt in January of next year.

I can't imagine it getting worse than WW2.......

Uh, please reread, as I explicity was noting the unemployment rate.

Also, the unemployment rate from 1942 throught the first half of 1945 was minimal.

What we need is a good old-fashioned war. If the government isn't go to pay people to dig holes in the ground, then they might as well pay them to make bullets and use those bullets to kill foreigners.

Bingo. Preferably the foreigners be Muslims.

[minionofmidas]

At least OVER 9000! percent and rising! Mothers will eat their babies!
Just kidding, I think it'll probably most likely be 11%,

If the national official unemployment rate hits 10.9%, that will be higher than at any time since world war 2!

Something else to consider.

If consumers decide to be frugal in the upcoming Christmas season (which I expect), then many retailers, suppliers and some manufacturers will be going bankrupt in January of next year.

I can't imagine it getting worse than WW2.......

Uh, please reread, as I explicity was noting the unemployment rate.

Also, the unemployment rate from 1942 throught the first half of 1945 was minimal.

What we need is a good old-fashioned war. If the government isn't go to pay people to dig holes in the ground, then they might as well pay them to make bullets and use those bullets to kill foreigners.

Bingo. Preferably the foreigners be Muslims.

Starting with those Muslims already in the US?

[Richard]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

[pogo stick]

13%

[CARLHAYDEN]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

You've got to remember that the majority of posters on this Forum (at this time) are Obamanoids who believe some of the most preposterous things.

When I noted (On November 25, 2008) that the unemployment rate would reach or exceed 7.6% when the February unemployment numbers were posted, they scoffed.

I don't think (hope) things are going to get quite as bad as you seem to believe, but, believe we are facing the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

You've got to remember that the majority of posters on this Forum (at this time) are Obamanoids who believe some of the most preposterous things.

When I noted (On November 25, 2008) that the unemployment rate would reach or exceed 7.6% when the February unemployment numbers were posted, they scoffed.

I don't think (hope) things are going to get quite as bad as you seem to believe, but, believe we are facing the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!

I voted for Obama, and if you look at my posts, you'll see that I have had a healthy dose of pessimism about the state of economy, so don't paint us all with such a broad brush. Yes, this is certainly the worst recession since the Great Depression, and hopefully it doesn't get significantly worse.

Anyways, I was kind of expecting the economy to start to blow up during Bush's 2nd term.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

You've got to remember that the majority of posters on this Forum (at this time) are Obamanoids who believe some of the most preposterous things.

When I noted (On November 25, 2008) that the unemployment rate would reach or exceed 7.6% when the February unemployment numbers were posted, they scoffed.

I don't think (hope) things are going to get quite as bad as you seem to believe, but, believe we are facing the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression!

I voted for Obama, and if you look at my posts, you'll see that I have had a healthy dose of pessimism about the state of economy, so don't paint us all with such a broad brush. Yes, this is certainly the worst recession since the Great Depression, and hopefully it doesn't get significantly worse.

Anyways, I was kind of expecting the economy to start to blow up during Bush's 2nd term.

Jfern,

I want to give you credit for NOT being an Obamanoid.

However, I believe you will admit that there are a number of them on this forum.

[??????????]

With the underemployed the actual rate is around 16.9%. Change you can believe in!

[TeePee4Prez]

With the underemployed the actual rate is around 16.9%. Change you can believe in!

Not giving him much time, eh?  The stimulus money has barely been spent.  But you're right, it's bad.

[opebo]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

Hey, welcome back!  Are you making $400,000/year in Dubai or whatever it was yet?

With the underemployed the actual rate is around 16.9%. Change you can believe in!

Not giving him much time, eh?  The stimulus money has barely been spent.  But you're right, it's bad.

It is bad, but it has nothing to do with Obama.  (by that I mean he in no way had anything to do with the creation of the problem, nor can he solve it, but certainly it may destroy him).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Another "shoe" will be dropping in the employment picture on July 24th, when the minimum wage increases to $7.25 an hour.  Here's an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:

"The impact of the higher minimum wage will resonate even beyond that group of earners and industries. Economists say there are 2.8 million workers earning between the current federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour and the new minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, which takes effect on July 24 and has had no signs of delay from legislators. But some estimates figure an additional seven million workers are affected because their wages are tied to the minimum and will go up accordingly.

Ryan Arfmann, who owns a Jamba Juice franchise in Idaho Falls, Idaho, is a case in point. He said he will have to boost pay to all of his 18 workers. The ones making less than $7.25 an hour will be raised to the new rate. But he said he will have to give raises to those currently earning more than $7.25 an hour because they have more experience.

As a result, he plans to cut hours for his part-time workers. "I'll definitely have to run a tighter shift each day and watch numbers like never before," said Mr. Arfmann, who estimates his business is down between 3% and 4% this year."

 

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

[??????????]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

x 100,000 or more.

[memphis]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

x 100,000 or more.

Those particular franchises will likely see their sales increase as well as they extensively serve the minimum wage crowd. The smoothie place probably not so much.

[??????????]

Yeah, lets give them more money so they can waste it faster.

[memphis]

Yeah, lets give them more money so they can waste it faster.

I believe the fancy term is boosting consumer spending.

[Richard]

Stimulus money?  What stimulus money?  You mean the funds that are sitting on financial institutions' balance sheets?  That is supposed to somehow stimulate the economy?  How?

For every dollar in credit retired (paid off), $100 is removed form the money supply.  An economy that was driven by credit will not recover no matter how much you money you throw at it, because consumers have turned into savers and the savers are not actually saving, but retiring debt and shrinking the money supply.

We are talking a permanent 20% reduction of the GDP that is heading this way.

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

Obviously by 'lose money' I meant - enter into a state of unprofitability.  Please strive, in future, Gustaf, to conduct yourself more like a young gentleman and avoid ad hominem attack.

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

Obviously by 'lose money' I meant - enter into a state of unprofitability.  Please strive, in future, Gustaf, to conduct yourself more like a young gentleman and avoid ad hominem attack.

No need to pretend that you are a gentleman. You routinely treat other people with ridicule and contempt and deride those who disagree with you. I don't show respect for those who treat others that way.

So, besides the strange idea that an extra cost of roughly 4 000$ per employee annually couldn't possible drive a company to unprofitableness, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning.

See, I never mentioned profitability. I merely stated that they would lose money, which you now seem to also agree to. Most companies try and maximize their profits. If the situation changes resulting in a loss of money they are likely to adapt. If it suddenly costs them more to hire people they will hire less. If they could make money on paying those kinds of wages they would have hired more people before the raise.