Patrick.net

Is Housing Recovery Real? Not Everyone Is Convinced

By Patrick   Follow   Fri, 3 Aug 2012, 3:43pm   5,495 views   82 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157598225/is-housing-recovery-real-not-everyone-is-convinced

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 43-82 of 82     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

   43   5:21pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says never claimed I teach at a "major public university"... more made up bs from you... the job number is a NET CHANGE number, nitwit... more people are working today, than were a month ago... You claimed to be a lecturer at CAL (not that I believed you so it's a moot point anyway). Regardless, here's data you could possibly decipher, but I'm not holding my breath: Employment status (numbers in THOUSANDS) Ciilian noninstitutional population 239,671 242,966 243,155 243,354 Change: +199 Civilian labor force 153,358 155,007 155,163 155,013 Change: -150 Participation rate 64.0 63.8 63.8 63.7 Change: -0.1 Employed 139,450 142,287 142,415 142,220 Change: -195 Employment-population ratio 58.2 58.6 58.6 58.4 Change: -0.2 Unemployed 13,908 12,720 12,749 12,794 Change: +45 Unemployment rate 9.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 Change: +0.1 Those are the most recent statistics reported by the BLS from June 2012 to July 2012. You want to take your foot out of your mouth, or should I?

2. dunnross Follow Befriend 28 threads 1,489 comments San Jose, CA Premium

   44   5:24pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says more people are working today, than were a month ago... Wrong again. How can 175,000 be the net number of jobs gained, if only 163,000 new jobs were added and 195,000 jobs were lost. I think the math professor needs to go back to 5th grade, again.

3. REpro Follow Befriend (1) 22 threads 471 comments San Jose, CA

   45   5:33pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Raw says Here is the formula for CAP rates: http://realestate.about.com/od/knowthemath/ht/cap_rate_calc.htm Formula is good, but the trick is to know how to calculate NOI. This value VARIES greatly and only experienced investor, broker or appraiser is able to calculate it right way. It is also an area where manipulation takes place. It simply too many variables to be taken in account. Every real property is different. I’ve seen properties with NOI as high as 65% of Gross Anticipated Income and as little as 40% of GAI. Anyway, is a great quick formula to arrive with possible purchase price.

4. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

   46   5:34pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   I haven't heard a credible or believable argument yet on how home prices can rise outside of a speculator rally with rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

5. dunnross Follow Befriend 28 threads 1,489 comments San Jose, CA Premium

   47   5:38pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Goran_K says I haven't heard a credible or believable argument yet on how home prices can rise outside of a speculator rally with rising unemployment and stagnant wages. Well speculator rallies can last longer than anyone has the patience to wait. We saw this back in 2002-2007. But, one thing for sure, the longer it lasts, the more blood will be shed, in the end.

6. dunnross Follow Befriend 28 threads 1,489 comments San Jose, CA Premium

   48   5:50pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   You know what is truly amazing is how much people let their wishful thinking overpower sane logic. After 5 straight years of "false rallies" during the spring season, people are still clinging on to the idea that this year is going to be somehow different, and their "hope" of a true recovery is finally going to pan out.

7. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,836 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

   49   5:51pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Goran_K says You claimed to be a lecturer at CAL (not that I believed you so it's a moot point anyway). see this is what makes you goran, as a person, a complete asshole... you call me a liar with no shred of evidence... while in grad school there, I lectured calculus, now piss off.

8. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

   50   5:56pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says see this is what makes you goran, as a person, a complete asshole... you call me a liar with no shred of evidence... while in grad school there, I lectured calculus, now piss off. I didn't call you a liar, I simply don't believe a lot of what people claim about themselves on the internet. You do often boast a lot on patrick.net, and one of the things you commonly bring up is how you were a "lecturer at CAL", like I said, doesn't matter to me. Now, what say you about those BLS employment statistics I posted? Or are we going to ignore that whole debate never happened? It's okay, I would too if I were you.

9. dunnross Follow Befriend 28 threads 1,489 comments San Jose, CA Premium

   51   5:59pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Protected   Goran_K says I didn't call you a liar, Too bad, because he is.

10. bgamall4 Follow Befriend (14) 761 threads 2,592 comments 63 male Las Vegas, NV bgamall4's website Premium

    52   6:06pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   dunnross says his is ridiculous. Do you even hear what you are saying. Did you read my article or not? Apparently 11 thousand other people felt that it was important enough to read. There are examples of hedge funds doing what hedge funds have not been doing in the past. If you add the concept that rents may one day be securitized, which is at the other article I wrote, you could have the wealth dominating national real estate as they do Manhattan right now. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-1-percent-is-buying-up-all-the-real-estate-beware-of-tom-lee-of-jpm-2012-5

11. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    53   6:55am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   dunnross says And all those RE markets are imploding as we speak. Your argument is akin to saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is more sane than John Wayne Gacy, but actually they are both nuts. Right....international RE markets are all imploding as we speak. Data?

12. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    54   6:57am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Goran_K says iwog says Already built into the market. Investors don't care what conditions are like today. Investors only care about what conditions are like tomorrow. Bad conditions today only indicate that prices might be too cheap. I can't believe I'm reading this. It's infuriating in the way it's wrong, but I have no energy, nor do I care enough to comment further. Figures.

13. Call it Crazy Follow Befriend 229 threads 2,790 comments

    55   7:45am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Goran_K says What about the 190,000 jobs that were lost? The BLS just reported that unemployment just went up to 8.3% "mathematics professor who teaches at a major public university." The other piece that no one discusses is where do the approximate 350K WEEKLY first time unemployed go??? That's over 1.4 Million a month.... do they all go out and find NEW jobs the next week so they aren't counted in the unemployment numbers??? I can believe they all find NEW jobs in this weak jobs market.... I know the monthly report is a phone household survey and is not taken directly from the weekly numbers, but come on, if 1.4 Million file each month for multiple months and the rate only goes from 8.2% to 8.3%.... REALLY?????

14. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    56   9:10am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Call it Crazy says I know the monthly report is a phone household survey and is not taken directly from the weekly numbers, but come on, if 1.4 Million file each month for multiple months and the rate only goes from 8.2% to 8.3%.... REALLY????? Election year. One of the unemployment numbers you will never see is REAL unemployment (including long term unemployed). It's simply too hard to get an accurate number, but like you mentioned, all indicators show it's high (some estimate in the 15 to 20% range).

15. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    57   9:11am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says the job number is a NET CHANGE number, nitwit... more people are working today, than were a month ago... Still no response Roberto? Am I still a nitwit? Is unemployment down?

16. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,836 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    58   10:05am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Goran_K says robertoaribas says the job number is a NET CHANGE number, nitwit... more people are working today, than were a month ago... Still no response Roberto? Am I still a nitwit? Is unemployment down? yes you are still a nitwit. It is not my job to run and do tasks you set for me, you obnoxious idiot.

17. mell Follow Befriend (5) 57 threads 1,329 comments Premium

    59   10:06am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Temporary bubbles or bounces need to be distinguished from any real recovery. It is also well known that bubbles can last quite longer than you'd expect. But without a grip on the massive debt floating around, starting from the federal deficit to state and municipalities deficits, no real recovery can take place. Doesn't matter whether it continues in inflation or deflation, or most likely stagflation, but while I am willing to believe personal success stories (which can happen) I must say that anybody arguing for a grand recover in spite of the cold hard debt facts is at least mildly delusional.

18. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    60   11:19am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says yes you are still a nitwit. It is not my job to run and do tasks you set for me, you obnoxious idiot. You don't disappoint Roberto. :)

19. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    61   11:21am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   dunnross says Well speculator rallies can last longer than anyone has the patience to wait. We saw this back in 2002-2007. But, one thing for sure, the longer it lasts, the more blood will be shed, in the end. Well 2002-2007 had the benefit of endless amounts of liquidity and credit to continue going (aka no skin in the game). The current bubble trap is being funded by real actual investor cash, that's the scary part (if you're an investor of course).

20. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    62   11:34am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   mell says I must say that anybody arguing for a grand recover in spite of the cold hard debt facts is at least mildly delusional. Apparent investor logic: "rising unemployment, stagnant wage growth, massive private debt is built into the market, we don't buy for today, we buy for the future" So you are probably right.

21. David9 Follow Befriend (3) 28 threads 747 comments Tarzana, CA

    63   11:44am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   First, who else would come out and say these things other than the NRA? Second, and this will not be broadcast on any new media, I think if this trend continues, as it has for years, i.e. weak fundamentals, and high prices it is obviously some set up of some kind. The hedge funds will but up the foreclosed properties at fire sale prices and rent them out, (Anyone remember the early 1990's when WE got to pick as some fire sale items?) If that doesn't work, an immigration gate will open and a new flood of willing debt slaves will be up for feast. Or something similiar to keep the bottom line. Lastly, and there will be no news articles about this either, (But you can sort listings) Look at the crap for sale, damaged, no stove, microwave torn out, 1 bathroom no matter how many bedrooms. Sure! anything half way nice gets snapped up in a day.

22. Raw Follow Befriend 10 threads 694 comments

    64   1:42pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Goran_K says I haven't heard a credible or believable argument yet on how home prices can rise outside of a speculator rally with rising unemployment and stagnant wages. I'll give you 3 reasons: 1. It is cheaper to buy than to rent due to falling interest rates and rising rents. 2. There is a huge pent up demand from people who waited to buy their home. 3. The perceptions have changed. People, especially investors with large amounts of cash believe home prices are going up. They start jumping into the market creating a self fulfilling prophecy. -- And here is a bonus 4th reason. 4. It is cheaper to buy a home than to construct one.

23. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    65   2:05pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   I could see #2 being somewhat true, but people were saying that in late 2009 as well and then prices dropped in 2010 and 2011. #3 is kind of feeding into my point of speculation.

24. bgamall4 Follow Befriend (14) 761 threads 2,592 comments 63 male Las Vegas, NV bgamall4's website Premium

    66   2:53pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Raw says 2. There is a huge pent up demand from people who waited to buy their home. I think people want to be able to move. They view home ownership as a weight around their necks when they need to move for another job. I don't think there is massive pent up demand, unless there is another bubble. Romney wants another bubble.

25. SFace Follow Befriend (2) 61 threads 1,307 comments Premium

    67   2:30am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Goran_K says Since Goran can't figure this out, 175,000 more jobs is 175000 more people that can pay rent... What about the 190,000 jobs that were lost? The BLS just reported that unemployment just went up to 8.3% "mathematics professor who teaches at a major public university." The first thing to understand about #'s are the source and context. The jobs report come from a survey of approximately 140K large employers and government agencies covering 33% of the countries payroll. That is 172K private and -9K Government for bet of 163K. ADP, which also have deep insight into these things as they handle payroll for smaller/medium size employers (have 500K business payroll clients) reported 163K jobs added. The unemployment report comes from 60K phone calls. I got this once and well it went yes, yes, yes in 1 minute, listened but worked on my laptop so not sure what the question was. 60K over 100M+ household is essentially less than 0.1% coverage. From that perspective, I believe the household survey is junk (as far as predicitng job growth) and Goran really needs to think about things a step further. Your posts are getting ridicolous. It's a classic case of knowing a little but representing a lot.

26. SFace Follow Befriend (2) 61 threads 1,307 comments Premium

    68   2:58am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Call it Crazy says The other piece that no one discusses is where do the approximate 350K WEEKLY first time unemployed go??? That's over 1.4 Million a month.... do they all go out and find NEW jobs the next week so they aren't counted in the unemployment numbers??? The unemployment office does not close whether the country is in an economic boom or recession. Business' are not static and people get fired and hired everyday for various reasons. 300K+ plus people file for unemployment weekly even in 2002-2007. In any case, if you understand how these things work, less than 400K weekly claims correlate with net job gains. The fact that 350K are filed a week tell me jobs are being added.

27. CaptainShuddup Follow Befriend (1) 250 threads 4,758 comments

    69   6:39am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says Already built into the market. Yeah It's in there! Built into the market, that's the new, "It only goes up"

28. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    70   6:44am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   SFace says I believe the household survey is junk SFace, c'mon man. That's ridiculous that you would dismiss a metric that has helped guide the nation's financial policy for over century because it doesn't fit your personal agenda of boosting housing on the internet. Now you're trying to claim that job growth is actually up. I don't know if you're purposefully ignoring data, or simply boosting housing at all cost, but it's intellectually dishonest. Secondly, most important thing you failed to mention is that the sample is only composed of those who are actively looking for work (per the EDD database in California for instance). Those who are long term unemployed, aka "depressed workers" and haven't looked for work for 2+ years, aren't even called. New grads who are actively looking, but have never had employment, are also ignored. So the report actually under reports REAL unemployment by a significant margin, which makes my point even more acute. But of course, the BLS report, from which the nations unemployment numbers have been calculated for the past 130 years is now "junk" and should be thrown out according to some random guy on the internet named "SFace" because he thinks it doesn't support his personal agenda of boosting housing at any intellectual cost on the internet, and he doesn't understand the effectiveness and mathematics behind polling/sampling. Sorry, that's almost laughable.

29. Massive Housing Inventory Follow Befriend 1 threads 21 comments

    71   6:47am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   A "housing recovery" is dramatically lower prices by it's very definition. Thus, housing is recovering.

30. SFace Follow Befriend (2) 61 threads 1,307 comments Premium

    72   9:45am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Goran_K says Now you're trying to claim that job growth is actually up. I don't know if you're purposefully ignoring data, or simply boosting housing at all cost, but it's intellectually dishonest. Yes, job growth is up and the context is whether there were jobs created or lost. Establishment surevy and ADP survey says 163K, while the household survey says negative 193K. Obviously, I undestand the mechanics of the surveys while you have no clue. Goran_K says Secondly, most important thing you failed to mention is that the sample is only composed of those who are actively looking for work (per the EDD database in California for instance). If you are referring to the household survey, you are clueless there as well as you don't even understand the sampling methodology which are explained in the BLS. Goran_K says sface doesn't support his personal agenda of boosting housing at any intellectual cost on the internet, and he doesn't understand the effectiveness and mathematics behind polling/sampling. Sorry, that's almost laughable. You are talking about yourself. Really, only a fool like you would think a household survey is more effective than an establishment survey reinforced with a ADP survey when talking about jobs growth. "Both surveys are subject to sampling error. The payroll survey has a much larger sample size than the household survey. The payroll survey’s active sample covers approximately 486,000 business establishments of all sizes representing about one-third of total nonfarm employment. The household survey is much smaller at 60,000 households, covering a very small fraction of total employed persons. Over-the-month changes in household survey employment are therefore subject to larger sampling error, about four times that of the payroll survey on a monthly basis." Bottom line, the sampling and (non-sampling error caused by cold calls) is huge in the household survey. Here's the establishment survey 90% confidence that the job added was within 1.6 standard deviation or 100K. In statistical context, we are 90% confident job growth are somewhere between 63K to 263K Here's what Goran is relying on 90% confidence that the job added are within 1.6 standard deviation or +/- 400K. So we are 90% confident jobs are negative 592K to positive 208K. If you think the household survey is superior (which is what you are implying as you claim job growth was negative 192K), you will end up looking as stupid as the Case Shiller July 2012 thread.

31. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    73   10:16am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   SFace, #2 to be ignored on my list. Such a shame.

32. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,836 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    74   11:38am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   SFACE: All 3 of the numbers have problems, and are much more nuanced than the short quips in the news. 1. Employment number. uses payroll numbers from big employers, but then estimates new companies coming into existence, and other companies shutting their doors by the 'birth death model'. During the early years of the recession, this probably was woefully underestimating job loss, because who the hell opened a business in 2007, and far more than estimated were closing. TODAY it is very likely underestimating small business creation. 2. Household survey. Has tons of its own statistical errors, not the least of which, is who the hell answers calls from unknown numbers today? I screen everything, and don't have a home phone anyways, so their methodology has a potential huge bias (phone answers may differ from phone non answerers in statistically important ways) 3. number claims for unemployment. Often used as a proxy for the employment market, because of course it doesn't actually count employment, and as SFACE pointed out, in the best of economies there are still hundreds of thousands losing jobs each week. A number under 400,000 has historically indicated a stable to improving job market, numbers over 500,000 the opposite. several other economic indicators I watch, for my area, are city tax receipts. They have moved back to nearly pre-bubble levels, and would indicate the Phoenix metro is recovering much better than the still fairly dire national numbers... Time will tell.

33. SFace Follow Befriend (2) 61 threads 1,307 comments Premium

    75   11:59am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Of course there are limitations and nuance of each. In the end, establishment survey is much more accurate than household survey. The tighter margin of error proofs that. And I say this even if the indicator singals different thing. Between August 2011 and July 2012, the household survey showed much more job growth than what is reflected on the establishment survey. If household survey is such a holy grail of job growth, did anyone bother to see what it did the past 12 months?

34. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    76   1:00pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Or indicator #4 as used by Roberto, and SFace: Outright lie. Even if all indicators, reports, and empirical data shows that job growth is non existent and the amount people hitting the soup kitchen is growing, simply make up an arbitrary lie about why you believe employment is actually growing in the face of all logic, and reason, to fit your housing boosting agenda. Even if you are confronted by a reliable 130 year old metric that actually under reports unemployment, simply disregard the data, and continue making up your own statistics. That way, your personal agenda is always supported. Time will tell (or not because being dishonest is too easy).

35. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,836 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    77   1:25pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Goran_K says Time will tell (or not because being dishonest is too easy). goran, you don't have the intelligence to have a conversation...obviously my post went over your head... I am buying my next home this friday, one more next month, and my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month (and $1000 a month in mortgage payoff) What do you have again, except jealousy of me? You will still be on this forum years from now writing how all statistics save yours are wrong, and housing is dropping, when I no longer work and live on a beach in the tropics!

36. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    78   1:31pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   robertoaribas says Goran_K says Time will tell (or not because being dishonest is too easy). goran, you don't have the intelligence to have a conversation...obviously my post went over your head... I am buying my next home this friday, one more next month, and my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month (and $1000 a month in mortgage payoff) What do you have again, except jealousy of me? You will still be on this forum years from now writing how all statistics save yours are wrong, and housing is dropping, when I no longer work and live on a beach in the tropics! Roberto, it's that sort of post that no doubt irritates Goran - you seem to have had no other purpose than to big yourself up.

37. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    79   1:40pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   robertoaribas says my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month Really, that's such an awesome amount. I can totally see you retiring in the tropics very soon with that princely sum.

38. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

    80   1:45pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Goran_K says robertoaribas says my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month Really, that's such an awesome amount. I can totally see you retiring in the tropics very soon with that princely sum. Well,6000 a month in a desert would be pretty awesome.

39. Goran_K Follow Befriend (4) 25 threads 1,523 comments Laguna Beach, CA Premium

    81   1:53pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Anyway, enough about Roberto's sand and cactus empire, I'm getting super jealous just thinking about it right now. Let's get back to unemployment numbers, shall we? I think Mish's latest article does a superb analysis of all the numbers and trends that basically backs my point, and conversely shows that SFace is simply wrong (or dishonest) about job numbers being up. http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/headline-jobs-163000-but-household.html Some key points: - US Unemployment Rate +.1 to 8.3% - In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,683,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,655,000. - This month the Civilian Labor Force fell by 150,000. - This month, those "not" in the labor force increased by 348,000 to 88,340,000, another record high. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed. - In the last year, those "not" in the labor force rose by 2,027,000 - Over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 2,770,000. - Participation Rate was steady at 63.8%; - There are 8,246,000 workers who are working part-time but want full-time work, an increase of 36,000 - Long-Term unemployment (27 weeks and over) was 5.185 million a decline of 185,000. - Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%. In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,683,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,655,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,027,000 to yet another record high 88,340,000. That is an amazing "achievement" to say the least, and as noted above most of this is due to economic weakness not census changes. Decline in Labor Force Factors - Discouraged workers stop looking for jobs - People retire because they cannot find jobs - People go back to school hoping it will improve their chances of getting a job - People stay in school longer because they cannot find a job. As I said, the BLS numbers actually under report REAL unemployment by a significant margin. Long term depressed unemployed are simply not counted, they just "drop off". Most entry level analyst know this, but of course, if you have an agenda to support, such as lying about stronger economic indicators so you can boost housing, then of course all of the above is very damaging to your argument. There can be no sustained housing recovery without job growth. Today's market is speculation, and that rally has leveled off in many metro areas already even though it's only early August.

40. mell Follow Befriend (5) 57 threads 1,329 comments Premium

    82   4:42pm Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Nobody has been able to explain how we are going to curb the runaway deficit, it looks like we have passed the inflection point long ago where the amount by which the GDP must grow just to stop the deficit from growing and pay interest only is still achievable. I mean I don't care for politics here, tax 90% or cut spending 50%, whatever you choose it will hurt (for the better) ;)

« First     « Previous comments