It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Analysts and economists have been shocked by the September U.S. unemployment report.
The Labor Department revealed Friday that a net 263,000 jobs were lost in September, well above expectations for 175,000 jobs.
The result punctured a gradually improving employment situation, and pushed the unemployment rate in the country to 9.80%, the highest in twenty six years.
Despite hitting a 26 year high in unemployment, U.S. stocks held steady on Friday.
Analysts and economists have been shocked...
(visit the link for the full news article)
.... well above expectations for 175,000 jobs.
The result punctured a gradually improving employment situation, and pushed the unemployment rate in the country to 9.80%, the highest in twenty six years.
Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by born2BWild
My question is, did they have the proper records keeping ability to really know the unemployment rate in 1933.
Originally posted by Gools
Analysts and economists have been shocked...
Then they should be fired and replaced with competent people.
Whoever didn't see this coming or doesn't see near term future rises in unemployment is either blind or has an IQ just above room temperature.
.
That's not good - there goes the "second derivative" argument.
Weekly earnings are also down by $1.54, which is bad news too.
But the Household Data is VASTLY worse than reported. Here are the month-over-month changes, and they're in the realm of frightening. (all numbers in thousands)
Civilian Labor Force: 154,879 to 153,617 this month.
Employed: 140,074 down to 139,079 this month.
That's a loss of 995,000 jobs, not 263,000, and the labor force contracted by 1,262,000 people!
The participation rate was absolutely decimated, down 0.6% this last month alone. The people "not in the labor force" rose by a staggering 1,516,000 in the last month.
The government doesn't count people as "unemployed" who have given up and exited the labor force, but as I have repeatedly noted whether the government counts them or not the corner store owner sure as hell does!
The fact of the matter is that nearly 1 million fewer people were working in September as compared to August; there has been absolutely no improvement in that trend whatsoever.
Notice that employment went to a negative 12-month rate of change right at the start of 2008 - coincidentally, right at the start of the official "start" of the recession.
Also note that the last recession, which began at the end of the first quarter of 2001, also had the rate of change on a 12-month basis go negative at roughly the same time.
(Not-so-coincidentally, you also got a 12 month advance warning of the recession when the trend changed in both cases too. Now you know what one of the indicators I used in my 2008 "Outlook" Ticker in which I said we would enter a formal recession was.....)
I want to to pay particular attention to the bottom of the last recession, which was (officially) 11/01.
Notice that the spike bottom in the first derivative, that is, when the rate of change on a 12 month basis turned positive, was almost exactly when NBER called that recession (in retrospect) "over".
Has the first derivative turned in the table at this point on an annualized basis? NO.
First question: What does this say about the calls that "the recession is over"?
You will also note that in terms of the 12 month rate of change this recession is more than three times as severe in its impact on employment as was the 2001 recession. In fact, "by the numbers" we have 8,236,000 fewer people employed now than we had at the peak in July of 2007.
It is, however, worse than it first appears. Here's the second chart, and this is the chart that, if you're sentient, should be sending cold chills up and down your spine: