I have concluded that if I made the claim that as I look out my window the sun is shining, some would find some problem with me making that statement. So, you are correct. When the headline of the day is the historic number of jobless claim, and then I respond with unemployment is 6.7% nowhere near a historic high, the answer is "duh". So why do people argue against a little factoid like that? Why not accept that factoid, which is true, and come back with a good solid counter?

obviously, ace, there is a problem with that rate as there has been from the outset, and most anyone know this: the unemployed cease to exist after 6 months. this is one of the great acts of statistical heroism---"we" deal with structural unemployment by not counting it. so it hardly seems plausible that you'd know *what* the number of folk who are out of work is, since no-one else does.

one thing for sure, though---if the republicans persist in their anti-union nonsense, the unemployment rate will soon skyrocket. it'll take a few months until you can return to pretending those people don't exist.

and ace, so you know: what you take to be "common sense" is ideological. look it up.

It would be because you would attempt to make the claim that the fact that you could see the sun shining meant that it was shining everywhere. And you would make some comment about how liberals just can't stand to look on the bright side of things, and lament the fact that no one takes your sage wisdom seriously. All the while you would completely ignore any sort of questions concerning the validity of your interpretation of the shining sun.

Ace, nobody has a problem with the facts, even the ones you bring up.

It's a neat trick, unemployment numbers go down without actually increasing the number of people employed. No longer claiming unemployment? Don't qualify, benefits ran out? Ego, congratulations! You're no longer unemployed. I think I read somewhere that Reagan started having the Dept. of Labor calculate the stats this way. I honestly don't remember if that's true. I do remember he did something funny with the way they counted military service members. Reagan had really high unemployment, 10-11% if I remember, then suddenly in one quarter the number went down like 3-4%. Wasn't a real decrease in the number of people unemployed, just the way the numbers were calculated.

And yes if the auto industry does get killed off the balls really going to roll off a cliff.

Maybe Obama can come up with some way to play with the numbers. I know if someone is working several part time jobs because they can't find full time work we'll count each job, not each person. That should make the numbers look better. Hell Bush Jr. was recently singing the praises of some lady in the rust belt because she had something like five jobs trying to make ends meet. Yeah, I think that could really work. We run the numbers like this and unemployment numbers could hit all time lows.

I agree there are problems with the way we measure unemployment.

We are in a secular bear market
 

Have a look. What we're currently in, and have been in since 2000, could reach as far as 2020.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploa...ad_figure1.png

Are you prepared yet? It's been nearly 10 years. :) It could be the halfway point.

Ditto. If anything the concept of Labour Force should equal everybody who's not too young, or too old, disabled, postpartum... well you get the point, just not being 'discouraged'. When 3 out of 5 of your neighbors don't work it was always tough buying into the old 'unemployment in Canada last year was 7%' stats you'd see in econ.

interesting story I came across a little while ago: here

EDIT: ...and Baraka Guru, that would be a very crazy scenario. Who knows how much longer this is going to go on for. I can't remember when I first started hearing predictions that the end was over and that we were going to be going back up soon. Darn it. Next recession I'm clipping the first dubious media article I see that says "oh yea this is all pretty well over, the economys going to go back up now anyday now".......

The question is what will get us out of the sideways moving period that we are in. In the 1920's it was the banking/stock market industry, in the 40s it was WW2 and 50s it was the move out to suburbia (and massive development), in the 80's it was computers and IT.

It's pretty much what will cause companies and governments to spend their money instead of saving it.

...time for a little levity

yeah passing the bailout was a bit of a dick move.

Hmm, no dates on the chart? How odd. Put some dates on there and you gotta photo shop Bush's face on some one. I suggest Alfred E. Newman.

Here's some dates, Tully:

http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinves...sh_stocks1.gif

http://www.usfunds.com/franktalk/img...s-05012009.gif