I think its a bad move on Bonddad's part, as it will reduce his influence. But that's no skin off my nose.
I don't think that EP has much of a problem with flames. There's occasional testiness, but that is unavoidable.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue here.
Morgan Stanley was doing this: Turning Junk to Treasure. I am glad it is getting more attention now.
They are operating unrestrained despite their capital problems. Here is the thing - there are issuer guarantees attached to these instruments - WHAT A JOKE - it is really an implicit guarantee from the taxpayers that these financial conglomerates are TBTF.
Ok, so obviously we have massive spill over, with friends and acquaintances kind of taking sides and pot shots at each other.
This is precisely what EP is not supposed to be.
While we can argue with Bonddad, other posters, etc. over EIs, policy, what is means, what it doesn't mean, even argue over SA adjustments when we don't really have the SA curve (isolated, the raw adjustment numbers for the year) to get to the real meat...
One thing on EP we should not do is end up in a brawling argumentative, take it personally attack.
This shit is hard folks. It's very hard and why even a PhD in it doesn't mean one has a clue. Never mind add the layers upon layers of "think tanks" and special interests agendas to make various huge buckos and on and on....
So, with that, let's all remember to be respectful and stick to arguing the economic data points (unless we get really whacked out economic fiction and someone freaking out because we're calling it as such) ...
nobody is making any money off of this. Not a one of us. I wish it was not true, we sure do have enough readers! (I'm trying to get this site some damn money!) but more to the point, we're all doing this because it's interesting, we all see that there isn't enough ind. analysis going on out there, the public is oblivious to the details....
let's remember our real motivations and also remember, any of us, all of us, can make mistakes....
If bonddad decides to stop by and post on EP, please keep discussion to data points and civil. I also think he's wrong, but we have something other people do not have....
we have backgrounds in economics, we have mathematics degrees, we have a good understanding of economic facts, policy data points...
let's all use those and avoid ending up in one of those
DK pie fights. They are so friggin' stupid and assuredly one of the reasons EP is started (as well to get the focus on real policy that affects real people instead of analyzing if Obama's photo had been "darkened" and if so, does that imply "racism" and so on).
this notion that even mentioning globalization - you are against trade. NO. The problem is one of engagement as you point out - we don't have to give away the entire store.
In any given democracy- fair government is inversely proportional to concentrated wealth.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
I just point it out because that seems to be a good answer, until one looks at what happens when 1 billion people show up in one locality because there are jobs there.
multi-lateral trade is vastly complex and can be a very good thing (as we see from China!) if done right. The problem is the U.S. has done it wrong....they basically just gave away the farm and one suspicion is not only it is foreign national lobbyists but also those very financial institutions so they can make profits by investing in these EEs with guaranteed returns (guaranteed in that it's guaranteed the U.S., esp. the middle class will lose) are the ones who wrote up those agreements. (supposedly Citigroup was heavily involved).
But the argument so presented is false...i.e. either you are for free trade or against it. Trade in and of itself is usually a good thing, but these aren't even trade agreements, they are more glorified labor arbitrage agreements in so many words.
Want an exercise is "good f#@king God" reaction? Scan through the actual China PNTR agreement. I became convinced Clinton had been taken over by the pod people for signing it after reading through it.
Oh no, I completely agree with you about the fallacy of "mobile labor" --- didn't mean that would be a countervailing measure, simply that a controlled labor situation was another factor and was adding to the present economic debacle.
What would be a definite improvement would be management arbitrage, as American management has only three strategies for economic aggrandizement: (1) offshoring American jobs (or importing foreign scab labor), (2) peddling junk bonds, and (3) leveraged buyouts -- with their usual resultant devastation to the workplace and business environments.
(I'm being slightly facetious here as my experience with foreign CEOs is somewhat limited.)
We I was writing this I was amazed at the relationship of the variables. It was very circular - like a continuous cycle that was only halted by the crisis but can definitely start up again if status quo is maintained.
ok, now the common argument to "no borders" capital is to claim "no borders" labor will counterprevail that influence...but nothing could be further from the truth....
that is the ultimate race to the bottom on labor arbitrage.
So, I would go further with the term globalization and say global labor arbitrage. This is MNCs hunting the globe for the ultimate cheap labor markets...in fact they are so obsessed with labor costs....many have been burned by huge costs after the fact, say on shipping or turn over or lack of training, list goes on and on....
Believe this or not, IBM literally tried to patent an algorithm to determine where to move to next for the ultimate cheap labor pool and where they could rip off the local government the most for various incentives, as well as manipulate different nation-states for the ultimate tax savings.
This is where globalization just plain needs to be stopped, dead in it's tracks.
The entire theory rests on labor being a static element, i.e. a domestic labor force that is not mobile....i.e. it is finished goods that are looked at in Ricardo, the minute one starts moving around the means of production, i.e. labor, plants and so on...
the equations start to show a "lose-lose" or "win-lose", esp. for that nation with the higher PPP (i.e. first world nation, rich one, with higher standard of living and thus labor costs).
It's pretty clear all of the major structural changes, such as modification of trade policies, banning outsourcing of federal, state contracts, revamping corporate tax structures to curtail incentives to offshore outsource....how about stop giving tax incentives to corporations who promise to create jobs locally....but take those incentives and offshore outsource jobs instead?
What about some sort of massive subsidy to start-up advanced manufacturing?
The list goes on and on and on and on...
I don't know about your equation because myself, I like mathematical formula details, very specific policy consequences, policy recommendations, implications thereof.
Since the root cause of poverty is unearned (and concentrated) wealth, and since Financialization + Globalization leads (and by design) to massive income inequality (capital has no barrier, but labor, and labor arbitrage is thoroughly controlled), the actual equation should be Financialization + Globalization = Income Inequality (thus leading to the destruction of the middle class, and the inevitble destruction of any existing global middle class eventually). [I know, I'm dealing with trifling points here, but....]
All three profs are right, of course (Saez, Milanovic and Bardhan), but the BofA study in the LA Times is a classic case of misdirection. While superficially true, it diverts one's focus from the reality that the primary (if not only) product of Wall Street is debt, and the peddling of said debt product is the primary purpose for the meltdown and the further super-concentration of wealth.
Again, we return to that magical process of debt pyramiding, securitization (or, securitization gone wild, if you prefer). A process which began, using slightly different financial instruments back in 1909, and took off around 15 years or so prior to the Great Depression.
By design, I refer to Reagan's Executive Order No. 12615, establishing the Office of Privatization. (Step 1) The deregulation (which began with the Carter Administration) began to really take off in the next administration (Reagan's administration with the Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Depository Institutions Act -- which acted to deregulate monetary controls) and really took off in the Clinton (Financial Services Modernization Act & Commodity Futures Modernization Act) and Bush Administrations.
Various exemptions along the way, granted to Goldman Sachs, the banking industry (especially JP Morgan, later JP Morgan Chase) essentially sealed the deal.
Another excellent equation I've noticed on the Web:
(Trivia Question: What do bacon & eggs, women smoking cigarettes and shaving their underarms, and the public sanitizing of American overthrowing of democratically-elected foreign governments have in common?)
NDD wasn't doing anything but quoting you and forcing you to explain yourself further.
It's well known that I don't agree with NDD's take on the economy, but since no one here has a crystal ball we are all forced to listen to and consider all viewpoints.
Firstly the actual GM layoffs, were staged, they were announced in Fed. but since that time the numbers are larger. but they stage layoffs over weeks and months. It looks like the "big one" happened in February, not April.
Secondly, MFM never said there would be an increase in June, plus your graph shows an increase in June. What MfM is referring to is that huge down spike in initial claims in July. As I understand this, that's the distortion, where the BLS model assumes 48k temporary layoffs.
then, the SA assumes they will return in Sept. but in fact only a few returned.
Finally, the August data is not complete. We see an uptick in SA initial claims for August already.
I don't see MfM 'counting things' twice, I do see he could tighten up his exact dates some more plus get the specifics on precisely how SA is enacted for 2009, what exactly are those numbers?
But I think there is something else going on. I've seen Bonddad's posts as well and may I suggest blasting him for ignoring major data points, details in some of those posts. He truly is, as well as ignoring the now needed 2% plus positive GDP just to break even. I could go through the list, but I think in terms of overall analysis, one could assuredly chew on his leg for awhile in terms of ignoring of data points, distortions and inaccuracies.
As far as "black swan" goes, myself I believe there is a "tipping point" on squeezing the U.S. middle class that can cause a sudden Economic Armageddon potentially. I'm more apt to believe the long slow decline into 3rd world status but I won't rule it all out.
But it does appear MfM's original argument, that the July 15, 2009 SA data point is an anomaly, due to the SA that had in reality happened much earlier and also was not temporary is correct.
Is it an outliner big enough to cause a catastrophic event? I don't think so. Is the unemployment rate, the state of work in America large enough to cause a cascading depressive effect on the entire economy? Possibly, esp. due to this continual focus on the U.S. citizen as a consumer and somehow when they start "consuming" all will be well. Relying on that happening.....we might be at the "consumption" tipping point.
Then, what effect will Cash for Clunkers have? It's clearly stimulative for the auto industry, I"m hearing reports dealers have literally cleared their lots of inventory. But it is also temporary. Will it lead to an overall increase in sales over time? Who knows at this point, but will it show up as an increase in temporary hires at least? At the dealers it sure appears to be, they all had to hire temporary staff to deal with the overflow.
So, I think the entire lesson is this. Do not take one unemployment data point and try to claim it's a trend. I think there is a reason that the NBER waits so long to declare cycle bottoms and this has to be one.
I mean what a EI! Firstly only 48% of people even qualify...so there is a very serious distortion right there...in Sept 1. about 240k are rolling off of the count...that is significant...the qualifications for UI on initial claims also have a serious of qualifying conditions, i.e. if someone is hired, then fired 2 weeks later, they may not qualify and so on, it also has total income qualifiers.
Not exactly the ultimate 1:1 real time correlation and in my view, the entire BLS needs to be revamped, increased funding and a much better statistical series, data points, methods given. Esp. considering over half the workforce is never even up to be counted currently.
Since learning of Roubini's business ties with Larry Summers I am now very suspect of his pronouncements. (Summers* was on RGEMONITOR's pay-roll $150k and also a part owner as recently as 8 months ago, just before he joined the administration)
Why would calling for a double dip be shilling for his friends in Washington? It's called setting expectations.
I agree with Juan...cool down guys. I love this site and have been a near daily reader for a couple of months now. Both of you (NDD and MFM) have often provided some great information that has enlightened me as I'm sure it has others. One of the things I love here is the general lack of name-calling and personal attacks that so often make reading a blog's comments section like returning to a grammar school. So please both take a step back for a moment and realize that in the big picture, you're both on the same side. Thanks!
MfM's best substantive point is that auto layoffs distorted the usual seasonal pattern noted by the BLS. As a result, MfM claims, the claims during the 3 weeks in July when the BLS subtracted a large number of claims to arrive at their seasonal number should be disregared. Well, here's what the graph of weekly jobless claims, seasonally adjusted, w/o averaging over 4 weeks, looks like when we omit those three weeks:
Any personal honestly looking at that graph must admit that it continues to decline after the 3 week distortion for auto layoffs. Not the increase over June that MfM was predicting.
Additionally, as I told MfM a month ago, you can't double count. If you add to the July numbers, then you must subtract from the April-June numbers the same amount. Looking at the chart prepared by Tim Iacono, it appears that in the 9 years before 2009, auto companies laid off ~48,500 workers in July, as opposed to ~9000 this July. Let's make the difference 40,000 and add 13,500 a week to the three affected weeks in July. To make up for that, let's subtract 4000 x 8 weeks in April and May, and 2000 x 4 in June, approximating the higher number of layoffs shown in Iacono's chart.
When we do so, here is the table of initial weekly jobless claims, seasonally adjusted, we get from the March 28 high:
I think its a bad move on Bonddad's part, as it will reduce his influence. But that's no skin off my nose.
I don't think that EP has much of a problem with flames. There's occasional testiness, but that is unavoidable.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue here.
Morgan Stanley was doing this: Turning Junk to Treasure. I am glad it is getting more attention now.
They are operating unrestrained despite their capital problems. Here is the thing - there are issuer guarantees attached to these instruments - WHAT A JOKE - it is really an implicit guarantee from the taxpayers that these financial conglomerates are TBTF.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Bonddad's CBCW on DK.
Ok, so obviously we have massive spill over, with friends and acquaintances kind of taking sides and pot shots at each other.
This is precisely what EP is not supposed to be.
While we can argue with Bonddad, other posters, etc. over EIs, policy, what is means, what it doesn't mean, even argue over SA adjustments when we don't really have the SA curve (isolated, the raw adjustment numbers for the year) to get to the real meat...
One thing on EP we should not do is end up in a brawling argumentative, take it personally attack.
This shit is hard folks. It's very hard and why even a PhD in it doesn't mean one has a clue. Never mind add the layers upon layers of "think tanks" and special interests agendas to make various huge buckos and on and on....
So, with that, let's all remember to be respectful and stick to arguing the economic data points (unless we get really whacked out economic fiction and someone freaking out because we're calling it as such) ...
nobody is making any money off of this. Not a one of us. I wish it was not true, we sure do have enough readers! (I'm trying to get this site some damn money!) but more to the point, we're all doing this because it's interesting, we all see that there isn't enough ind. analysis going on out there, the public is oblivious to the details....
let's remember our real motivations and also remember, any of us, all of us, can make mistakes....
If bonddad decides to stop by and post on EP, please keep discussion to data points and civil. I also think he's wrong, but we have something other people do not have....
we have backgrounds in economics, we have mathematics degrees, we have a good understanding of economic facts, policy data points...
let's all use those and avoid ending up in one of those
DK pie fights. They are so friggin' stupid and assuredly one of the reasons EP is started (as well to get the focus on real policy that affects real people instead of analyzing if Obama's photo had been "darkened" and if so, does that imply "racism" and so on).
Let's make sure EP is a pie free zone.
Neo-liberal model really took off in 1980s with the Reagan Administration. It is built in the equation.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Considering I notice Roubini has blinders on when it comes to globalization.
Welcome to EP anonymous drive by with good intel for us.
this notion that even mentioning globalization - you are against trade. NO. The problem is one of engagement as you point out - we don't have to give away the entire store.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
In any given democracy- fair government is inversely proportional to concentrated wealth.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
I just point it out because that seems to be a good answer, until one looks at what happens when 1 billion people show up in one locality because there are jobs there.
;)
multi-lateral trade is vastly complex and can be a very good thing (as we see from China!) if done right. The problem is the U.S. has done it wrong....they basically just gave away the farm and one suspicion is not only it is foreign national lobbyists but also those very financial institutions so they can make profits by investing in these EEs with guaranteed returns (guaranteed in that it's guaranteed the U.S., esp. the middle class will lose) are the ones who wrote up those agreements. (supposedly Citigroup was heavily involved).
But the argument so presented is false...i.e. either you are for free trade or against it. Trade in and of itself is usually a good thing, but these aren't even trade agreements, they are more glorified labor arbitrage agreements in so many words.
Want an exercise is "good f#@king God" reaction? Scan through the actual China PNTR agreement. I became convinced Clinton had been taken over by the pod people for signing it after reading through it.
Oh no, I completely agree with you about the fallacy of "mobile labor" --- didn't mean that would be a countervailing measure, simply that a controlled labor situation was another factor and was adding to the present economic debacle.
What would be a definite improvement would be management arbitrage, as American management has only three strategies for economic aggrandizement: (1) offshoring American jobs (or importing foreign scab labor), (2) peddling junk bonds, and (3) leveraged buyouts -- with their usual resultant devastation to the workplace and business environments.
(I'm being slightly facetious here as my experience with foreign CEOs is somewhat limited.)
We I was writing this I was amazed at the relationship of the variables. It was very circular - like a continuous cycle that was only halted by the crisis but can definitely start up again if status quo is maintained.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
ok, now the common argument to "no borders" capital is to claim "no borders" labor will counterprevail that influence...but nothing could be further from the truth....
that is the ultimate race to the bottom on labor arbitrage.
So, I would go further with the term globalization and say global labor arbitrage. This is MNCs hunting the globe for the ultimate cheap labor markets...in fact they are so obsessed with labor costs....many have been burned by huge costs after the fact, say on shipping or turn over or lack of training, list goes on and on....
Believe this or not, IBM literally tried to patent an algorithm to determine where to move to next for the ultimate cheap labor pool and where they could rip off the local government the most for various incentives, as well as manipulate different nation-states for the ultimate tax savings.
This is where globalization just plain needs to be stopped, dead in it's tracks.
The entire theory rests on labor being a static element, i.e. a domestic labor force that is not mobile....i.e. it is finished goods that are looked at in Ricardo, the minute one starts moving around the means of production, i.e. labor, plants and so on...
the equations start to show a "lose-lose" or "win-lose", esp. for that nation with the higher PPP (i.e. first world nation, rich one, with higher standard of living and thus labor costs).
It's pretty clear all of the major structural changes, such as modification of trade policies, banning outsourcing of federal, state contracts, revamping corporate tax structures to curtail incentives to offshore outsource....how about stop giving tax incentives to corporations who promise to create jobs locally....but take those incentives and offshore outsource jobs instead?
What about some sort of massive subsidy to start-up advanced manufacturing?
The list goes on and on and on and on...
I don't know about your equation because myself, I like mathematical formula details, very specific policy consequences, policy recommendations, implications thereof.
I'd say start with this paper, Where Ricardo and Mill Rebut and
Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Supporting Globalization, Paul A. Samuelson.
My findings are one does not need a new equation, unless one is looking for phraseology to re-coin a concept....
the answers are in existing equations and it ain't all "win-win" as claimed, not by a long shot.
Since the root cause of poverty is unearned (and concentrated) wealth, and since Financialization + Globalization leads (and by design) to massive income inequality (capital has no barrier, but labor, and labor arbitrage is thoroughly controlled), the actual equation should be Financialization + Globalization = Income Inequality (thus leading to the destruction of the middle class, and the inevitble destruction of any existing global middle class eventually). [I know, I'm dealing with trifling points here, but....]
All three profs are right, of course (Saez, Milanovic and Bardhan), but the BofA study in the LA Times is a classic case of misdirection. While superficially true, it diverts one's focus from the reality that the primary (if not only) product of Wall Street is debt, and the peddling of said debt product is the primary purpose for the meltdown and the further super-concentration of wealth.
Again, we return to that magical process of debt pyramiding, securitization (or, securitization gone wild, if you prefer). A process which began, using slightly different financial instruments back in 1909, and took off around 15 years or so prior to the Great Depression.
By design, I refer to Reagan's Executive Order No. 12615, establishing the Office of Privatization. (Step 1) The deregulation (which began with the Carter Administration) began to really take off in the next administration (Reagan's administration with the Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Depository Institutions Act -- which acted to deregulate monetary controls) and really took off in the Clinton (Financial Services Modernization Act & Commodity Futures Modernization Act) and Bush Administrations.
Various exemptions along the way, granted to Goldman Sachs, the banking industry (especially JP Morgan, later JP Morgan Chase) essentially sealed the deal.
Another excellent equation I've noticed on the Web:
50,000 Foundations + 35,000 D.C. Lobbyists + 5 Media-controlling Corporations = Engineered Consent
(Trivia Question: What do bacon & eggs, women smoking cigarettes and shaving their underarms, and the public sanitizing of American overthrowing of democratically-elected foreign governments have in common?)
Again, a super blog!
NDD wasn't doing anything but quoting you and forcing you to explain yourself further.
It's well known that I don't agree with NDD's take on the economy, but since no one here has a crystal ball we are all forced to listen to and consider all viewpoints.
Firstly the actual GM layoffs, were staged, they were announced in Fed. but since that time the numbers are larger. but they stage layoffs over weeks and months. It looks like the "big one" happened in February, not April.
Secondly, MFM never said there would be an increase in June, plus your graph shows an increase in June. What MfM is referring to is that huge down spike in initial claims in July. As I understand this, that's the distortion, where the BLS model assumes 48k temporary layoffs.
then, the SA assumes they will return in Sept. but in fact only a few returned.
Finally, the August data is not complete. We see an uptick in SA initial claims for August already.
I don't see MfM 'counting things' twice, I do see he could tighten up his exact dates some more plus get the specifics on precisely how SA is enacted for 2009, what exactly are those numbers?
But I think there is something else going on. I've seen Bonddad's posts as well and may I suggest blasting him for ignoring major data points, details in some of those posts. He truly is, as well as ignoring the now needed 2% plus positive GDP just to break even. I could go through the list, but I think in terms of overall analysis, one could assuredly chew on his leg for awhile in terms of ignoring of data points, distortions and inaccuracies.
As far as "black swan" goes, myself I believe there is a "tipping point" on squeezing the U.S. middle class that can cause a sudden Economic Armageddon potentially. I'm more apt to believe the long slow decline into 3rd world status but I won't rule it all out.
But it does appear MfM's original argument, that the July 15, 2009 SA data point is an anomaly, due to the SA that had in reality happened much earlier and also was not temporary is correct.
Is it an outliner big enough to cause a catastrophic event? I don't think so. Is the unemployment rate, the state of work in America large enough to cause a cascading depressive effect on the entire economy? Possibly, esp. due to this continual focus on the U.S. citizen as a consumer and somehow when they start "consuming" all will be well. Relying on that happening.....we might be at the "consumption" tipping point.
Then, what effect will Cash for Clunkers have? It's clearly stimulative for the auto industry, I"m hearing reports dealers have literally cleared their lots of inventory. But it is also temporary. Will it lead to an overall increase in sales over time? Who knows at this point, but will it show up as an increase in temporary hires at least? At the dealers it sure appears to be, they all had to hire temporary staff to deal with the overflow.
So, I think the entire lesson is this. Do not take one unemployment data point and try to claim it's a trend. I think there is a reason that the NBER waits so long to declare cycle bottoms and this has to be one.
I mean what a EI! Firstly only 48% of people even qualify...so there is a very serious distortion right there...in Sept 1. about 240k are rolling off of the count...that is significant...the qualifications for UI on initial claims also have a serious of qualifying conditions, i.e. if someone is hired, then fired 2 weeks later, they may not qualify and so on, it also has total income qualifiers.
Not exactly the ultimate 1:1 real time correlation and in my view, the entire BLS needs to be revamped, increased funding and a much better statistical series, data points, methods given. Esp. considering over half the workforce is never even up to be counted currently.
Since learning of Roubini's business ties with Larry Summers I am now very suspect of his pronouncements. (Summers* was on RGEMONITOR's pay-roll $150k and also a part owner as recently as 8 months ago, just before he joined the administration)
Why would calling for a double dip be shilling for his friends in Washington? It's called setting expectations.
* http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/disclosure-LSummers0403...
I agree with Juan...cool down guys. I love this site and have been a near daily reader for a couple of months now. Both of you (NDD and MFM) have often provided some great information that has enlightened me as I'm sure it has others. One of the things I love here is the general lack of name-calling and personal attacks that so often make reading a blog's comments section like returning to a grammar school. So please both take a step back for a moment and realize that in the big picture, you're both on the same side. Thanks!
MfM's best substantive point is that auto layoffs distorted the usual seasonal pattern noted by the BLS. As a result, MfM claims, the claims during the 3 weeks in July when the BLS subtracted a large number of claims to arrive at their seasonal number should be disregared. Well, here's what the graph of weekly jobless claims, seasonally adjusted, w/o averaging over 4 weeks, looks like when we omit those three weeks:
Any personal honestly looking at that graph must admit that it continues to decline after the 3 week distortion for auto layoffs. Not the increase over June that MfM was predicting.
Additionally, as I told MfM a month ago, you can't double count. If you add to the July numbers, then you must subtract from the April-June numbers the same amount. Looking at the chart prepared by Tim Iacono, it appears that in the 9 years before 2009, auto companies laid off ~48,500 workers in July, as opposed to ~9000 this July. Let's make the difference 40,000 and add 13,500 a week to the three affected weeks in July. To make up for that, let's subtract 4000 x 8 weeks in April and May, and 2000 x 4 in June, approximating the higher number of layoffs shown in Iacono's chart.
When we do so, here is the table of initial weekly jobless claims, seasonally adjusted, we get from the March 28 high:
2009-03-28 674000
2009-04-04 660000
2009-04-11 609000
2009-04-18 641000
2009-04-25 631000
2009-05-02 601000
2009-05-09 639000
2009-05-16 632000
2009-05-23 621000
2009-05-30 621000
2009-06-06 603000
2009-06-13 610000
2009-06-20 628000
2009-06-27 615000
2009-07-04 582500
2009-07-11 537500
2009-07-18 572500
2009-07-25 589000
2009-08-01 554000
2009-08-08 561000
2009-08-15 576000
Again, anyone honestly looking at this table must admit that it shows a continuing declining trend all the way through June and July into August.
There is a big hole to dig out of.
Take Florida for example:
http://www.localetrends.com/st/fl_florida_unemployment.php?MAP_TYPE=curr_ue
Where are all the jobs going to come from. The last bubble doesnt reinflate
Pages