Nothing but lies

[RRJ]

I have been wondering whether these unemployment numbers are not accurately compared to past unemployment numbers because of the dominance of 2 (or 2+) income households in contrast to say the 1930's when a person being unemployed meant that a household had no income. Today how many households are without any income?

 

This is a very good point, and probably does have real relevance to the comparison.  I would just add a few countervailing points to the mix:  (1) just as most households today are 2 income households (or were), and so have some income coming in still, most households require two incomes to stay afloat, or at least two incomes to keep spending the way they were and savings a bit for retirement.  So, losing one of two incomes probably means doing away with the saving, and drags out the housing situation because they have enough income coming in to keep the house payment up for a while, but like a structural deficit, will require selling the home long-term to downsize to a lower overall monthly payment; and (2) the way unemployment is calculated has changed so much over the past 15 - 20 years that it is probably way undercalculated today from how it was in the 1980s (i.e., the government keeps moving the line whenever it suits them with respect to unemployment and inflation, for political reasons). 

 

 

Overall, perhaps it's a wash?

[SmallCap]

or at least two incomes to keep spending the way they were

 

I think this is a key point in what you said, but I believe that the resulting impact on housing and consumer spending will play out just as you say in your post.

 

From an economic perspective I think it may be a wash as you say but on a personal basis I know that I have a harder time feeling sorry for a guy today who lost his job but will collect a year of unemployment and his wife still has a job that brings in 70K in contrast to a guy who lost his job back in the 30s.

[ERICOPOLY]

I have been wondering whether these unemployment numbers are not accurately compared to past unemployment numbers because of the dominance of 2 (or 2+) income households in contrast to say the 1930's when a person being unemployed meant that a household had no income. Today how many households are without any income?

 

This is a very good point, and probably does have real relevance to the comparison.  I would just add a few countervailing points to the mix:  (1) just as most households today are 2 income households (or were), and so have some income coming in still, most households require two incomes to stay afloat, or at least two incomes to keep spending the way they were and savings a bit for retirement.  So, losing one of two incomes probably means doing away with the saving, and drags out the housing situation because they have enough income coming in to keep the house payment up for a while, but like a structural deficit, will require selling the home long-term to downsize to a lower overall monthly payment; and (2) the way unemployment is calculated has changed so much over the past 15 - 20 years that it is probably way undercalculated today from how it was in the 1980s (i.e., the government keeps moving the line whenever it suits them with respect to unemployment and inflation, for political reasons). 

 

 

Overall, perhaps it's a wash?

 

Here is something that never gets mentioned when comparing employment levels:

 

Today everyone over age 65 is getting an income -- it's called Social Security, but they're not "employed".  Logically though, an income is an income.  This income is also reasonably secure.

 

If instead of "employment" levels we were to focus on percentage of adults who live in a household with an income, that would perhaps be more meaningful in terms of measuring the level of financial insecurity out there.

[nodnub]

Here is something that never gets mentioned when comparing employment levels:

 

Today everyone over age 65 is getting an income -- it's called Social Security, but they're not "employed".  Logically though, an income is an income.  This income is also reasonably secure.

 

If instead of "employment" levels we were to focus on percentage of adults who live in a household with an income, that would perhaps be more meaningful in terms of measuring the level of financial insecurity out there.

 

good point.

[Guest longinvestor]

<<<<<<....that never gets mentioned when comparing employment levels:

Today everyone over age 65 is getting an income -- it's called Social Security, but they're not "employed".  Logically though, an income is an income.  This income is also reasonably secure.

If instead of "employment" levels we were to focus on percentage of adults who live in a household with an income, that would perhaps be more meaningful in terms of measuring the level of financial insecurity out there.>>>>>>

 

Increasingly relevant in the baby-boom retirement years which is upon us.

 

[Smazz]

I have been wondering whether these unemployment numbers are not accurately compared to past unemployment numbers because of the dominance of 2 (or 2+) income households in contrast to say the 1930's when a person being unemployed meant that a household had no income. Today how many households are without any income?

 

This is a very good point, and probably does have real relevance to the comparison.  I would just add a few countervailing points to the mix:  (1) just as most households today are 2 income households (or were), and so have some income coming in still, most households require two incomes to stay afloat, or at least two incomes to keep spending the way they were and savings a bit for retirement.  So, losing one of two incomes probably means doing away with the saving, and drags out the housing situation because they have enough income coming in to keep the house payment up for a while, but like a structural deficit, will require selling the home long-term to downsize to a lower overall monthly payment; and (2) the way unemployment is calculated has changed so much over the past 15 - 20 years that it is probably way undercalculated today from how it was in the 1980s (i.e., the government keeps moving the line whenever it suits them with respect to unemployment and inflation, for political reasons). 

 

 

Overall, perhaps it's a wash?

 

Here is something that never gets mentioned when comparing employment levels:

 

Today everyone over age 65 is getting an income -- it's called Social Security, but they're not "employed".  Logically though, an income is an income.  This income is also reasonably secure.

 

If instead of "employment" levels we were to focus on percentage of adults who live in a household with an income, that would perhaps be more meaningful in terms of measuring the level of financial insecurity out there.

I dont think you can classify that as a true income as it truley is below the poverty level. At best a part time income.

You can also speculate that "everyday" living costs (Utility costs etc ) and standards are higher today than they were back in the day.

[ERICOPOLY]

I dont think you can classify that as a true income as it truley is below the poverty level. At best a part time income.

You can also speculate that "everyday" living costs (Utility costs etc ) and standards are higher today than they were back in the day.

 

True, however I'd rather have the Social Security of today than the 1930s situation where your savings went the way of a bank failure, leaving you with nothing at all.  The workers of the 1930s who still had jobs could hoard their income -- today they can't do that to the same degree because a good portion of the would-be discretionary income is now being redistributed -- and those below-the-poverty-level incomes get spent immediately.  So it's harder for us to pull back our spending quite like we used to -- however no doubt any pullback is still painful.

 

The Grapes of Wrath (if written today) would be a different story with the whole family moving in with the grandparents, rather than the grandfather feeding from (well, you remember the book).

[Myth465]

Here is something that never gets mentioned when comparing employment levels:

 

Today everyone over age 65 is getting an income -- it's called Social Security, but they're not "employed".  Logically though, an income is an income.  This income is also reasonably secure.

 

If instead of "employment" levels we were to focus on percentage of adults who live in a household with an income, that would perhaps be more meaningful in terms of measuring the level of financial insecurity out there.

 

good point.

 

Very good point.

[twacowfca]

I dont think you can classify that as a true income as it truley is below the poverty level. At best a part time income.

You can also speculate that "everyday" living costs (Utility costs etc ) and standards are higher today than they were back in the day.

 

True, however I'd rather have the Social Security of today than the 1930s situation where your savings went the way of a bank failure, leaving you with nothing at all.  The workers of the 1930s who still had jobs could hoard their income -- today they can't do that to the same degree because a good portion of the would-be discretionary income is now being redistributed -- and those below-the-poverty-level incomes get spent immediately.  So it's harder for us to pull back our spending quite like we used to -- however no doubt any pullback is still painful.

 

The Grapes of Wrath (if written today) would be a different story with the whole family moving in with the grandparents, rather than the grandfather feeding from (well, you remember the book).

 

Viva La Leche League!  The perfect food!  And a proven remedy for gastritis, according to John Wesley, of all people!  Proven as a cure for his father's gastritis!  :)

[biaggio]

'Atlas Shrugged': The CliffsNotes Today

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/544033/201008171834/Atlas-Shrugged-The-CliffsNotes-Today.aspx

 

Has anyone read this book which was written in the 50's. Apparently quite popular lately as it describes what is going on out there.

[twacowfca]

'Atlas Shrugged': The CliffsNotes Today

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/544033/201008171834/Atlas-Shrugged-The-CliffsNotes-Today.aspx

 

Has anyone read this book which was written in the 50's. Apparently quite popular lately as it describes what is going on out there.

 

 

Who is John Galt?