Numbers Guru Nate Silver: "the recession likely does not have enough gas left to get us to 10 percent unemployment"

I think Nate is right. Even if the economy does not improve, unemployment can't hit 10% since people aho are unemployed are now starting to see their unemployment benefits expire. And once they lose their benefits, they no longer count.

U3 unemployment is a bit misleading given birth/date data being used by BLS the past few years and the change in methodolgy making the U6 number more accurate to what main street across the country is feeling, 16.3%, down from 16.5%.

Regarding this latest data, note that the participation rate fell 0.2%, so by definition, the unemployment ratio will contract. Those considered not in the labor force increased by 637,000 so as Mish points out, its as if the BLS..."stopped counting".

BR states: "The participation rate fell by 0.2 point, and the employment/population ratio fell by 0.1 point — this is now at levels not seen since April 1984 (see chart below). NILFs — “not in the labor force” increased by a huge 637,000. Bruce Steinberg notes that those not in the labor force topped 81 million for the first time ever. That gain in NiLF accounted for the entire decrease in unemployment rate. Here is how this works: There are two numbers that make up Unemployment — people who have jobs, and the Labor Pool. This month, the Unemployment rate went down because the Labor Pool contracted — not because more people found work."

But, I guess it is what we are told.

i think very highly of nate silver as a statistician. unfortunately i don't believe he is correct here. or if he is, it won't really matter because 1.5 million people are slated to lose benefits over the next few months.

but i think what he is not accounting for is the fact that so many state and local budgets were recently adopted calling for huge layoffs. with so many people losing extended COBRA benefits as well as unemployment checks, the implications for the health industry are also less than optimal. We've seen unemployment blaze through the private sector (although a number of large companies there also recently announced large additional layoffs), and now i'm afraid it's the public sector that's about to get hit, and hard. and as long as tax revenues remain so low, the public sector will continue to need to cut.

even more scary than that is that govt was the one and only place where jobs were gained for much of this cycle so far. if that number declines, rather than not keep pace with govt jobs added, it will pressure the rate.

LMAO... just how much tap water did you drink while over in Alpine? Unemployment insurance benefits has nothing to do w/ U. The BLS "adjusts" for May, why? Bc so many college graduates usually floods the market.... so are they collecting benefits yet?

Herez some iodine pills....

"Unemployment" will never reach 10%.

Because if it ever did, they would change the way they count the numbers so that it didn't anymore.

Clinton already did change the way unemployment is reported back in 92 U3 vs the real U6 numbers

I have to stop and laugh.

It is pretty funny how the debate is now will it be 9.5% or 10%.

Both of these numbers were beyond the worst case scenario of "look what happens if we dont' have a stimulus" attempted scares.

Perhaps we should look at income tax revenues instead.

I posted the withholdings number a week ago... they're down significantly in NYS. I think it was 20% or so.

"Clinton already did change the way unemployment is reported back in 92 U3 vs the real U6 numbers".

yeah, those 26 million jobs created had nothing to do with unemployment going down either. FWIW, I have followed Nate Silver for many years and his statitical work is extremely accurate. Also, NYC - it may not sound like much, but the difference between 9.5% and 10% is significant now and it's ripple effect going forward is even greater.

waverly, he's assuming quite a bit before he applies his statistical analysis. his statistics are fabulous, assuming his underlying assumptions regarding unemployment patterns are correct.

"even more scary than that is that govt was the one and only place where jobs were gained for much of this cycle so far. if that number declines, rather than not keep pace with govt jobs added, it will pressure the rate. "

It depnds which govt. your talking about. Most state and local govts. are screwed. They will have to lay people off. In fact, the Republican candidates for governor in CA and New Jersey are actually saying that they will lay state workers off, which just a few years ago would have been political suicide. In contrast, the federal govt. will continue to see strong employment since it can print money out of thin air and run up huge deficits.

What was The_President old name?

alpine292

Thats right who lived in NJ.

alpie, even the feds have a budget of sorts.

did you ever unload the property, alpie? maybe someone took advantage of the $8000 tax credit to buy it?

"but the difference between 9.5% and 10% is significant now and it's ripple effect going forward is even greater"

Of course, its significant - thats a LOT of people - my comment is only that its scary that even the "low" number is way past the "high" scare people one from a few months ago.

aboutready: assume a can opener.