When will the unemployment rate hit 10%?

Flagpole wrote:

2) Topics veer off the original topic. That's now conversations go and how life is.

For you Flagpole. Use it.

ADHD Treatment for Adults.com

M. Turner wrote:

Note that I wasn't arguing with you; I was asking for SPECIFIC information - information it seems that you are incapable of producing or even comprehending.

The information you were asking for makes no difference on my point, so it is useless to provide. It would be like you asking me to tell you how many sardines to use when making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

All you can do is look to see if I'm right about Alabama. Do they make it to the BCS title game? Can they beat Tennessee and LSU? I say no to the former and probably but with struggle to the latter (especially LSU). Not Alabama's fault that they've played bad teams and pretenders thus far, but they've done nothing yet to prove they are that great.

ADHD Treatment for Adults.com wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

2) Topics veer off the original topic. That's now conversations go and how life is.

For you Flagpole. Use it.

ADHD Treatment for Adults.com

http://www.vyvanseadult.com/adult-adhd-treatment.aspx

That's very nice of you to sugge...hey look, a squirrel!

Flagpole wrote:

All you can do is look to see if I'm right about Alabama.

Once again, your reading comprehension skills belong in the crapper. Please reread my initial post - and don't skimp on the first sentence. It's not about "right or wrong." You made it that. What I am interested in - if again you return to and comprehend my initial post - is gleaning specific information from you. However, you continue to prove incapable of providing that information and insight.

Flagpole wrote:

The information you were asking for makes no difference on my point, so it is useless to provide.

Yes, I get it already. You are unable to provide the requested information because you don't possess the necessary depth of knowledge or competency.

I get it. With every subsequent post you further solidify your incontrovertible reputation as a fraud.

I think we hit ten percent officially in November and December of this year. Job losses will continue to accrete through 2010. We hit 12 percent officially in late 2010. That is a solid bet. What factors would suggest otherwise?

I would guess that one would add 5 percent to the official unemployment numbers (just judging by the standard metric that in full employment 5 percent of the population is not employed). Does the data support 7-8 percent? Could be, it is hard to capture. The under-employment rate is at least another 5 percent one would presume.

I can only speak from experience. We have laid off a bunch of folks and have no present plans to hire, but instead micro-manage expenses amid falling revenues and try to stay afloat. That seems pretty typical for the service industry. Small businesses are not hiring. Mid size firms are not. And the construction sector will continue to dwindle.

I was amazed by the pedantic and condescending tone of Obama's/Feinberg's/Warren's message today about compensation for banking executives for bailed out Firms. Can we really attack folks en masse as being unethical for drawing high compensation according to bonus metrics? Is the lowest common denominator the new norm?

In any event, who would take the bet that unemployment will be not less than 8 percent in November 2012? I would take that in a heartbeat; after all, where will the jobs originate?

sponge wrote:

where will the jobs originate?

right on the money.....

US capacity utilization is <70%, and consumers are saving 3-5% (depending on who you listen to). So there is no possiblity for 1) capital expenditure - all this spare capacity? 2) and the ensuing bump in consumer spending that would come from capex.

The auto industry is a great example - global demand of 60mm units/yr. Capacity of 90mm. Why would anybody open a new plant? Same w/ banks, housing starts, etc.

Would *you* make a bet like that now and open a new steel mill?

NO.WAY

M. Turner wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

All you can do is look to see if I'm right about Alabama.

Once again, your reading comprehension skills belong in the crapper. Please reread my initial post - and don't skimp on the first sentence. It's not about "right or wrong." You made it that. What I am interested in - if again you return to and comprehend my initial post - is gleaning specific information from you. However, you continue to prove incapable of providing that information and insight.

Flagpole wrote:

The information you were asking for makes no difference on my point, so it is useless to provide.

Yes, I get it already. You are unable to provide the requested information because you don't possess the necessary depth of knowledge or competency.

I get it. With every subsequent post you further solidify your incontrovertible reputation as a fraud.

Football games aren't won and lost based on what you're looking for brother. You sound like an Alabama fan who can't admit that his team hasn't beaten anyone good yet. Don't worry though, a BCS game is likely in the cards...just not the title game. I'll come back here and told you I told you so when they lose.

Off the Grid wrote:

right on the money.....

US capacity utilization is <70%, and consumers are saving 3-5% (depending on who you listen to). So there is no possiblity for 1) capital expenditure - all this spare capacity? 2) and the ensuing bump in consumer spending that would come from capex.

The auto industry is a great example - global demand of 60mm units/yr. Capacity of 90mm. Why would anybody open a new plant? Same w/ banks, housing starts, etc.

Would *you* make a bet like that now and open a new steel mill?

NO.WAY

Indeed. And why would you make that bet when the Fed is paying you interest on your reserves, you don't have adequate (real) capital to begin with and are not being forced to recognize and fundamentally restructure your debt, and don't see a favorable risk/reward scenario on the horizon? As for the 3-5% savings rate, it could go higher still, and I don't think many have sniffed the secular shift to frugality that's under way.

I'm in agreement with your view on where unemployment is headed. 12% nationwide could happen by 2012 for sure...would not surprise me at all. I'll disagree though about the compensation for banking executives. Normally the federal government should have no say, but in this case, US taxpayers bailed their asses out, so if they want to take the money, they have to play by the rules the money giver sets. In this case Obama is trying to protect the taxpayer, and Republicans should be all for that.

Back to unemployment, the one thing that next to no one is talking about is the fact that we have an older population that is nearing or at retirement age, and if the market goes up even a little more, more and more of them will retire or stop looking for work. This is something that could help the unemployment rate not make it to 12%+. Time will tell.

Now you're in agreement on the 12% figure. Sounds like you waffle as much as your beloved Jeremy Graham, allowing yourself an "out" either way. But your other prediction of an Obama re-election at an unemployment rate of 12% in 2012 would be in jeopardy, unless, of course, he loses Congress next year as he likely will (as Clinton did).

I would agree that if you agree to sleep with the government, you should've expected a different set of rules, but, where it concerns the taxpayer, they should be looking to retain and attract talent to cultivate the conditions necessary to reimburse the taxpayer. Quite the opposite will happen, and there will be a mass exodus of talent. And, unfortunately, the government-owned firms will have an unfair subsidy relative to the private sector, who will then have a difficult time competing.

It's a slippery slope. Many of these execs will find work overseas, leaving the well dry. GM can't find people willing to fill some of their top positions precisely because of these shenanigans. Yes, greed needs to be disincentivized or more appropriately aligned with performance, but how does a czar arbitrarily pick a 90% pay cut? Seems a bit draconian, especially if you are an exec. who was not responsible for the original mess.

Flagpole wrote:

M. Turner wrote:

I get it. With every subsequent post you further solidify your incontrovertible reputation as a fraud.

Football games aren't won and lost based on what you're looking for brother. You sound like an Alabama fan who can't admit that his team hasn't beaten anyone good yet. Don't worry though, a BCS game is likely in the cards...just not the title game. I'll come back here and told you I told you so when they lose.

Of course you will. And it's really becoming of you. You always love to gloat, despite all of the equivocating and ambiguity and hedging that precedes it. Congrats on the humility.

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."

Sir Laurens van der Post

"The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are certain, and the intelligent are full of doubt."

George Bernard Shaw

1) The way things are TODAY, yes, I can see 12% unemployment. I was never adamant about not getting to high unemployment.

2) Regarding Obama and unemployment, people are fickle, so yes, if the rate gets that high or higher, it puts him in jeopardy. Not sure who the Republicans will offer up to run against him, but I still think Obama will be tough to beat, and things are still aligning for him to be thought of as one of the best presidents ever. He DOES need to be re-elected for that to happen though.

3) "Talented" executives leaving for companies that will pay them more does not bother me. Bottom line is they failed and their companies needed a bailout, so I'm not so sure of their "talent" to begin with. So some top-level executive who made $90 million in total compensation now will only get $45 million? (not all are getting 90% cut) I don't lose any sleep over that. We gave them money...they must dance now. Dance "talented" executives, dance!

4) GM is having a hard time finding executives because they have a bad business model and it's been a losing enterprise for years, not because of the rules imposed by the government.

5) Regarding executives who weren't there during the mess, that's the same as a coach who takes over a football program with sanctions because of the last coach. Turn it around and you can get those riches back.

Sagarin wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Football games aren't won and lost based on what you're looking for brother. You sound like an Alabama fan who can't admit that his team hasn't beaten anyone good yet. Don't worry though, a BCS game is likely in the cards...just not the title game. I'll come back here and told you I told you so when they lose.

Of course you will. And it's really becoming of you. You always love to gloat, despite all of the equivocating and ambiguity and hedging that precedes it. Congrats on the humility.

My gloating is always reserved for people who were not just adamant but rude (usually name calling) when disagreeing with me. We SHOULD be able to disagree without one of the people being a "dumb ass" or some other such thing. So, when someone makes a point of doing something like that and then I am proven right (which is most of the time), then I'll let them know about it.

PTF wrote:

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."

Sir Laurens van der Post

"The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are certain, and the intelligent are full of doubt."

George Bernard Shaw

Yes, to which I would add:

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

Touchstone, from William Shakespeare

Flagpole wrote:

My gloating is always reserved for people who were not just adamant but rude (usually name calling) when disagreeing with me. We SHOULD be able to disagree without one of the people being a "dumb ass" or some other such thing. So, when someone makes a point of doing something like that and then I am proven right (which is most of the time), then I'll let them know about it.

This is some of the dialogue we had back in January:

"Sagarin wrote:

The market may sniff 10,000 early this year and the Flagpole Willys of the world will express their "vindication" ad nauseum as they already are. And that is a contrarian signal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sagarin,

After all these years and financial discussions with me and you think that I'll declare vindication if the DOW hits 10,000 this year?"

And yet, that's precisely what you did with your Dow 10,000 thread. Go back and read your first post on the Dow 10,000 thread. You're a boaster with false humility and it has nothing to do with namecalling (boohoo). Frankly, you earn the criticism.

WRONG. I wasn't declaring vindication at all...just stating that the Dow hit 10,000 when someone told me I was a dumb ass and that it would take 20 years for it to get there again. As I said earlier, when the name calling starts and THEN I'm proven right, I will let others know they were wrong (Dow getting to 10,000 WAY before 20 years, Ritz breaking the AR in the 5,000 meters). YOU go read that Dow 10,000 thread. I said that it didn't mean we were back to untethered prosperity, but I was pointing out that the dude who called me an idiot (and I purposefully didn't name him because I'm nice like that) and said the Dow would take 20 years to get back to 10,000 was wrong. Had people not called me a raving lunatic and an idiot and a dumb ass, I wouldn't have made that thread at all. I'm never bothered by name calling, but, when people do such things, they should be prepared to have it thrown back at them when they are proven wrong, and quite honestly the percentages are against anyone who disagrees with me; I'm not always right, but I am right the vast majority of the time when I make a stand on an issue. You'll notice that I NEVER call other posters here "dumb ass" or any other such thing, even when I've been proven right. I did say Steve Phillips was a dumb ass, but he's not a poster here.

Flagpole wrote:

Football games aren't won and lost based on what you're looking for brother. You sound like an Alabama fan who can't admit that his team hasn't beaten anyone good yet. Don't worry though, a BCS game is likely in the cards...just not the title game. I'll come back here and told you I told you so when they lose.

Amazing. What in the world are you even going on about? It appears that you are afflicted with some sort of mental condition or deficiency. I don't care if Alabama wins or loses or crashes its team bus into the LSU locker room. You've successfully and completely managed to avoid my specific question/query in my initial post and instead chosen to deliberately steer this conversation in some other imaginary direction.

How cowardly of you.

Bottom line: you fail. Sorry, but you're all arrogant talk and no substance. Hope that comes back to bite you down the road.

Flagpole generally follows this pattern: bet on the field and act like he's a winner when what is probably going to happen anyway happens.

Flagpole is acting as if Bama losing a game this year is some gigantic prognostication. Hey, here's my great prediction: Iowa WILL lose a game this year.

Has Flagpole ever admitted to being wrong? Ever?