Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
frugalboy

Wsj - Is A Crash Coming? - 10 Reasons To Be Cautious

Recommended Posts

"6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the "official" unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s—when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?"

61%. I assume "adults over 20" includes retirees and college students but still.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703723504575425723973560744.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0505782:b36545500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have it on good authority from my old housemaster and Eaton Wall Game Captain "Spotty" Osbourne that the other 39% of you scrounging oiks have taken the good advice of your betters and started your own export orientated manufacturing businesses. Now get on with it instead of wasting your time whining about your place in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to think of it as "pent up demand" ..... for jobs

But your statistic is meaningless unless you remove retirees, the number of which has increased enormously since the 50s, and as far as i know could account for 90% of the difference. Or 10%. Or 37.2681%. Why don't you find out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer 5:

5. People still owe way too much money. Households, corporations, states, local governments and, of course, Uncle Sam. It's the debt, stupid. According to the Federal Reserve, total U.S. debt—even excluding the financial sector—is basically twice what it was 10 years ago: $35 trillion compared to $18 trillion. Households have barely made a dent in their debt burden; it's fallen a mere 3% from last year's all-time peak, leaving it twice the level of a decade ago.

I'm not convinced how big a deal point 6 is. If I was asked to guess how much of the adult population aged 20 to 65 had a job I would probably guess about 60%. The unemployed, students and mature students, early retirees, housewives & husbands, career break, temporary or permanent incapacity, prisoners, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have it on good authority from my old housemaster and Eaton Wall Game Captain "Spotty" Osbourne that the other 39% of you scrounging oiks have taken the good advice of your betters and started your own export orientated manufacturing businesses. Now get on with it instead of wasting your time whining about your place in the world.

To be funny at least get the school correct. It was St Pauls then Magdalen, Oxford

Eaton is actually Eton

His family business is Osborne and Little - very successful

His surname is actually Osborne not Osbourne

So, go stand in the corner with your Dunces hat and don't turn around until instructed. Off you go.

And pay attention next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have it on good authority from my old housemaster and Eaton Wall Game Captain "Spotty" Osbourne that the other 39% of you scrounging oiks have taken the good advice of your betters and started your own export orientated manufacturing businesses. Now get on with it instead of wasting your time whining about your place in the world.

Did he say how Strangely Brown's is doing? I heard he had got into steel? Any news on Bumfluff?

(Apologies to Blackadder.)

Edited by The Masked Tulip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to think of it as "pent up demand" ..... for jobs

But your statistic is meaningless unless you remove retirees, the number of which has increased enormously since the 50s, and as far as i know could account for 90% of the difference. Or 10%. Or 37.2681%. Why don't you find out?

Does the number of retirees really matter that much? What the statistic is saying is that every 3 working adults have to support 2 others (plus whatever children there are). You still eat and consume resources whether you are 40 or 80.

Edited by Tiger Woods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the "official" unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s—when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?"

61%. I assume "adults over 20" includes retirees and college students but still.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703723504575425723973560744.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0505782:b36545500

browsing through sites like shadowstats where real unemployment is stated as over 22% & I totally believe that as I have large family in America and many are either not working or forced to to a pay cut/ reduce hours.

Interesting fact, those who are really busy are in in the Army etc. So war is the only industry providing job. Shame really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your statistic is meaningless unless you remove retirees, the number of which has increased enormously since the 50s, and as far as i know could account for 90% of the difference. Or 10%. Or 37.2681%. Why don't you find out?

The figures in the OP are from the US. What is needed is a figure for the working age population of the US, or failing that a figure for the population between 20 and official retirement age, currently 66/67. In the UK you can get the figure for the working age population from the Office of National Statistics website, but in ten minutes Googling I haven't been able to find an equivalent figure for the US, nor for the population over retirement age .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have it on good authority from my old housemaster and Eaton Wall Game Captain "Spotty" Osbourne that the other 39% of you scrounging oiks have taken the good advice of your betters and started your own export orientated manufacturing businesses. Now get on with it instead of wasting your time whining about your place in the world.

You make a fair point 'clockslinger'; but you will still take a well deserved thrashing for the spelin' error.

I was talking to an old Etonian yesterday . He is skint, & will shortly return to the UK where he is confident he can make a living. (sic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a fair point 'clockslinger'; but you will still take a well deserved thrashing for the spelin' error.

I was talking to an old Etonian yesterday . He is skint, & will shortly return to the UK where he is confident he can make a living. (sic)

The speling on this cite is trooly appauling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the number of retirees really matter that much? What the statistic is saying is that every 3 working adults have to support 2 others (plus whatever children there are). You still eat and consume resources whether you are 40 or 80.

I was going to say something similar....the demographers keep warning us of the 2:1 ratio (workers:retirees) that will be our downfall in decades to come, but if you assume that most of the lost jobs aren't coming back (and so you can pretty much include the unemployed among the retirees) then we are in effect already there? Or maybe it's even worse - it could really be 1.5:1 as this statistic seems to be suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say something similar....the demographers keep warning us of the 2:1 ratio (workers:retirees) that will be our downfall in decades to come, but if you assume that most of the lost jobs aren't coming back (and so you can pretty much include the unemployed among the retirees) then we are in effect already there? Or maybe it's even worse - it could really be 1.5:1 as this statistic seems to be suggesting.

This is what you are supposed to think. If, say 50 years ago 10 people would do the work that 1 person does today then ask yourself what has happened to the 90% labour costs that have been saved? Sure some of it has been handed out to workers in the form of increased wages/reduced hours but the vast majority hasn't been seen by Mr average. There are vast sums of money sloshing about that could, if directed differently, support people who do not work either through choice or through circumstances. Instead that wealth is being hoarded by a very small minority. You are being conned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you are supposed to think. If, say 50 years ago 10 people would do the work that 1 person does today then ask yourself what has happened to the 90% labour costs that have been saved? Sure some of it has been handed out to workers in the form of increased wages/reduced hours but the vast majority hasn't been seen by Mr average. There are vast sums of money sloshing about that could, if directed differently, support people who do not work either through choice or through circumstances. Instead that wealth is being hoarded by a very small minority. You are being conned.

Never in history has a society faced the demographic realities caused by longer life expectancy and the problem is now compounded by the economic reality of mass unemployment caused by "robots and Chinese slaves" (to quote an American cable show host). So the problems we face are real and not easily solved by redistributing wealth. I'm all for sticking the rich with a massive tax rise, but that by itself is not going to keep us in the West in the manner to which we've become accustomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never in history has a society faced the demographic realities caused by longer life expectancy and the problem is now compounded by the economic reality of mass unemployment caused by "robots and Chinese slaves" (to quote an American cable show host). So the problems we face are real and not easily solved by redistributing wealth. I'm all for sticking the rich with a massive tax rise, but that by itself is not going to keep us in the West in the manner to which we've become accustomed.

But the way we've become accustomed is neither desirable or sustainable so why keep it? Rewinding the clock back 50 years is fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the way we've become accustomed is neither desirable or sustainable so why keep it? Rewinding the clock back 50 years is fine by me.

Me too, as long as local council decisions are not made in mason's lodges beforehand.

Though a return to 'Merry England' with the notion of 'land ownership' surgically removed might be better, if painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too, as long as local council decisions are not made in mason's lodges beforehand.

Do you think they aren't now? Having had some dealings with local councils relatively recently, it struck me that nothing had changed in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they aren't now?

No I don't, apologies for giving that impression.

I'd cull the lot of them. My loathing for LAs has no limits.

Edited by Laura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the way we've become accustomed is neither desirable or sustainable so why keep it? Rewinding the clock back 50 years is fine by me.

Not desirable? (who wouldn't want to spend 20-30 years on vacation?) but of course it's not sustainable, and a lower standard of living is inevitable. But some people do think this is avoidable if we just get enough cash back from those who have been hoarding it the past several decades. I don't think that particular well is deep enough but I also think we should all share the pain so the rich should be made to do their bit. If they flee to Switzerland then good riddance, the rest of us will find equilibrium that much more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 193 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.