Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
ParticleMan

Double Dippin It

Recommended Posts

Unemployment vs nonfarm adds/ losses, from our good frieds at the BLS (over the other side), and with more than a passing nod to the person who passed it this way...

scaryi.gif

... now normally I don't do tealeaves, but if I saw that in a market even I would go very, very long.

The implications are hideous (particularly if you consider how aggressively the labour market is advancing toward the '82 highest high of 10.8).

I await the next business sentiment survey numbers with interest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment vs nonfarm adds/ losses, from our good frieds at the BLS (over the other side), and with more than a passing nod to the person who passed it this way...

scaryi.gif

... now normally I don't do tealeaves, but if I saw that in a market even I would go very, very long.

The implications are hideous (particularly if you consider how aggressively the labour market is advancing toward the '82 highest high of 10.8).

I await the next business sentiment survey numbers with interest...

Wow.

20% here we come!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason for presenting the lower graph reversed that way?

Yes, a negative number the way the series (nonfarm payrolls) is usually plotted means jobs were lost.

In this case I'm looking at the relationship between payrolls (as a pseudo "volume" indicator) vs unemployment (as a pseudo "price" indicator - either as a % of population, or in total, makes no difference).

Grim.

Hopefully something somewhere gets revised - that's a nasty trend break right there in the most recent figures, forecasting a retest of the high (and on indications of high relative strength at that).

Edited by ParticleMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a negative number the way the series (nonfarm payrolls) is usually plotted means jobs were lost.

In this case I'm looking at the relationship between payrolls (as a pseudo "volume" indicator) vs unemployment (as a pseudo "price" indicator - either as a % of population, or in total, makes no difference).

Grim.

Hopefully something somewhere gets revised - that's a nasty trend break right there in the most recent figures, forecasting a retest of the high (and on indications of high relative strength at that).

Call me stupid - but if your second graph is monthly change in non-farm payrolls, then the unemployment rate is effectively the integral of this (give or take farm payrolls). So it would stand to reason that a spike in non-farm payrolls leads to the 10% unemployment rate.

I can't see why it's any more sinister than this or could someone point me to the obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why it's any more sinister than this or could someone point me to the obvious?

I'll make you feel better, I can't understand it at all :-s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After so many months/years don't unemployed drop out of the numbers altogether, so the first graph is not showing the true level of unemployment anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a wind-up? The second graph is mirrored and upside down, so when PM says it's going down, I've no idea which way he means, or even if I have the right graph or what it's supposed to signify.

PM is always interesting, and what he says is always significant so I'm keen to understand it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Call me stupid - but if your second graph is monthly change in non-farm payrolls, then the unemployment rate is effectively the integral of this (give or take farm payrolls). So it would stand to reason that a spike in non-farm payrolls leads to the 10% unemployment rate.

Yep, you nailed it.

But this is exactly the reason why the tealeaf readers are able to impute a predictive relationship between price and volume.

Volume moves the book in one direction or the other (matches start at the midpoint and move up or down the book).

Sinister? I wouldn't say sinister.

I'd say depressing...

... there's evidently nowhere for the unemployed to go (so in this case the book, such as it is, will set new higher highs).

OnlyMe's comment about long term unemployed rolling out of the series is pertinent - the true picture is far greater than the area under the curve implies.

Which means that the second leg of the recession is going to be broader and deeper than most models are currently predicting (the economy is going to have to work twice as hard to sop up capacity).

And even harder still, if Japan devalues, as the Fx market seems to suspect it will.

Business sentiment surveys for the next quarter will be key - either the economy will bounce, or the rate of attrition will increase.

No prisoners, and no middle ground...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

Business sentiment surveys for the next quarter will be key - either the economy will bounce, or the rate of attrition will increase.

No prisoners, and no middle ground...

Chilling

Thanks PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ahk4MxrS7Qpo

Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama today will propose a six-year plan to rehabilitate the nation’s transportation infrastructure with an initial $50 billion to help spur an economy that’s lost jobs for three straight months.

Obama will announce the program to fix the nation’s roads, railways and runways to union families at a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee scheduled for 3:10 p.m. New York time, the White House said in a statement.

Two months before congressional midterm elections, Obama will call for the formation of an “infrastructure bank” and request money to rebuild 150,000 miles (241,400 kilometers) of roads, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail, and overhaul 150 miles of runways, the statement said.

“This plan would build on the investments we have already made under the Recovery Act, create jobs for American workers to strengthen our economy now, and increase our nation’s growth and productivity,” according to the statement.

The Obama administration will work with Congress to ensure the plan is fully funded, and a “significant portion of the new investments would be front-loaded in the first year,” according to the statement.

The program will focus on the long-term modernization of transportation systems and create jobs starting in 2011, an administration official said today. The White House will propose to pay for the new spending by eliminating tax deductions for oil and gas companies, the official said.

Republican Skeptics

Republican economists questioned whether rushing out more money for rebuilding roads and other such spending was the best way to help the economy rebound.

“Infrastructure programs are always popular for stimulus talk but disappointing in practice,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a former adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona. “There is a role for efficient infrastructure in such a strategy but it is not a ‘put people to work fast’ tool.”

The House Appropriations Committee’s transportation panel in July rejected Obama’s request for $4 billion to create an infrastructure bank to finance new projects.

Holtz-Eakin also questioned whether Congress would be willing to approve more spending, given signs that indicate growing voter opposition to a widening federal budget deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will reach $1.3 trillion this year.

‘Politics’

“It is safe to conclude that the ratio of politics to substance in this effort is infinite,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Today’s remarks to members of the AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. labor federation, kick off a week in which Obama promote his economic agenda in two Midwest states where incumbent Democrats are in close contests.

Faced with the prospect of Democrats losing control of Congress in the November elections and a series of mixed economic reports, Obama will offer proposals that combine tax breaks and additional spending to help an economy that’s struggling to recover from the worst recession in more than six decades.

Last week’s jobs report showed that private payrolls climbed 67,000 in August, more than forecast, easing concerns that the world’s largest economy is sliding back into a recession. Even so, overall employment fell by 54,000 the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent as more people entered the labor force.

Job Losses

Construction jobs in the U.S. have declined by 940,000 since Obama took office in January 2009, even after a 19,000 gain in August.

Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc., the world’s largest construction equipment maker, said last month it may add as many as 9,000 workers worldwide this year as sales climb in developing markets. Caterpillar shares have risen almost 50 percent in the past year.

Later this week, the president will also urge Congress to permanently extend and expand a research-and-development tax credit for businesses, according to two administration officials. The plan, which he’ll announce in Cleveland Sept. 8, would cost about $100 billion over a decade.

Every president since Bill Clinton has backed a permanent extension of the research tax credit, which Congress only temporarily extends because of its high cost.

Legislative Calendar

Obama’s proposals, many of which he has introduced before, will run up against a tight congressional calendar and election- year politics. The Senate is scheduled to return to Washington Sept. 13, and the House the next day. Lawmakers will be at work for about three weeks before leaving again to campaign.

The economic stimulus package approved last year allocated $38.6 billion for the Transportation Department and so far $18.5 billion has been paid out, according to a government website that tracks the spending.

The Milwaukee trip is Obama’s third visit to Wisconsin since June. The state’s unemployment rate, at 7.8 percent, is lower than the national average, even with pockets of greater economic stress, such as in the southern part of the state, where a General Motors Co. assembly plant closed in 2008.

Yowzers, it really is serious.

At least he's not building tanks and hiring soldiers...

... yet.

(with copius thanks to AvidFan for the original link)

Edited by ParticleMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment vs nonfarm adds/ losses, from our good frieds at the BLS (over the other side), and with more than a passing nod to the person who passed it this way...

scaryi.gif

... now normally I don't do tealeaves, but if I saw that in a market even I would go very, very long.

The implications are hideous (particularly if you consider how aggressively the labour market is advancing toward the '82 highest high of 10.8).

I await the next business sentiment survey numbers with interest...

I'm sorry, but why would you go long if you expect a double dip?

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 244 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.