< In order to measure something and to have it be useful you have to agree about how you define it. Most of what I read are people making claims the number should be this or that without actually making a case for why certain groups should be included or excluded from the number.>
But remember, even in hard science [we're a couple galaxies away from that] having a definition, in itself, does NOT make it useful.
It is, on the other hand entirely reasonable that for those who feel the number is misrepresented to put their opinion forward... with or without specific reasoning, which I'm sure many believe is implicit. It's probably not an issue that can be boxed and measured as your point shows:
< but which number is more useful, the number that includes those actively looking for a job or one that includes those that have for whatever reasons not looked for a job in over a year?>
First of all, one may not be more useful or than another. Second, one could probably write books on simply 'who is actively looking for a job', let alone go the next step to include those that supposedly stopped looking [another book].
Further, one could easily and reasonably see certain underlying phenomena [say the desire of many companies to not have the rigidity of some workers you site on the payroll while still using their services on a 'consulting' or 'outsourced' basis] as either bullish or bearish depending on the sector one is investing in. The fact that many see this happening as more and more workers 'already having one foot out the door' towards the [real] unemployment lines may or may not be correct. Time will tell as usual.
As to MO on the markets: It seems clear that the increased fungibility of labour pools around the globe is lowering real live average living standards of workers in the US. This is especially true of workers who make actual products people use [compete with others]. This has been offset partially in the economy by US companies that take advantage of this, AND all the economic activity relating to bringing goods from abroad among other things. All this has been fueled by a massive debt runup which has greased the wheels of unsustainable consumption further and supported the labor force related to consumption. So:
1.) Government in the US will become more worker friendly and less corporate friendly over time as capital returns at the expense of labour have become untenable. Government will be forced to as things get worse, the media will whip things up. Corporations are no longer tied to the US worker, and there will be consequences. Sell stocks, they are overvalued in general anyway.
2.) The government will do anything to save the American lifestyle, which they don't even see as completely out of sync with life on earth. Sell the dollar, there will be many more out there to try and prop things up over the years. Conversely, buy gold.
3.) #2 points to selling bonds of course. Shorting the long bond as a long term investment seems a no brainer.
4.) Take a 30 year fixed on your home [opposite of #3]... which points to shorting all the holders of this stuff. Any time there is paradigm shift like we're seeing, big explosions will occur. Although having been at I-banks in derivatives and seeing that these guys know what they're doing, they are none the less all in one big legal 'daisy chain'. There will be plenty of headlines about it all regardless of what eventually happens.
BTW, all my opinions are only that.... AND even when they all occur, it's for the good. I'm not a doomsayer waiting for the end. The American economy and society has been on a drunken binge and there will [like the drunk] be a wakeup call and a mirror to look into. That's good.
DAK |
