Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24964)	4/29/2001 11:39:47 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

Let's play with the numbers a bit more - the nonfarm work force is now 132.2 million in the US; with 4.3% unemployment they are figuring a willing work force of 136.7 million. So every .1% in the unemployment rate is 136,700 jobs. That's a lot of headlines, just to make up 136,700 layoffs. Anyone have an accurate number of layoffs since January? Now imagine that every job creates $40,000 in spending in the economy - I am picking that number out of a hat, maybe there are multiplier effects. And let's say we lose another million jobs, running unemployment to over 5%. The current GDP run rate is over $10 trillion (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/beana/t101l01) if I am reading the table right. So if we lose $40 billion in earnings and another $40 billion in spending as a result, we have reduced our annual GDP by a grand total of 0.8%. So what happens to growth? A 2% growth rate in a $10 trillion GDP gives you another $200 billion for 2001. Knock out $80 billion and you get a .6% growth rate. I admit I gave up on the dismal science of economics a long time ago. And my math frequently sucks, But I would love to have someone tell me why these numbers make less sense than the panic-mongering I see everywhere else. Bottom line - if we lose another million jobs from here, we would still be hard pressed to slide into a sustained recession. And I would be surprised if any economist is forecasting a million-job drop in the near future. The drop would have to build on itself and not recover despite all the rate cuts in the pipeline too. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. It has happened before once or twice. ;<)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24964)	5/5/2001 8:40:44 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

Dig a bit more in the employment figures and guess what you find - there are more people working in the US today than there were when the unemployment rate hit 3.9% last October! Total non-farm employment: 1999 128282. 1999 128377. 1999 128630. 1999 128898. 1999 129057. 1999 129265. 1999 129523. 1999 129788. 1999 130038. 2000 130387. 2000 130482. 2000 131009. 2000 131419. 2000 131590. 2000 131647. 2000 131607. 2000 131528. 2000 131723. 2000 131789. 2000 131842. 2000 131878. 2001 132167. 2001 132303. 2001 132250. 2001 132027. economagic.com It sure won't help having 700-800,000 people lose their jobs since December, but someone needs to put this in perspective. The "American consumer" still has a job and will probably keep that job for the foreseeable future. Lies, damned lies and statistics.