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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (297)	8/23/2001 1:53:50 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 306849

Ramsey Su...I think the reason unemployment isn't higher is because the market was extraordinarily tight going into the downturn. As you know, unemployment (as reported by the government) is a lagging indicator, and the numbers ARE starting to build: dismal.com I'm watching the continuing claims number, because there seems to be less "noise" around that one. Obviously, layoff announcements have continued (ie, the AOL and TLAB announcements just this week), and it takes time to go from announcement>>>unemployed>>>unemployed as measured by government. The trend is clear though. I agree with your observation on foreclosures. If we hit 7% unemployment, foreclosures will soar and home prices will plummet. I think we'll be there by the 3rd quarter 2002.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (297)	8/23/2001 4:40:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Ramsey I was talking to someone else on another thread about this idea - Technically, we do not even have a recession yet and the Feds have pretty much used up all their monetary tools. In your opinion is it how low the rates are that matter or is the the reduction of them. If it is primarily how low the rates are then why does it matter if they were lowered a bit early (other then if they were lowered way to early and resulted in inflation but that doesn't seem to be happening). I think the actual lowering of the rate is only a short term boost and it is how low the real rates are that has the more serious effect. Tim

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (297)	8/24/2001 7:35:58 AM
From: Tom Gordon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Ramsey, the tight labor force was that of specialty in nature, we don't have that problem now, we have people clamoring for any job, lower paying which is fudging the nos., this still leads to the over burdensome debt load the consumer has and they will grapple at any thread in order to stay above water. The noose is tightening and I'm hearing more horror more frequently now than ever. One in fact I'll share with you that I was told last night. A gent working at a predominant tool and die manufacturer was laid off last June, went to work for a competitor after begging for his expertise, the co. was down sized in 6 weeks, thus eliminating his job, skilled trade and out of work and debt up to keester. Was dragging down 6 figures with over time, now on UE benefit. What happens when these benefits run out in time? That's when it really gets ugly! Ramsey, do you have any contacts within the foreclosure foray that you can share info with us? TG.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (297)	8/25/2001 2:33:30 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 306849

Because the counting of unemployed people is most probably wrong. Perhaps used for an economy that the guy was laid of and immediately apeared as unemployed. Today the guy go on vacation. Repair his house. Hang around. Goes to training. And only them start actively looking for a job.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (297)	8/25/2001 3:06:48 PM
From: dday	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Ramsey, "Despite tens of thousands layoff announcements, we are still at less than 5% unemployed. Unemployment was over 7% during the recession of the early 90s." My mother was an unemployment claims examiner in NJ for some 20 years. Became a supervisor eventually hearing and deciding on appeals. The flaw in UE stats is that only those "collecting" benefits are counted. Those unemployed with benefits expired do not count. I think benefits run 3 months today. Back in the late 1970's and early 80's, one could collect for a full 12 months with extensions. Want to increase unemployment??? Extend the benefit period. Tighten it up and reduce the reported figure. That is why I ignore the figure. This flaw plus the "underground economy" (people working for cash who are reportedly not working ala the local bookie) make the true UE rate almost impossible to gauge. Regards, Bob