20 More Signs Of A Full-On Economic Collapse

[girl gone mad]

20 More Signs Of A Full-On Economic Collapse
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-economic-collapse-top-20-countdown-2010-6

So just how bad is the U.S. economy? Well, the truth is that sometimes it is hard to put into words. We have squandered the great wealth left to us by our forefathers, we have almost totally dismantled the world's greatest manufacturing base, we have shipped millions of good jobs overseas and we have piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of mankind.

We have taken the greatest free enterprise economy that was ever created and have turned it into a gigantic house of cards delicately balanced on a never-ending spiral of paper money and debt. For decades, all of this paper money and debt has enabled us to enjoy the greatest party in the history of the world, but now the bills are coming due and the party is nearly over.

In fact, things are already so bad that you can pick almost every number and find a corresponding statistic that shows just how bad the economy is getting.

You doubt it? Well, check this out....

• Gallup's measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year.
  
  
  
  
• According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005.
  
  
• The bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. But of course many on Wall Street and in the government would argue that there is nothing wrong with an economy where nearly half the people are dividing up 1 percent of the benefits.
  
  
  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-economic-collapse-top-20-countdown-2010-6#ixzz0qQ3JS2O0">more. . .
  
  
  

[flamingdem]

1. We're dividing up 1% ? .. arrrg! nt

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Gallup's current underemployed is at 19%.

Which is the lowest its been since the beginning of the year.

[girl gone mad]

3. Whew! What a relief!

Nevermind about the whole economic collapse thing, then.

I'll just put my rose colored glasses back on.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Oh please.

Stop acting like a dolt. He's using numbers from MARCH to prove his point that underemployment is going up. It isn't. It's not great, but it declined from that high seen in March.

We're in June now. Don't you think his point would be more valid if he used June's underemployment numbers? But he can't - because it doesn't fit his narrative that unemployment is rising. So he cherry picked numbers. :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

9. His point is not that underemployment is going up.

That's your inference.

His point is that our economy is fucked. The lingering near double digit unemployment and 20% underemployment numbers are just one of 20 factors he cites. You can try and divert the discussion onto some trivial aspect of whether U-6 UE is moving up or down this week, but the numbers remain extremely grim and the government is doing absolutely nothing to change that.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. My inference is based on the fact he used data from a few months ago...

When there is newer data readily available that suggests underemployment is at worst, stagnant.

Look, you know full well what he did here. If that isn't his point, he would have used June's numbers to back up his claim. But they don't because his claim was that, once again, underemployment was going up. As he said in the article here:

Gallup's measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year.


March 15th. It's almost June 15th. This data is already three months old and the data doesn't show an uptick in underemployment like the March 15th data. This is why he used those numbers and not June's. This is why I don't take this article seriously. If you're going to quote numbers, you better damn well make sure they're updated because it undermines the point he's trying to make.

But whatever, continue believing what you want.

[girl gone mad]

14. 3 months ago isn't exactly ancient history...

and the situation certainly has not improved in any significant way since then.

If you want to try to discredit the entire piece based on the fact that he chose a statistic from all the way back in March, you'll have to work a lot harder to convince me.

I think the data he chose is pertinent and relevant. On the whole, he made a solid case that the middle class in America is in very serious trouble.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. lol

Seriously? Three months is a lifetime in terms of economic change. Our economy collapsed in one month. It went from bad to amazingly bad in a couple of weeks.

But you're not answering my question. Why would he not use June data if there was no difference? Because then his point that underemployment was going up (as he said in the article!) could not be used and that is a big chunk of his argument that the economy is about to collapse (again).

Sorry, not buying it. But whatever. Maybe in three months he'll finally catch up and use June's data to talk about how the economy has stagnated. lol

[girl gone mad]

22. Our economy did not collapse in one month.

You're confusing a financial/market panic with broad economic indicators. Economic indicators such as unemployment do not shift suddenly absent very dramatic exogenous forces.

Here's GDP:



The q/q changes were moderate. It took 3 quarters to go from +2% to -6%.

Here's unemployment:



It was building for months.

Here's the closest thing we had to a dramatic "collapse" in economic indicators, the TED spread:



But you see what it looked like in Aug 2007? That's when many of us knew the system was in a very precarious state and started moving our money into Treasuries, etc. There was a build up and a warning preceding the 2008 crisis.

And unemployment is basically unchanged over the last 3 months, so your point is moot.

[jtuck004]

19. K&R His statement was

"20 - Gallup's measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year." As you pointed out the latest number is lower, but the sampling error is + or - 1%, so there really isn't much of a change. And when you supplement that with BLS numbers there actually is an increase from March - May. Looking at the total of the presentation I am having real trouble seeing anything at all except a downhill slide. The only question is whether it will be some massive collapse or a slow weakening as this cancer overwhelms us.

What bothers me the most is that no one in the admin seems to think investing in the American people is in their best interest. There is talk about pain in the future and actions which seem to make sure that is what we will see.

[JohnWxy]

26. JObs bill passes: 11 Repubs voted for it, 28 voted against it. (that's actually an improvement)

The GOP politics of destruction continue. Keep the Democrats from fixing the Disasters the GOP caused, even if it weakens our nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/politics/18cong.html

Who needs Al Kaida when you've got the GOP?

[Donnachaidh]

4. so one FIFTH of the population being UNDEREMPLOYED is a PLUS?

Dude -- don't bogart that joint. Pass it on! :sarcasm:

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Dude, did I say that?

:eyes:

This guy is talking about the pending economic collapse by pointing to a Gallup poll from MARCH suggesting underemployment is actually rising.

Look at a calendar, Dude. It's June, Dude. Not March, Dude. March was a few months ago.

The trend he was pointing to didn't happen. Sure, the numbers suck, but there is no evidence things are getting worse, which his data from March, Dude, may have suggested.

[sam kane]

10. the difference between 20% and 19% is Census, so it is immaterial. nt.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. So why didn't he just use June's data if it was so inconsequential?

Exactly my point. It doesn't fit his narrative that the underemployed rate was rising.

[girl gone mad]

13. Likely because he found the 20% number to be a meaningful psychological barrier.

Our nation has very recently hit 20% underemployment. Whether or not this number has marginally improved in the subsequent weeks, it remains a shocking statistic, both a central factor for and a symptom of our continuing economic decline.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Likely because he wanted to suggest underemployment was going up...

When the recent numbers suggested it dropped by one-point. Not a dramatic change, but the best numbers of the year and it runs counter to his point that underemployment was rising. Because it isn't.

19% is horrid - but it also suggests stagnation and not expansion. That's huge because as long as it's decreasing, even by the slightest numbers, we're inching in the right direction.

Of course, that again runs counter to his argument that we're all fucked. haha

But whatever is clever, eh?

[upi402]

25. Not seeing the forrest for the trees

The author is persuading the eyes-wide-shut folks, perhaps like yourself, to see that there is a serious problem. To watch the TV news you'd think everything is going to work out. People ignore the forest and focus one branch of one tree. It needs to stop, people need to be slapped awake!

Well you win your Pyrrhic victory. Halter lost to Lincoln just as Obama won and Kucinich was labeled a crazy. Corporatists still own the show and those that car about Americans and this country are labeled lunatics.

I don't need to get into anal pissing matches over a .3% margin, or an eye-blink of time. I have never seen it this bad. There are vacant houses everywhere and building for lease as businesses close all over. It's over, and the rich and powerful are guilty of treason in their betrayal of American democracy.

Your Obama continues the corporatist rule,which rules over both parties, as we are disenfranchised from our former republic. You win, but what is your prize?

[Donnachaidh]

17. Dude -- you really believe there has been substantial improvement for those folks since March?

Those folks, you know -- the ones who are *disappeared* from the official numbers because they *work* flipping burgers 20 hours a week? the ones who get NO help form the government -- and are actually ignored by them?

You think ANYTHING has been done for them since March? :rofl:

Like I said -- don't bogart that joint. Pass it on!

[northernlights]

27. the article is a reprint from his blog

which appears to use all Q1 data from March or so.

He's not cherry-picking data. The original article is a couple months old. :eyes:

[northzax]

5. 20%?

So one in five adults is looking for work and doesn't have any? I don't buy it.

[girl gone mad]

6. Take it up with the Department of Labor.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[JDPriestly]

18. The Dept. of Labor numbers are lower than the true numbers.

Lots of people are not counted including those who tried to go into business for themselves. When business slowed to nothing, they had no right to unemployment. A lot of people took early retirement. They don't show up in these figures either. I'd say the percentage of people who would like to be working but can't get jobs is over 20%.

[proudohioan]

24. I agree with you.

I can name 3 people off the top of my head that wouldn't show as unemployed; these folks were laid off way back in 2006, unemployment has long been exhausted and all three have moved back in with their relatives (2 are in their late 40's and one is in his mid 50's). They would love to work!

Personally, I haven't worked in one year. I was 'underemployed' for about 3 years and just couldn't continue to support myself/kids on less than full-time work. I finally had to 'double-up' with a friend, and ended up just flat out quitting my last job (gross pay around $900 per month) a year ago. It never occurred to me to even apply for UI since I quit.

I have spent the past 3 1/2 years looking for full-time, sustainable employment with no luck. And I have a college degree! However, I am now 48, and it sure as hell seems like no one wants someone 'that old'. I give up.

I'm sure that you probably know folks out there that have been unemployed/underemployed for years yourself. It's starting to look like close to 40% of the population cannot afford to support themselves/families.

It scares the hell out of me.

[TheMadMonk]

20. UNDERemployment. They have work but not enough.

This figure includes itinerant labour; people looking for full time work but only getting odd or short shifts; franchise holders/self employed with time on their hands; and so forth.

And even the unemployment figures are fudged/chosen selectively. Many unemployed have used up their benefits they don't get counted. Those still receiving benefits that declare even an hour's work in the reporting period are not counted. Those in re-employment programs don't get counted. Unemployed partners are only counted once.

If unsophisticated Australia is doing all these things and more to undereport unemployment then it's a sure bet that the US is doing them as well.

[jtuck004]

21. 20% of the total 154,393 people in civilian workforce

And if you look at it by income

http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U.pdf

The unemployment rate for people who make over 150K a year is only around 2-3%, while for those under 25K it ranges from 20-30%.

A lot of people hurting, and nothing that will decrease it is really on the horizon...

[jtuck004]

23. K&R

[New Dawn]

28. Kick for truth.

[Yavin4]

29. Unemployement and Underemployment Is Going To Remain High for 2 Reasons

1: Globalization

Mfg. and services are moving abroad to lower labor cost nations.

2: Changes in Technology

New hardware and software renders several occupations obsolete.

The key to survival is re-training for jobs that will be in demand such as healthcare and technology-related jobs.