User Comments

1. 

   2/19/09

   libertycast1

   Probably though I doubt it will get up to 20%. My guess is we will start seeing things turn around slowly after the next two years.

   [reply]
2. 

   2/19/09

   Anok

   I wouldn't doubt it. Like Liberty says, though, it'll make a turn around, but it's going to take time.

   [reply]
3. 

   2/19/09

   satijournal

   Considering the flaws in the way the unemployment rate is calculated, it's probably already over 10%. It doesn't count people who have given up looking for work or are underemployed working only part time.

   [reply]
   1. 

      2/19/09

      csiunatc

      Of course it doesn't count those that are underemployed. Thats why they call it UN-Employed. See how that works there?
      
      And if you aren't trying to get a job, how can you be considered unemployed. That would make every stay-at-home mom, and those independently wealthy unemployed too.
   2. 

      2/19/09

      Anok

      Actually, yes, every stay at home mom is technically unemployed.
      
      Unemployed - without gainful employment.
   3. 

      2/19/09

      csiunatc

      But hardly something to be counted towards meaningful statistics. If someone chooses to stay home and not look for work. Including them in calculations designed to measure the availability of jobs isn't exactly helpful.
      
      Technically, it can be argued that those independently wealthy are also unemployed, as are retirees, and you could even consider criminals to be part of that group. (Or consider them self-employed, depending on how you want to measure it)
   4. 

      2/19/09

      Anok

      Didn't you give me a long lecture about how the unemployment statistics weren't accurate because of all the people who weren't counted, raising the actual unemployment rate to over 10% in another debate a long time ago?
   5. 

      2/19/09

      csiunatc

      The difference there is that in Sweden, the government forces job hunters to take meaninless classes. "how to look for work" etc.
      
      While they are taking those they ARE forced to simultaneously look for work, but aren't counted into the statistics.
      
      see the difference?
   6. 

      2/19/09

      Anok

      Yeah, there was more to that argument
   7. 

      2/19/09

      satijournal

      If you want the true measure of the economy's health, you have to factor in underemployment. Someone who was laid off from a job earning a decent middle income salary and is now flipping burgers at a Burger King shouldn't be counted as fully employed.
4. 

   2/19/09

   csiunatc

   As far as the original question. Yes, unemployment will shoot way past 10% this year. 14-15% seems reasonable.. 18% not at all unlikely.
   
   Areas with traditionally high unemployment could see rates approaching zero employment.
   
   I'm pretty sure that we'll see several mass exoduses from certain areas in the next 2 years.

   [reply]
5. 

   2/19/09

   voodooKobra

   330 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 10.0
   www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm
   
   It already has in the area I live in.

   [reply]
   1. 

      2/19/09

      Anok

      In our state we are at 7.1% and my town specifically, 8.6%
   2. 

      2/19/09

      satijournal

      I lived in Cape Coral back in the late 70s when it was full of retired people. I'd never been so bored in my life! Is it still a retirement community?
   3. 

      2/22/09

      voodooKobra

      Pretty much, yeah.
6. 

   2/19/09

   NatetheGrate

   Come on, be real -- unemployment is already over 10 percent, if you count long-term unemployed. Don't be manipulated by statistics, but don't be manipulating others with them, either.

   [reply]
7. 

   2/22/09

   xmarks

   It will get worse before it gets better. 10% is a real possibility. 15%? I'm not going to bet on that one.

   [reply]