113 comments on A New World Model Including Energy and Climate Change Data
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
113 comments on A New World Model Including Energy and Climate Change Data
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Really great post!
Point taken, however while the G20 fiddle in London the story on the ground is that the flames are leaping higher by the moment.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/03/news/economy/jobs_march/index.htm?postve...
2 million jobs lost so far in '09
Unemployment rate spikes to 8.5%, a 25-year high, as 663,000 jobs lost in March. 5.1 million jobs have now been lost since the beginning of 2008...
...To put the three-month loss in context, if no more jobs are lost over the next nine months, 2009 would still be the fourth worst year for job losses since the government started tracking the number of workers in 1939.
Who are they trying to kid?!
FMagyar,
"Unemployment rate spikes to 8.5%, a 25-year high, as 663,000 jobs lost in March"
The popular media always look for a headline; actually jobs(number in labor force) dropped by 160,000 in March( similar in Feb and Jan). What the news reported were increases in unemployed, ie school leavers entering workforce, those who lost jobs-gained jobs, mums going back to work, etc. Not the same thing, but with a labor force of 145 Million, a drop of 160,000 (0.12%) doesn't sound as headline catching as 660,000 "lost jobs".
When times are uncertain, those planning to retire may post-pone plans, especially if stock market is down, and stay at home mums/dads may start looking just in case things get worse, so unemployment rates are misleading, what's important is participation rates( % of those 15-65 age group working or unemployed) which is at a record high of 66-67%. So an 8.5% unemployment rate means about 5.7% of the 15-65 group are looking for work, 61-62% have work and 33% are not looking.
In 1970 less than 60% were working or unemployed.
Well when home price fall back in line with 1970 then I'd be interested in 1970 participation numbers.
Now way can current home and auto prices be supported with a large precentage of single wage earner families common in the 1970's.
Not that I think we won't get there but your own comparison is a bit misleading. I've actually used a similar approach to show that overall we have a ways to go before we reach depression level problems since we first as you point out have to rollback to more single income families before we get a significant population with no wage earners.
For the US this means U6 has to reach 40% not 20%.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you but even hitting 1970's participation levels is going to hammer housing prices and also of course excess cash flow and general consumer spending. Its back to the 1970's in a lot of ways.
memmel,
The point is there was not a LOSS OF 660,000 jobs in March the figure is actually 160,000; The 660,000 number refers to increased numbers seeking work. BIG difference.
Neil understood things are not quite as bad as people think they are.
I've actually argued the same point myself. I'm not at odds with you just trying to put it in perspective.
Simply going back to a 1970's economy alone will cost thousands of jobs and trillions in lost equity.
Its the differences that matter in money not the absolute value. Going from 65% -> 60% is the same as going from 60% -> 55%.
And the headline number i.e the total losses are important when you dealing with illiquid long lasting fixed assets like houses. If you have community of 100 people and 90 houses if ten people leave no big deal but if you have 90 houses and 90 people and 10 people leave then the value of the remaining houses drops 90%.
The problem at the moment is leverage everyone bet on the 100:90 ratio and its now 80:90. Your right we are not even close to real pain that years out but leverage is just as deadly over the short term.
Who are they trying to kid?!
Anyone saying that growth now is impossible.
Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, points out a more disturbing trend: The Labor Department keeps concluding that its initial estimates were too optimistic.
Here are the total job losses reported for recent months, as originally reported and as shown in the latest revisions.
August 2008: Initially 84,000, revised to 175,000
September 2008: Initially 159,000, revised to 321,000
October 2008: Initially 240,000, revised to 380,000
November 2008: Initially 533,000, revised to 597,000
December 2008: Initially 524,000, revised to 681,000
January 2009: Initially 598,000, revised to 655,000
February 2009: Initially 651,000, as released today.
On average, from August through January, the first estimate was too optimistic by 112,000 jobs.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
Inquiring minds are now investigating the BLS March Employment Report for additional revisions.
Sure enough there were more revisions. However, instead of revising the February data, the BLS revised the January data a second time as follows.
The change in total nonfarm employment for January was revised from -655,000 to -741,000, while the change for February remained -651,000.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/