The "Beveridge Curve" predicts unemployment to recover by 2014.

[Direckshun]

I've never heard of the Beveridge Curve before, but here:



You can read about it more here, by Timothy Taylor.

Taylor writes that the Curve offers several insights to the current scenario:

• Job openings are increasing, but the unemployment rate is not.
• There are threey key reasons for this: "a mismatch between the skills of unemployed workers and the available jobs; incentives from extended unemployment insurance that have slowed the incentive to take available jobs; and heightened uncertainty over the future course of the economy and economic policy"
• These three factors have a historical tendency of correcting themselves over time.
• By early 2014, the curve will have righted itself, and unemployment will drop like a rock.

Well, here's hoping.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by KC rectum

No, I prefer to use tried and true measures to look at things rather than OMG BUSINESSES ARE SCARED OF OBAMA"

Corporate profitability is way up. When you listen to earnings calls right now, no one is citing Obamacare as a reason for ****ing anything. Faux news has infected your head.

Hey dildo, quit your bullshit. Unemployment rate > corporate profits when determining state of the economy.

Obamacare IS a factor for why businesses are not hiring. You dickhead.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I already answered that. try reading what I wrote. Hell, try taking off your far left partisan glasses and understanding what I wrote.

Obamacare is a MASSIVE change and businesses and investors are holding back with a "wait and see" attitude .. many hoping to see it repealed. It doesn't matter if ANY of it has taken affect.. the fact that it HASN'T actually hurts the most. And don;t argue that it won;t hurt business because that doesn't matter... what matters is the perception and uncertainty. Something OBAMA has injected into our economy at a time it certainly didn't need it.

I would add "small businesses". I don't know of one major corporation that doesn't offer a competitive benefits package to their employees.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

Austin,

You should read Reinhardt and Rogoff's paper on financial crisises and the resulting anemic recoveries.

It's a small sample set but there are remarkable similarities across all of them.

I'll check it out.


I just can;t see how you can possibly try to sell the idea that something as large as Obamacare doesn't have businesses worried. That is just crazy talk.

Its fine if you want to pay that price... and in the end it is just SLOWING recovery not eliminating it. The money isn't going to run away. I happen to agree with the majority that Obamacare is not the way to go and I'd rather have a faster recovery.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Link?

Housing is starting to recover, actually.

Sure thing boss...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/real...ings/index.htm
(from April)

Now that the $26 billion robo-signing settlement is in place, banks should be more free to pursue foreclosures again. Look for them to pick up over the next few months, according to Blomquist

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/settl...tch-2012-07-10
(from June)

While the settlement was being negotiated, many lenders put foreclosures on hold while awaiting the final terms. Now that the settlement is over, servicers are moving forward with the foreclosures.

“Foreclosure initiation rates have risen to their highest level in three years, a sign that the settlement may have provided servicers greater regulatory clarity, thus allowing them to act more decisively,” said Grant Bailey, managing director for Fitch.

According to Fitch, foreclosure initiation rates rose to roughly 12 percent in June, the highest figure since first half-2009.

It might not be getting a lot of press, but there's another hiccup in the real estate market coming.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I would add "small businesses". I don't know of one major corporation that doesn't offer a competitive benefits package to their employees.

It's not that simple. There are other cost concerns across the board that they just don;t know how it's going to play out. This is causing many to "wait and see."

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

Hey dildo, quit your bullshit. Unemployment rate > corporate profits when determining state of the economy.

Obamacare IS a factor for why businesses are not hiring. You dickhead.

Complete nonsense.

Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the US at 12%. Are you REALLY telling me (us) that it's because of Obamacare?

Cali is next with 10.7%. Obamacare? Really?

[Race Card native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I already answered that. try reading what I wrote. Hell, try taking off your far left partisan glasses and understanding what I wrote.

Obamacare is a MASSIVE change and businesses and investors are holding back with a "wait and see" attitude .. many hoping to see it repealed. It doesn't matter if ANY of it has taken affect.. the fact that it HASN'T actually hurts the most. And don;t argue that it won;t hurt business because that doesn't matter... what matters is the perception and uncertainty. Something OBAMA has injected into our economy at a time it certainly didn't need it.

So where's your proof?

[Race Card native]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

Hey dildo, quit your bullshit. Unemployment rate > corporate profits when determining state of the economy.

Obamacare IS a factor for why businesses are not hiring. You dickhead.

Hey it's everyone favorite dipshit racist. Crawl back into your hole and die bitch.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

So where's your proof?

The majority of U.S. employers, 56 percent, put off readying for 2014 as they awaited a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on various challenges to the Affordable Care Act, according to the consulting firm Mercer, which surveyed 4,000 businesses after the justices upheld the law. Most of those on pause now have hit play, but the survey found one in six of all respondents still not planning changes to comply with the law before November, pinning their hopes on a Republican sweep and eventual repeal. That would require the GOP winning the presidency, keeping the House and taking a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Here is just one quick survey... and this has nothing to do with GROWTH this has to do with making the MANDATORY CHANGES BY LAW. GROWTH will lag significantly behind this.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It's not that simple. There are other cost concerns across the board that they just don;t know how it's going to play out. This is causing many to "wait and see."

I'm sorry, I disagree. There is nothing in that bill that will force corporations that are already providing insurance to their employees to do anything different.

Same goes for smaller businesses. The companies that will be most affected are those companies with less than 50 employes that currently do not offer group coverage of some sort.

Most companies, even major corporations, offer to pay at least half of the insurance costs but Group Policies, even when the employer offers little to no co-payment, are far more comprehensive and affordable than individual policies.

[Race Card native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Here is just one quick survey... and this has nothing to do with GROWTH this has to do with making the MANDATORY CHANGES BY LAW. GROWTH will lag significantly behind this.

The recovery was going to be anemic regardless of what any president did. Credit crisis driven recessions all have shallow initial recoveries. A law which hasn't even taken effect yet is NOT affecting the economy.

Your one survey from a consulting firm demonstrates nothing. Look at what businesses are actually doing and it's clear that Obamacare isn't driving their decisions. Hell, you can listen to earnings conference calls yourself. NO ONE ASIDE FROM PARTISANS IS SAYING THAT OBAMACARE IS CAUSING THEM TO HOLD BACK. Several are concerned with macro GLOBAL issues, but Obamacare isn't restricting the recovery.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm sorry, I disagree. There is nothing in that bill that will force corporations that are already providing insurance to their employees to do anything different.

Same goes for smaller businesses. The companies that will be most affected are those companies with less than 50 employes that currently do not offer group coverage of some sort.

Most companies, even major corporations, offer to pay at least half of the insurance costs but Group Policies, even when the employer offers little to no co-payment, are far more comprehensive and affordable than individual policies.

Even if you were correct (and you really aren't on this.. you aren't looking at the bigger picture that affects all businesses)... it doesn't matter. It is about PERCEPTION.. it could be a phantom bill that does nothing .. but if businesses are afraid of it.. they will hold back to see the effects before electively expanding. If I can choose between expanding NOW or later... I'll choose later if there is a big scary change just around the corner that could seriously effect my bottom line.

[Race Card native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Even if you were correct (and you really aren't on this.. you aren't looking at the bigger picture that affects all businesses)... it doesn't matter. It is about PERCEPTION.. it could be a phantom bill that does nothing .. but if businesses are afraid of it.. they will hold back to see the effects before electively expanding. If I can choose between expanding NOW or later... I'll choose later if there is a big scary change just around the corner that could seriously effect my bottom line.

No, the bigger picture is one that PIMCO's Bill Gross and Al Arian probably nailed head on with their new normal thesis. Going forward we are going to see lower growth rates due to eventual deleveraging (we're already seeing this with consumer credit outside of student loans).

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

The recovery was going to be anemic regardless of what any president did. Credit crisis driven recessions all have shallow initial recoveries. A law which hasn't even taken effect yet is NOT affecting the economy.

Your one survey from a consulting firm demonstrates nothing. Look at what businesses are actually doing and it's clear that Obamacare isn't driving their decisions. Hell, you can listen to earnings conference calls yourself. NO ONE ASIDE FROM PARTISANS IS SAYING THAT OBAMACARE IS CAUSING THEM TO HOLD BACK. Several are concerned with macro GLOBAL issues, but Obamacare isn't restricting the recovery.

You're absolutely wrong. You disregard anyone who says they are holding back as "partisan." well that's convenient as hell isn;t it.

The businesses that don;t blame Obamacare are objective. The ones that do are partisan liars. Well I guess that settles it!

Yes the recovery was going to be anemic. I'm fine with that... we are talking degrees here. It doesn't matter who was in office .. we would have had a recovery and it would have been slow. I am claiming it is SLOWER due to Obama's policies... especially Obamacare.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

No, the bigger picture is one that PIMCO's Bill Gross and Al Arian probably nailed head on with their new normal thesis. Going forward we are going to see lower growth rates due to eventual deleveraging (we're already seeing this with consumer credit outside of student loans).

Again.. who cares? I am not saying Obama is the ONLY reason for a slow recovery I am simply stating that his policies have slowed it further. If you can;t see that then YOU are the partisan with blinders on.