The 15% Unemployment Bet

[safe]

The 15% Unemployment Bet

Anyone who wants to can get in on this bet... however I am making the bet based on NutsandVolts ideas about the course of events in the American economy.

The bet goes like this:

Starting today and up until the first day of 2010 those that take my side of the bet believe that the 'official' unemployment rate of the United States will not exceed 15%.

I make this bet based on the fact that over the last five major economic downturns in America the average unemployment was something like 20% and I do NOT believe that this present cycle will produce unemployment at those levels.

All those that want to play along can post with either:

I'm with Safe on this one. (<15%)

or

Safe knows nothing... he's wrong as always and I bet against him. (>15%)

...there is no money, or any other thing associated with this bet. None, never, no way, no silly arguments about it being more than an abstract bet.

Note: I could have made this harder for myself and set the limit at 20%, but then I might not get any takers. 15% is very reasonable and "sporting" on my part.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[safe]

It has to be "official".

Opinions don't count.

Unemployment rate as a percentage of the labor force in the United States according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

[EMF]

See I told you he would welch. :lol: At least he is predictable. What a tool.

 

[EMF]

It has to be "official".

Opinions don't count.

Then STFU

 

[safe]

Starting today and up until the first day of 2010 those that take my side of the bet believe that the 'official' unemployment rate of the United States will not exceed 15%.

I made absolutely sure to get the "official" word in there.

No welching... but no morphing either... it's a simple bet.... take it or walk out the door. :wink:

...there is no money, or any other thing associated with this bet. None, never, no way, no silly arguments about it being more than an abstract bet.

 

[EMF]

Quote from Reuters- is that "official" enough? :
Welch some more Safe! Wiggle out of this one!

Great Depression jobs parallel may not be far flung
(Reuters)
9 January 2009
NEW YORK – When economists tell us the current U.S. slump could never turn into another Great Depression, they all point to one thing: one of four Americans was out of work in the 1930s.

File photo of unemployed people looking for a job during the Great Depression, 1935. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum/National Archives and Records Administration) - ReutersBut since the definition of joblessness has changed over the years, this expert assessment might be too rosy.

As many as 25 percent of Americans were unemployed during the days of bread lines that symbolized the Depression, but that figure is more than three times the current 6.7 percent unemployment rate, the economists say. Even the most pessimistic estimates only foresee the rate rising barely above 10 percent.

“We are in a very, very different place than the U.S. economy was in the 1930s,” James Poterba, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research told a recent Reuters Summit.

Or are we? Figures collected for Reuters by John Williams, from the electronic newsletter Shadowstats.com, suggest that, while we are not there yet, the comparison is not as outlandish as it might initially seem.

By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today’s jobless rate would be closer to 16.5 percent—more than double the stated rate.

“I expect that unemployment in the current downturn, which will be particularly deep and protracted, eventually will rival, if not top, the 25 percent seen in the Great Depression,” Williams said.

He and other critics have one particular sticking point with the current way of measuring unemployment: the treatment of discouraged workers.

Under President Lyndon Johnson, the government decided individuals who had stopped looking for work for more than a year were no longer part of the labor force. This dramatically decreased the jobless rate reported by the government.

“Both part-time workers wanting full-time work and discouraged workers tend to make the unemployment rate lower than it would otherwise be,” says Robert Schenk, professor of economics at St. Joseph’s College, Indiana.

The latest report, due on Friday, is expected to show another month of more than half a million job losses in December, and a jump in the unemployment rate to 7 percent.

However, some economists, including Kenneth Rogoff at Harvard University, now say joblessness could top 11 percent. Under Williams’ methodology, that picture might look much more like the Great Depression.

 

[safe]

Only the "official" rate counts... we have to have some standard that is absolute and the "official" is the standard I chose.

Take the bet or leave it.

If I didn't go with the "official" rate then we could have 15 different opinions about what the rate could be. This way there is only one answer.

Since I knew the government number would err on the side of the lower percentage I chose to go with 15% to make it "sporting".

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[EMF]

Starting today and up until the first day of 2010 those that take my side of the bet believe that the 'official' unemployment rate of the United States will not exceed 15%.

I made absolutely sure to get the "official" word in there.

No welching... but no morphing either... it's a simple bet.... take it or walk out the door. :wink:

...there is no money, or any other thing associated with this bet. None, never, no way, no silly arguments about it being more than an abstract bet.

Keep editing your post! You already lost, admit it or remain a welch. It's your choice.

 

[safe]

All this may be true... but the bet stands...

Do you want to bet that the "official" unemployment is ever reported as being above 15% from now to 2010?

It's not that complicated...

Maybe Obama's government lies about it... that's okay... whatever the number is we go with it.

Right now Obama would naturally want to lie in favor of HIGHER rather than lower... so that's going to favor those who vote against me.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[safe]

I bet they will change the statistic calculation further and will also oops report it incorrectly, and not just USA, everywhere.

So in this "false reporting" do you think they ever admit to more than 15%?

That's the actual bet... maybe the real number is 20%, but our bet has to do with how much honesty sneaks into the numbers.

You are assuming that Obama's government will be full blown deception it sounds like...

Do you really think he will be so corrupt?

 

[EMF]

All this may be true... but the bet stands...

Do you want to bet that the "official" unemployment is ever reported as being above 15% from now to 2010?

It's not that complicated...

Maybe Obama's government lies about it... that's okay... whatever the number is we go with it.

Right now Obama would naturally want to lie in favor of HIGHER rather than lower... so that's going to favor those who vote against me.

Umm read the freakin Reuters post you welch. It has changed Waaay before Obama. It changed during the Johnson administration. What you have been saying is that the unemployment wont be a "problem" until it hits 15%. we tried to tell you that it is already there, they just skew the figures. So, now you are starting this thread to try and worm out of your earlier bet. You sir- are a WELCH.

 

[safe]

It has changed Waaay before Obama. It changed during the Johnson administration.

It doesn't matter what is the "truth".

What matters is the "official" number and that's the basis of the bet and it was clearly stated that way in the beginning.

We need a single standard, even if it's a flawed one.

 

[EMF]

It has changed Waaay before Obama. It changed during the Johnson administration.

It doesn't matter what is the "truth".

What matters is the "official" number and that's the basis of the bet and it was clearly stated that way in the beginning.

We need a single standard, even if it's a flawed one.

Welch. This is your MO, you get caught in a lie or misconception, as we just did for the umpteenth time, so you start a new thread with a semantic based change.

 

[safe]

Welch

I think your problem is you don't read the fine print.

If you want to go in on the bet, then great, otherwise sit on the sidelines.

The bet goes like this:

Starting today and up until the first day of 2010 those that take my side of the bet believe that the 'official' unemployment rate of the United States will not exceed 15%.

...there is no money, or any other thing associated with this bet. None, never, no way, no silly arguments about it being more than an abstract bet.

 

[safe]

Today's Rate

You can find todays "official" unemployment rate here:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Nonfarm payroll employment declined sharply in December, and the unemployment rate rose from 6.8 to 7.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment fell by 524,000 over the month and by 1.9 million over the last 4 months of 2008. In December, job losses were large and widespread across most major industry sectors.

 

[EMF]

Welch

I think your problem is you don't read the fine print.

If you want to go in on the bet, then great, otherwise sit on the sidelines.

The bet goes like this:

Starting today and up until the first day of 2010 those that take my side of the bet believe that the 'official' unemployment rate of the United States will not exceed 15%.

...there is no money, or any other thing associated with this bet. None, never, no way, no silly arguments about it being more than an abstract bet.

No the problem is you are a welch. You got caught again not knowing WTF you are talking about in another thread. You tried to imply that the unemployment now is less than 15% when you compare it to 1930. You were using 1930 as the benchmark. Remember? I didn't think so- at least you will squirm around it. We told you that you were comparing apples and oranges as all you know is what you see on Fox News. Well, if you tally it NOW as you do in 1930, we have surpassed that figure. therefore, we are in serious trouble. You cannot accept that you are mistaken, plus, you are a welch - so you start a thread and inject "official" in it to try and save face, by using semantics. Well, you are still a welch.

 

[safe]

At some point you either place your bet or you walk away.

Which will it be?

15% is possible even with the governments "soft" numbers.

If you REALLY think things are going to get so bad you need to place your bet.

 

[EMF]

Welch

 

[safe]

You never even made the bet... it's not even possible for me to welch on someone if you never formally made the bet in the first place. (and since there is nothing riding on the bet I'm not even sure what welching would involve :lol: )

So now you have educated yourself about the fine print and you have the ability (the free will) to make the bet.

Do you formally (now) want to make the bet against me?

It's still a very "sporting" offer.

 

[EMF]

Read the poll title welch you forgot to add "official" you lose again. Just like in the other thread. Ooops! Reuters says we are over 15%.

 

[safe]

As I've said... it was in the fine print.

 

[Anonymous]

.