How to survive the Great Depression of 2008 - 2009

Amen brother!

CEOs make money for their employees, they provide jobs

And with a stroke of their pen CEOs will sacrifice their employees' investment into it's company and lay them off just to appease investors and to fatten his/her pockets.

So far I want to believe that we don't live in a Nanny State that the government "take care" of us.

Look at the assets of the politicians and they deliver what?

So far I want to believe that we don't live in a Nanny State that the government "take care" of us.

Look at the assets of the politicians and they deliver what?

deregulation across many industries

Even if it hits 2001 levels, as long as you don't refinance or sell, you will be fine. Just keep making your payments and in 10 years (give and take a few) you will be sitting on something really pretty :). Then when the next 'Seller's Market' Hits - Sell!!!

Arghawon is right

It means nothing to you if you are working and making your payments if the value of your house falls for a few years. Same thing happened in the early 90's and late 70's.

The problem is that prices rose too fast, faster than there was any justification for and these prices may just fall some more. However, in 10-20 years it will still be a good investment and you have a home to live in that is your own.

The only thing we have to worry about are idiots who take the advice in this article who help bring down the financial system.

AKG, Not to give you advice, because you didn't share very much detail, but if you make payments every 2 weeks or pay extra on the principle could you could still make some of that up? You would cut the total amount that you pay for your house by paying less in interest, even though you aren't in trouble with interest. Maybe it wouldn't work better for you, but i thought it might be a helpful suggestion.

The biweekly idea works but there are better systems to keep from paying so much interest. The Aussies have what's called a Redraw Program. Here we have something that the CoH will not let me tell you about. : ) But you can search and probably find it. It's the only one of it's kind in the states.

Indeed we are living in the instant gratification society, where parents feel that they have to buy $100/pr of tennis shoes, pants showing the derriere or full of holes and tops that are less and less because of the fashions

A few years ago we were visiting some friends in LA when the home prices were rising fast. They kept refinancing and taking equity out for play money. When I exhibited my horror at this they said not to worry, a house is like a piggy bank, to take money out of when you need to.

That was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

Any author who says something like this, directly, no less, instantly loses my respect.

I'll say you're just as self-serving if you're here anticipating giving or losing respect for others. :)

You're arguing socialism here, though you don't know it. Additionally, who says that workers have more of a right to economic benefit (jobs) than investors (capital gains)? I assume when you say "investment," you mean the time on the job. What about the company's investment in their employees, in the form of benefits, salary, training, and so forth? Last time I checked, capitalism doesn't exist to give everyone jobs, and "at-will" employment means exactly that.

I know exactly what i'm arguing and obviously you're a cheerleader of the type of behavior we've seen in recent years by Wall Street type CEOs and other Predator companies. Anyways, I was referring to past companies like Enron & MCI and the most recent, Bear Stern along with the many others who have cooked the books we're soon going to find out about.

Concerning investments I was referring to employees who invested their hard earned money back into the companies they worked so hard for and to help build. Employees who were looking to cash in their investment and retire only to find out their hard earned money they put back into the company just went up in a plume of smoke. All because their trusted CEO knew what was coming so he perpetuate the company's long term growth into 12-24 months and the clown cashed out before the sh#t hit the fan and he walks away with millions. Yes, It's the short sightedness of many short-term growth driven CEOs that's gotten this country into mess it's in. It's the investors/speculators who drove up home prices from an average of 3% a year to run we saw recently where home prices were going up 20%+ a year. It's the Lenders who got lazy with their underwriting in the recent years thanks to Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeownership/homeownership-policy-book-ch2.html This policy was the start of the sub-prime crisis we're seeing.

Bottom line: the credit problem is a mess, alright, but this article is incendiary, and serves no purpose other than to preach to the blue-collar masses and point a finger anywhere that isn't right back into the crowd.

Are you inferring it's the blue-collar workers who are only in this mess and it's their fault?

I'm merely countering your argument with another, equally valid, one. I'm a cheerleader of capitalism. To me, it follows that in a recession, companies may have to fire employees to stay in business. After all, it is business. Ignoring the economy leads to situations like Bear Stearns; entire companies going under does more damage to the economy (and to more individuals) than firings.

Anyway, I'm discussing current affairs, not Enron. Of course companies who cook the books do a disservice to everyone involved. Your response to Determined takes the exception, makes it the rule, and places the blame on a complete tangent.

Are you inferring it's the blue-collar workers who are only in this mess and it's their fault?

I'm saying that the article in question preaches to those who seek to place blame elsewhere, rather than asking themselves why they couldn't afford their mortgage payments. Is it only blue-collar workers? Not at all. The people I know who have been foreclosed upon are all white collar. Is it their fault? Partially.

The New York Times says:

Driving the high mortgage debt and the boom in home sales here, and around the country, has been the proliferation of mortgages that have made it possible for people with poor credit, scant savings and modest incomes to buy homes. Among these are subprime loans, which are easier to obtain than prime rate loans but come with an added burden: much higher interest rates.

After all, you, as a homeowner, sign the mortgage yourself. If you can't afford the payment, or chose sub-prime options, then you have to know what you're getting into. No one forces you to agree to these options, or prevents you from making the payments.

Yes, there are forces at work in the economy that are also to blame, but, again, this article seeks to place all problems on external forces. There's clearly more to the situation than a few CEOs being greedy and a better solution to the problem than the author's advice to "f#ck em, burn em back."

Anyway, I'm discussing current affairs, not Enron.

And it is past affairs we should learn from.

To me, it follows that in a recession, companies may have to fire employees to stay in business. After all, it is business.

Rightfully so and also through attrition. And it's people lively hood you seem to not care about.

Ignoring the economy leads to situations like Bear Stearns; entire companies going under does more damage to the economy (and to more individuals) than firings.

Bear didn't ignore the economy - they followed it by delving heavily than most in the sub-prime mess they got themselves into like most we're seeing and hearing about writing down billions.

If you can't afford the payment, or chose sub-prime options, then you have to know what you're getting into. No one forces you to agree to these options, or prevents you from making the payments.

Yes, there are forces at work in the economy that are also to blame,...

Here you contradict yourself but happen to agree with the later. There are forces - The constant advertisement through TV commercials and relentless junk mail will eventually sucker it's prey to drink the cool-aid, walk into it's trap...etc.

You're getting on tangents, arguing minutiae, and generally ignoring the point. Which is: yes, there are general economic forces at work, some of them probably malicious, but burying one's head in the sand and crying "Woe is me! I've been taken advantage of!" does no more good than not paying your bills in the first place.

I'm calling for just a smidgen of personal responsibility.

I'm calling for just a smidgen of personal responsibility.

I'm reminded of the personal responsibility shown by the leaders of Bear Stearns who cashed out ahead of the crash and walked away with millions leaving others to clean up their mess.

Level - I agree with you although I do also believe that consumers need to take some responsibility in terms of spending more than they can afford to pay. Yet individuals cannot take responsibility for what has affected the whole country and the rest of the world (speaking as someone living in the UK). There are a number of financial institutions (see here) whose responsibility is to make sure problems like these do not arise. These institutions look at different aspects of the economy and therefore have a better idea of what is going on, what might happen in the future and how to prepare for or prevent problems. Individuals cannot be blamed for not having a nation/worldwide perspective on the economy.

Yes, perhaps some people should have known better, but some used credit because they had no other alternative to survive. And at the end of the day, I think anyone in their right mind would rather survive another day, hoping the next they may find a job or win the lottery, instead of worrying about how their borrowing might affect a company or the country. What can be regulated are all of the different elements that brought us here - inequality, misinformation, materialism and lack of accountability.

There's clearly more to the situation than a few CEOs being greedy and a better solution to the problem than the author's advice to "f#ck em, burn em back."

As a slight tangent but an example of how some wealthy and/or powerful people can lawfully save themselves from everyone else's worries: in the UK, while all of us little people are in the same mess as you guys - trying to keep up with the bills with increases in prices for all necessities (food, gas, electricity,etc), wages increasing at a lower rate than inflation - reports have appeared about our MPs making us pay their bills by adding food, redecorating and mortgage costs to their work expenses.

Finally John Whittet, I'm sure everyone would like to know, what is the better solution (and to be clear, I'm not insinuating there isn't a better one)?

Finally John Whittet, I'm sure everyone would like to know, what is the better solution (and to be clear, I'm not insinuating there isn't a better one)?

That's the question, isn't it?

I'm reminded of the personal responsibility shown by the leaders of Bear Stearns who cashed out ahead of the crash and walked away with millions leaving others to clean up their mess.

Wheel, please provide evidence of this. Last I heard everyone there lost their jobs and the investors are getting about ten cents on the dollar.

You're getting on tangents, arguing minutiae, and generally ignoring the point.

Maybe because I'm ignoring your self-serving point.

Which is: yes, there are general economic forces at work, some of them probably malicious, but burying one's head in the sand and crying "Woe is me! I've been taken advantage of!" does no more good than not paying your bills in the first place.

I'm calling for just a smidgen of personal responsibility.

You previously admitted to being a cheerleader well you deserve a pair pom-poms for statement above. What about the responsibility of corporations that knowingly preyed, duped or suckered consumers and manufactured profits for investors? Should consumers like yourself continue to pay for your mistakes if the choice is between putting on the table and paying on a predatory mortgage or credit card? I personally believe most people are taking levels of personal responsibility for their decisions. I'm not embarrassed to I'm not a corporate monkey or whore. Neither am I embarrassed to say I agree with the author wholeheartedly that one should not keep paying for their mistakes and ignoring the basic needs of his or her family, especially if they have no chance of selling their home. Fortunately I'm not in the shoes of many who are suffering through these hard times today trying to put food on the table and making sure they have a roof over their head for their family. I don't wish this kind of hardship on any regardless of their mistakes or decisions they made. But I have a feeling we're all going to feel the squeeze soon when we witness next Bank Run we saw with Bear Stern. And if I were in the situation many are suffering through today you best believe my "smidgen of personal responsibility" will got the window and I would follow every bit of this articles advice to the "T" to provide for my family.

Maybe because I'm ignoring your self-serving point.

That must be why your comments take an abrupt left turn from anything I've written.

That must be why your comments take an abrupt left turn from anything I've written.

You hammered the nail right on its head :-)

Wheel, please provide evidence of this. Last I heard everyone there lost their jobs and the investors are getting about ten cents on the dollar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/bear-stearns-cayne-sells_n_93790.html

Yea, this just reaffirms what I said:

Cayne sold 5.66 million shares for exactly $10.84 a share on March 25, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. His stake was once valued at about $1 billion when the stock was trading at $171.50 per share.

$61 million sale on an asset that was valued at about $1 billion dollars is about 6 cents on the dollar, excuse me for the overestimation.

:)

Ouch.

$61 million sale on an asset that was valued at about $1 billion dollars is about 6 cents on the dollar, excuse me for the overestimation.

And my point is he should have walked away with zero. But he gets to keep millions while the federal reserves bails out the company to keep a bank run from happening which would have been contagiously catastrophic. Reviewing your post Space Guy you infer: A person that made the wrong decision to get into a shady loan or credit card should do whatever is necessary to own to their responsibility, even if it means sacrificing putting food on the table for their family while these corporations take no responsibilities for their greedy actions, lose billions and yet they still get to keep millions in stock options. Give me a break!

Ouch.

@ 9.14 John Whittet: I'm going to go there and that is I read your profile and I couldn't help but conclude from a statement you make loud and clear to why you would say ouch to another guy.

Yuck! ;-)

No responsibility? Now I am sure that you think that the guy with $61 million dollars gets off scott free but that is just not the case.

The federal reserve underwrote the company that bought Bear Sterns and will not lose a dime in the transaction and by their action probably staved off a much larger problem.

As for that person that made a wrong decision, you are perfectly happy with him screwing as hard as possible everyone around him (including everyone who's property value falls) while complaining about the guy who got six cents on the dollar for his investment?

Does not compute.

As for that person that made a wrong decision, you are perfectly happy with him screwing as hard as possible everyone around him (including everyone who's property value falls) while complaining about the guy who got six cents on the dollar for his investment?

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

@ 9.14 John Whittet: I'm going to go there and that is I read your profile and I couldn't help but conclude from a statement you make loud and clear to why you would say ouch to another guy.

I'm assuming you're referring to this:

My only real problem in life is wading through the mobs of women (and let's be honest with ourselves for a second here: men, too) screaming my name and coquettishly trying to get me to take them home with me.

So I would say "ouch" to a guy who posted a 94% loss because I'm incredibly attractive? To quote Space Guy... "Does not compute."

No responsibility? Now I am sure that you think that the guy with $61 million dollars gets off scott free but that is just not the case.

You care to prove it's not the case.

The federal reserve underwrote the company that bought Bear Sterns and will not lose a dime in the transaction and by their action probably staved off a much larger problem.

You care to answer what money the federal reserve is used to underwrite the bailout?

As for that person that made a wrong decision, you are perfectly happy with him screwing as hard as possible everyone around him (including everyone who's property value falls) while complaining about the guy who got six cents on the dollar for his investment?

Property values are dropping regardless -Too much overvalued inventory and No Demand = upside down mortgages! Remember, this is one of the characteristics in the unofficial definition of depression I described in #11.4. It's also one of the characteristics of the 1st great depression. It's obviously too hard for you to put yourself in someone else shoes or to imagine having to make a choice between paying your mortgage or credit card ontime and putting food on the table. So to answer your question as frankly as possible, you're damn screw em if it means taking care of his/her family first. I see you're trying to marginalize what he walked away with but regardless it's it's $61 million which is a hefty chuck of change to take from the company that had the federal reserve bail them out.

I'm assuming you're referring to this:

My only real problem in life is wading through the mobs of women (and let's be honest with ourselves for a second here: men, too) screaming my name and coquettishly trying to get me to take them home with me

.

This is definitely a first! I mean, I thought this was newsvine, not myspace or a place to pick up chicks.

It's obviously too hard for you to put yourself in someone else shoes or to imagine having to make a choice between paying your mortgage or credit card ontime and putting food on the table.

You have zero idea of what I have to do to make ends meet. Indeed I chose not to buy a house even though I could have easily done so during the subprime frenzy in order to pay off our credit cards and otherwise get out of debt. If I had been stupid enough to go for what was offered we would probably be on the street today. What part of stupid decision don't you understand?

What part of stupid decision don't you understand?

So now everyone who bought into a the american dream of ownership being shoved down their throat is either stupid or made a stupid decision. You are truly sincere.

So now everyone who bought into a the american dream of ownership being shoved down their throat is either stupid or made a stupid decision. You are truly sincere.

ANYONE who thought that an interest only or even worse, a negative amortization loan was worth entering into as a contract is an idiot by definition. The entire system was based upon a premise that that home prices would continue to increase, which is the definition of a pyramid scheme. I agree that companies should not have been allowed to offer such loans but that does not negate the personal responsibility to not enter into those types of loans. Thank Bill Clinton and his housing secretary Henry Cisneros for that one.

Also, anyone who lied about their income to buy a home is by definition stupid. This happened so much that the loans were called liar loans. Anyone who lied about their income to get a loan committed fraud.

ANYONE who thought that an interest only or even worse, a negative amortization loan was worth entering into as a contract is an idiot by definition. The entire system was based upon a premise that that home prices would continue to increase, which is the definition of a pyramid scheme. I agree that companies should not have been allowed to offer such loans but that does not negate the personal responsibility to not enter into those types of loans.

Thanks for clarifying who are the idiots. Most were flippers or real estate investors who flooded homes and creative loans with the purpose of flipping their investment for a profit which most did during the boom. On top of that you had companies like Bear Stern purchasing portfolios of these loans as investments and they two were selling them as quickly as they could buy them to other institutional investors. At the same time sub-prime loans were flooding the market thanks to the America's Homeownership Challenge Policy initiated by the Bush Administration.

Here's the writing on the wall:

substantial increase of at least $440 billion in the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;

Twenty-five different local initiatives to be undertaken across the nation, geared toward eliminating the specific homeownership barriers faced by minority families in those communities;

A commitment to raise $750 million in below-market-rate investments by 2007, which will work in collaboration with local homeownership initiatives and be targeted to heavily minority program areas;

Pursuing strategic partnerships in 20 top housing markets between homebuilders, lenders, local officials, and community leaders to develop approaches that address the local challenges to building homes for minority families living in urban centers;

Establishing of faith-based housing partnerships between the participants and at least 100 churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions;

Aggressively developing new mortgage products so that conventional market alternatives are available to combat the predatory loan products that are disproportionately targeted to minorities;

Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants;
Dramatically expanding financial education efforts for minorities, providing financial counseling to at least 380,000 minority families, and taking measures at the local level to reduce predatory lending; and

Establishing multilingual, consumer-oriented internet Web sites designed to help minorities overcome barriers to homeownership, including creation of a central data bank of affordable housing programs made available to real estate agents when working with clients.

You may try but you can't blame the Clinton administration for this one, Space Guy. Bush's policy mentioned above set forth a tsunami of bad lending practices & underwriting in the mortgage industry - Sup-prime lending & Predatory loans. These mortgage brokers & lenders preyed on legal & illegal immigrants, whites, blacks, hispanics, and blue & white collared workers who had no idea what they were getting into other than they were being told they could now finally purchase & own a home and be a part of America's homeownership Challenge or American Dream. These same lenders got creative with the borrower's app and purposely put down information that was not true to get their apps through underwriting. While this was going on banks/hedge funds (Bear Stern) saw an opportunity to purchase these portfolios worth billions on paper knowing there was a tremendous amount of risk involved types. Because they had the potential to accrue a higher interest rate compare to the traditional 30yr fix loans they simply said what the hell. And Whaala we have huge mess this current administration could careless about and the feds have no clue what to do about but to continue to cut interests rates for the banks while they continue to charge us higher interest rates in an attempt to recoup their losses. And if it ever comes down to the day I have to decide putting food on the table or paying my mortgage & credit card I will F#ck em & Burn em.

Level

Oh I agree both administrations are equally at fault. This could have been stopped at any time in the run up but it was oh happy day.

I also completely agree about the flippers. I know one guy with a $50k per year income who bought three houses in Orange county CA to flip and now he is going under. He lied on all three applications about his credit and income.

This whole mess is a poster child for the law of unintended consequences of what was supposed to be a meritorious act, which is to promote home ownership for lower income families.

I know one guy with a $50k per year income who bought three houses in Orange county CA to flip and now he is going under. He lied on all three applications about his credit and income.

I have no pity for fools who purchased multiple homes with the intent to flip and profit all while destroying the real reason for owning home. This flipping scheme also caused an influx of builders to enter the market and destroy precious natural resources we can never restore in our life time. Sad, really sad.

This whole mess is a poster child for the law of unintended consequences of what was supposed to be a meritorious act, which is to promote home ownership for lower income families.

Exacto! I'm no fan of big government or it's spending but I am a fan of over regulatory oversight and what we witnessed over the years was deregulation of an industry that should have learned from the history of the first depression.

Level

Check this link. I think that you will appreciate it.

So I don't know if using all your available credit is the answer either esp. as it will show you can't pay the bills?

The issue is more along the lines of using all of your available credit and then not paying the bills.

People aren't selling their homes voluntarily, but rather can no longer afford their adjustable-rate mortgages, and are being foreclosed on because of debt.

My biggest disagreement with this article is this, I think the depression will last much longer than one year.

You guys have no clue about what the word depression means. At worst what we are having is an extremely mild slowdown. Hell even a recession is defined by two quarters of negative growth and we have not even had one yet.

Good lord.

I have yet to see one upbeat long range prognostication. The U.S. economy is screwed. The last depression lasted for 10 years, I only hope this one is as short.

You guys have no clue about what the word depression means.

Depression: Economic situation characterized by rising unemployment, an excess of supply over demand, deflation, reduced purchasing power, contraction of general business activity and public fear.

This country is already starting to experience 5 of the 6 characteristics described in the definition.

At worst what we are having is an extremely delete mild slowdown.

One

Where the heck did you get that definition. Also, you might want to talk to a couple of old people who actually went through the depression in order to understand it.

There is no excess of supply over demand. Unemployment is still at historic lows (it was well over 10% during the depression and over 25% in 1933). The reduced purchasing power is due to the recent inflation in energy costs. Here are a couple of tibits from the labor department about the depression.

The Great Depression, a long and severe period of economic decline, affected the United States and the entire industrialized world. The American stock market declined by nearly 90 percent from 1929 to 1932, ruining individual investors and financial institutions. Many banks and other businesses were forced into insolvency. The resultant sharp declines in consumer demand and capital investment led to greatly reduced levels of spending, production, and gross national product (GNP).

From an estimated annual rate of 3.3 percent during 1923-29, the unemployment rate rose to a peak of about 25 percent in 1933. The economy reached its trough in 1933; but although unemployment had reached its peak, economic recovery was slow, hesitant, and far from complete. As shown below, the unemployment rate was still nearly 15 percent in 1940. 37

I don't think that you have the first clue about what the depression really was. I am old enough to remember that tales from the people who did live through it and your definition is an insult to what happened to them.

The American stock market declined by nearly 90 percent from 1929 to 1932, ruining individual investors and financial institutions.

And we're not anywhere *near* that type of collapse. Not even close. Nor are we anywhere near 25% unemployment.

I agree with space guy. Calling this the "Great Depression of 2008-2009" is insulting to those who lived through the real depression.

This is fear mongering at its worst.

I don't think that you have the first clue about what the depression really was. I am old enough to remember that tales from the people who did live through it and your definition is an insult to what happened to them.

Its a general definition. Google define: depression and you will find the same result.

My grandfather who is 87 is very concerned we're about to experience what he through as a young kid. So no I don't have a clue but I do have an idea from the stories he's told me as well.

Level

Google is not the be all and end all of the universe.

Ok you win, I lose. To all newsviners New Rule per The Space Guy - Google is not to be used as a dictionary to define meaning of words.

I am old enough to remember that tales from the people who did live through it and your definition is an insult to what happened to them.

My grandfather went to Panama to work through the depression. My father became head of the house during that time. I remember him telling stories of taking a shot gun to the front door. He was in his teens. What is happening right now, if you bring your head up and look at ALL the activity, not just the bankrupt economy, you would see we are in for more trouble than you can fathom. That's why you can't fathom it.

Useless conversation otherwise. Better get some silver and seeds. Never underestimate the power of denial. It's taking us head long into The Great Depression of 2008 or 9. I'm optimistic.

I agree a bit here with Space on this. My parents were young adults when the great depression hit. They were severely traumatized by it and carried that emotional baggage with them for the rest of their lives. I don't think people really know just how bad it was. As a youngster I was forced to do routine survival work that others could never quite understand. This was back when nearly 50% of all food in the country came from people's back yards. Take a bath in 1" of water, no lights left on. Canning season went for weeks. With such behavioral training as a kid, I was able to live in SF for a decade on less than $20 a week during the 1980's.

I saw the kinds of things we might witness if we really did hit a deep recession in Asia during Vietnam. I used to walk through the streets of the Chinese dictatorship (Taiwan) and had dozens of starving people following me around barely strong enough keep up with me as I walked by.

You don't wanna know what that might turn into here if you weren't able to get food for two months? How about two years or longer. Most people today don't have a clue how to grow their own food, let alone know how to can it for winter.

The great depression broke people in ways that younger generations have yet to understand. A lot of laws were put in place to stop it from happening again. We repealed two of those laws, one the Glass Steagall Act was meant to keep brokerage and banks from playing games with our money. What happens after its repealed?

Anybody remember the claims just 8 years ago that the country could never again suffer anything remotely like the Reagan era recession? We now have the highest unemployments rates since the end of world war II. Yet there is still an immense amount of wealth here.

The idea that this recession is a corporate scam setup to blow up in the democrat's faces is an interesting twist though.

I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the blame game here about putting it on the shoulders of those who should have known better than except a loan they might not be able to pay back.

There was a far better PBS program showing that they had the wool pulled over their eyes on this by the speculative types who were playing the enticement game. Young folks as a whole were not warned about reading the fine print when buying.

Then there's the employment part of this. A lot of young folks bought into the scam, thinking that they could carry on with two incomes. All of a sudden one of them is pregnant, has a kid and all of a sudden out of the workforce. What do you do? Dump the kid or the house?

Anybody remember the claims just 8 years ago that the country could never again suffer anything remotely like the Reagan era recession? We now have the highest unemployments rates since the end of world war II. Yet there is still an immense amount of wealth here.

I agree with everything but the above. At this time we still have historically low unemployment rates. It was well over 7% during the 70's at different times.

A New York Times article last month did the numbers.

Over 8% of the adult public is no longer listed as looking for work, which means that they are no longer being tracked by the Labor department, putting the total at 13%

Anyone how has seen the scam of how people are in the system or not, knows that there is an even larger number of people who can't find jobs and have given up, and are no longer part of the government's official statistics.

Yes and the New York times is such a paragon of accurate reporting isn't it.

Well what numbers do you think?

Are you implying that everything the NYT's puts out is suspect? If so, then what numbers do you think are correct?

They certainly got the 5% of currently unemployed right.

You can go the Dept/Burea of Labor and get the stats that the newspaper gets. With the numbers of 80,000 being unemployed last month our current unemployment rate went to 5.1 from 4.8.

What energynet is referring to is the estimate of those that have not met the DOL definition of employed and are not counted. So some economists believe that number could be higher like 7% or higher.

To be counted one has be with a labor dept/checking in with the officials and showing they are actively looking for work. A discouraged worker that just drops out from the program doesn't get counted. So really it looks good for the gov't to say "gee we have such low rates of unemployment, it appears anyone that wants a job can get one."

To be counted one has be with a labor dept/checking in with the officials and showing they are actively looking for work. A discouraged worker that just drops out from the program doesn't get counted.

Who does that?

In order to receive unemployment checks, you have to be actively looking for work. Are people actually saying to themselves "I'm so discouraged that I don't even want to get an unemployment check!"?

Keep in mind, the unemployment checks don't run forever, the company you left, fired will pay up to 6 months I believe. But for those people that don't get an unemployment check yes they will say that.

a lot of those people have gone from unemployed-drawing to unemployed-not drawing to unemployed-homeless. Those people who aren't drawing aren't being counted as needing jobs.

a lot of those people have gone from unemployed-drawing to unemployed-not drawing to unemployed-homeless. Those people who aren't drawing aren't being counted as needing jobs.

Which merely reinforces the improbability of the numbers. If 7% of the working adult population were homeless, it would be on the news every single night.

Sorry, in the 1930's this DID happen and to compare now to then again is an insult to our grandfathers and mothers that actually went through those times.

Go read the Grapes of wrath and tell me things are like that today.

I've read it, and love the movie and my grandparents lived through it and my parents were born during it. It was worse at the end than at the beginning. We're at the beginning, we've yet to see the end.

SG:

You didn't respond to my question above...

If 7% of the working adult population were homeless, it would be on the news every single night.

Aren't you warping the argument a bit here?

There are thousands of homeless people in San Francisco and that has been the case since the 80's. Not everyone goes homeless when their benefits run out. Many go into other programs.

I'd like to see the number of people on SSI who are their for health issues. I know 5 people on it. We currently have the largest number of people on food stamps since it was first created.

I'm helping two people out right now, one is a painter, with prostate problems who can no longer keep up a regular job and the other that lost his house in Katrina, and is on SSI.

There are large numbers of young people who are sitting on their parents couches watching stupid TV programs, because they can't find work or are just lazy.

Personally, you are not adding to the suggested point of what this post is supposed to be about.

If you are questioning the idea that people are hurting under the current state of affairs, shouldn't you be elsewhere?

I take this to be about helping people who are hurting not, questioning how many are?

I applaud the article as it points out the fact that the fat cats that played this game on the little guy are all going to be bailed out, while those who have lost their homes, and can no longer even file for bankruptcy, thanks to the republican-corporate deal, want a law abiding citizenry. But when they are the one's being hurt, they can go cry to the fed and get whole again!

This is why we need to take legal personhood from corporations. The bill of rights was originally meant for people, not corporate vampires that are immortal.

How are we to see some kind of government honesty at the present time? Losing one's home, and forever being caught in an economic wedge is akin to being considered a criminal in this society.

There is now a large number of homes (millions) that are going to waste that doing what? Where did all those people go? Back into the rental market, which has been under immense pressure, mostly in low-income cities or urban areas.

en

There are 200 million Americans of working age. 8% of that is 16 million people. Are you trying to tell me that this many are on the streets?

Does not compute

I've read it, and love the movie and my grandparents lived through it and my parents were born during it. It was worse at the end than at the beginning. We're at the beginning, we've yet to see the end.

Then you did not pay attention. By 1940 things were getting better although there was a recession in the depression that year. The early 30's were far worse and the government was basically telling people that it would always be this way, kind of a 1930's version of what the global warming alarmists are saying.

There are 200 million Americans of working age. 8% of that is 16 million people. Are you trying to tell me that this many are on the streets?

PBS says no.

There are 200 million Americans of working age. 8% of that is 16 million people. Are you trying to tell me that this many are on the streets?

San Francisco has a very high number of homeless people, thousands are here. But, as I said there are probably a lot more lazy young people staying at home.

SSI includes a very large number of people who get payments, are under 65, but have a variety of medical or disabilities.

Personally, I think the number of people who are really non-productive in this society is far higher than 13% and would include a very large number of people who do nothing buth speculate on money..

John, thanks for the PBS information and maybe with the new census count coming out in 2010 we can get some definitive information/numbers on this group.

I think the most basic reason why people don't have a place to live is due to the high cost of housing is perhaps the most over looked reason why we have the homeless. With builders buying up inexpensive areas, turning them into expensive homes, leaves many people with little choice.

I'm watching my neighborhood right now, as the homes are not expensive, small older WW2 homes built for our returning soldiers in the 40s. And because of that you have wolves at the door. Taxes are even reasonable, but all it take is to built over a small house increase taxes and the older couple, retired couple on a fixed income, will start to feel the pinch.

Let me give an example. My brother lives with me in my home as do his two sons. My brother is unable to work and is trying to get disability (it's been tough too). Both the boys are in college, working, but their money goes to school stuff.

Basically the only reason they're not homeless is because of me. There are millions of people in the same position. Living with parents, siblings, other relatives and the only thing that keeps them from the street is the love of a family member and that family member being able to help them.

Well, my point is that inmigrants come to the USA and they find a job.

I was in the market the last week and telling an employee that there was not plastic bags in the Produce Dept. that I could bag my mangoes. The man even showing what I meant he told me that he could not understand. Why this job is not filled with younger people that are jobless?

Citygroup = Robert Rubin = the architect of the Marzipan economy of Bill Clinton.

Ahmed, perhaps one thing you could try to do is call your creditors and let them know your situation. I have been in really tight spots myself, even with the IRA.

One thing I can't say is that they didn't work with me. I was really surprised each time to have people on the other side of the phone willing to work with me. So don't think its just you;its you and me and everyone else around you.

I would check with social services and on the bills gas, elec. and utilities if things are tight they have payment plans set up so try them in your area. Don't think about it getting worse. Only makes for more stress.

10% interest is way too high. There are consoldation loans from sallie mae that are at about 5-6%. That will save you a lot of money.

I just did loan exit counseling. There are different payment plans available. You can ask for a needs based deferment or special plan based on your income. It's probably better not to wait.

Yep

I just did a deferrment and my payments were cut 30%. I only have about $6k left to pay but still it helped.

That would work almost as well as my entire 11th grade class answering 'C' on their final exams.

It sounds like the plot of a soap opera. :)