<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://clantilyscad.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[scandalousmuffin]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://clantilyscad.com/author/scandalousmuffin/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Unemployment Prediction a Year Ago, Flashback to August&nbsp;2009]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>[May 2011 update:  Well, fuck.  8.7%.  This blows.  Nate Silver fail.]</p>
<p>I remember reading a post from Nate Silver a year ago about the relationships between recessions and unemployment.  No doubt Nate is a statistical genius.  He predicted the 2008 election 49 out of 50 states, a popular vote within 1%.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m totally going to steal a chart and bandwidth from 538 now.  From:  <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/why-unemployment-probably-wont-hit-10.html">http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/why-unemployment-probably-wont-hit-10.html</a></p>
<p><img class="alignnone" title="payroll" src="https://i2.wp.com/www.538host.com/payroll4.PNG" alt="" width="457" height="365" /></p>
<blockquote><p>People do not jump right back into the labor force the moment a recession is over. Oftentimes, indeed, they can’t, because they’ve made somewhat long-term commitments – good luck ditching the army because the local bank is having a hiring fair back at home in Topeka. These effects are fairly strongly lagged, probably by at least 3-9 months, and usually occur only once the jobs picture has gotten to the point where it’s <em>actually pretty darn good</em> – not just when it’s merely improving. Where we’ll see these effects is in, say, January of 2011, when the employment rate might not budge much even if a couple hundred thousand new jobs are created. But the unemployment rate should already be safely clear of 10 percent long before that&#8230; By the way, this model is decidedly more optimistic about the velocity of the jobs recovery than are <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/page/economic-forecasting.html">most mainstream observers</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here&#8217;s a monthly interactive unemployment map.  <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27913794/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27913794/</a> While some states have notably surpassed 10%, the &#8220;national average&#8221; has not peaked 10% as of May.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know what math MSNBC used for that &#8220;national average&#8221; (probably by adding all the state averages and dividing them by 50 or something like that), but the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm&amp;sa=D&amp;usg=AFQjCNEVYU5erSsGWyZe2rPSNQ7DnGzIwg">U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> shows something a little less rosy:  <a href="http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&amp;met=unemployment_rate&amp;tdim=true&amp;dl=en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=current+unemployment+rate">http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&amp;met=unemployment_rate&amp;tdim=true&amp;dl=en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=current+unemployment+rate</a></p>
<p>Looks like Nate made the wrong call on this one.  Unemployment <em>did </em>pass 10% briefly for three months. 10.6% in January.  10.4% in February.  10.2% in March.  Looks like unemployment is about 1% higher than Nate predicted.  It&#8217;s currently 9.6%</p>
<p>I still have some faith in Nate.  My totally amateur and unprofessional prediction is that unemployment should be better by January 2011 and on a significant decline.  I&#8217;ll say 7.5%.  GDP is currently up a bit and it makes sense to me that unemployment rates should respond to that in 6-9 months.  I reserve the right to amend this number in 2 months depending on how the trends are looking.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re going to have a double dip. But I did believe <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html">Paul Krugman </a>in early 2009 when he said the stimulus was the size below what was needed for good Keyensian effect and that the economy was going to sputter along for 2 years.  His prediction seems to be coming true.  What this means for the 2012 elections, I&#8217;m not sure yet.</p>
<p>Andrew Sullivan shows GDP decline and growth over the last several quarters and a rundown of various persons&#8217; analyses<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/24-gdp-reax.html"> here.</a></p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i2.wp.com/www.538host.com/payroll4.PNG?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>