Goldman Explains Why The Job Loss Trend Is A Deterioration Not A Distortion, Asks If Maximum Welfare Now Is 198 Weeks

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
saulysw's picture

A business plan idea : Employ the long term unemployed for a month at low wages to reset the clock, and allow them to start claiming the 99 weeks again. Take a % of their new returns for this "service". Is there a reason this would not work?

Mad Max's picture

1) It's almost certainly illegal and probably violates a wide range of both state and federal laws.

2) In my state you must be continuously employed for a longer period (I think 6 months, but it might be only 3) before you are eligible, or again eligible, for unemployment.

3) The amount of unemployment pay is based on your wages at the most recent job, so this would decrease their unemployment pay for the next bout.

Having said all that, I'll bet it's already being done many places.

tmosley's picture

It is my understanding that the company that lays off a worker must pay for some portion of their unemployment.  As such, there is an incentive not to lay off workers unless absolutely necessary.

Johnny Bravo's picture

The company doesn't pay directly, they pay through FUTA and SUTA.  Companies that file claims have these rates increase for them.

They don't pay directly, but they do have to pay increased insurance rates if people use unemployment.  It's kind of like workman's comp in a way.

anony's picture

The only thing wrong with Goddamn Sux' question of Max U/employment is their refusal to recognize PERMANENT U/employment growing each day, month and year until New Work is invented or we finally recognize that Kurt Vonnegut was right 35 years ago.

Meanwhile subsistence payments will be printed for decades if not millennia to come.

JohnKing's picture

Take Goldman off of welfare. Why are they still a bank holding company?

Widowmaker's picture


Andrew Tilton is just another incompetent welfare queen trying to distract from his own fraud-attachment to the taxpayer mammary gland in the sky..

Goldman is going on what 90 something weeks of welfare?

Hey Andrew Tilton, do us a favor - shut the f**k up and quit.

Chemba's picture

LOL.  You are intellectually incapable of even reading, never mind understanding, Andrew Tilton's analysis.  Your bandwidth does not extend beyond populist nonsense, which is why you will never work at Goldman Sachs, or any other firm that requires an IQ larger than shoe size.

Oh, let me guess, you would "never work at Goldman Sachs, evil squid, blah blah blah,...".  Yeah, right, I'm sure you'd hang up if they called.

Widowmaker's picture

Ha ha, good ones! I didn't know Tilton's boyfriend was on ZH.

Personal attacks aside, you didn't refute my point.

Only in America are "second-chances" literally for sale through appropriate political "agents."


sgt_doom's picture

Gee, commenting on completely fraudulent data --- as anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together and regularly exames the BLS data realizes -- makes a shitload of sense, huh, Chemba dood?

They always use specific "qualifiers" when publishing the unemployment data: (1) available work force (meaning ever greater amounts of people are being excluded, i.e., the impoverished, the homeless - including the working homeless, those who have falled off the UI ranks, etc., and (2) those all-powerful and manipulative "adjustments" -- get the picture, dood?

sgt_doom's picture

+1000 to the Widowmaker.

And in the same thoughtful pattern:

Larry Summers says, "Women can't do science and the recession is over."

Economics question from the above data:

Who has more chins?  Thomas "three chins" Friedman, or Larry "the Hut" Summers?

Lord Blankcheck's picture

 GS is a Finacial Holding Co. Since sept. '09.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I guess I'll try.

Question: Why is GS still a Financial Holding Company?

Answer: Because it's still the fastest and most effective way for GS to suck "Mother Samantha's" milk from the government teat.

Got milk?

Eternal Student's picture

+1.  And don't just stop at Goldman.

gosh's picture

I personally know someone who lost their benefits a couple months ago due to the extended benefits not being extended, when they later were she accidently reapplied for the second time.  It took a couple months or so but eventually the govt found out.  This thesis that people are applying anew when they shouldnt isnt a theory, its fact.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Then shouldn't we be seeing a rapid spike instead of a slow melt-up in claims?

There were a lot of people who fell off the dole when Congress didn't extend the benefits for a 6th time. And then it was nearly two months before they finally did. So if these people went many many weeks without checks, it stands to reason they would have been first in line when the 6th extension went through, thus creating a huge spike if they were mis-filed as new and not extended. 

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

In other words, those who are trying to misattribute the surge in initial claims, and cast the economy in a rosier light, can only do so by blaming government error and inefficiency in reassigning existing claimants to initial status.

You know things are bad when all the kings horses and all the kings men are desperately trying to find a way to put an unemployed Humpty Dumpty back together again.


Republi-Ken's picture

I have a great idea:

Let's De-Regulate the Financial Industry, Wall Street, And The Banks, and then there will be no more unemployment...


viahj's picture

while you're in the cafeteria fighting over the last piece of stale cake, the real war is being waged against us all outside in the real world.

John McCloy's picture

I would think very few if any of the new claims are census. I am fairly certain a large number if the unemployed were angry when they found out that they were no longer eligible for benefits if they took a seasonal part time holiday job.
So this should mean census hires if they had additional weeks in benefits remaining would no longer be eligible unless and exception was made.

Chemba's picture

More facts, analysis, insight and ugly bearish truths from the excellent economics team at Goldman Sachs.

Another blow to the Goldman Sachs narrative.

I give ZH credit for utilizing Goldman's good research (they have crap research as well, like other firms) despite the fact that it makes the constant blathering of the Goldman Sachs narrative seem such populist crap.

Tyler Durden's picture

Where do you get your facts from? We have long claimed that Goldman is precisely the (Fed-backed) monopoly (and the spin off of prop trading which we first demanded long before most of America had heard of it is a small first step in confirming this) it is, due to its impeccable information arbitrage opportunities courtesy of being second to none in seeing the entire big picture OTC flow traffic before anyone else. Not to piggy back on it, via research and otherwise, would be stupid. Or we could keep the information, trade on it and not disseminate it, putting up one or two posts a day as we with slideshows. Yes, in the process we would lose all readers (which would also mean no place left for you to praise Goldman). The fact that Goldman may use this and any other information it has access to for less than sterling goals is a very warranted "narrative", feel free to ref: recent civil and criminal activity against the firm, and the abovementioned prop trading spin off.

Your logic is so flawed it is painful - not use Goldman, or someone else's research, just because there are issues with ethical conduct means not to present primary data so that others may form their secondary opinion? Are you serious?

You realize if you want to make a favorable impression with your constant brown-nosing of the firm you have picked the wrong blog - ZH continues to be blocked at 200 West.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You realize if you want to make a favorable impression with your constant brown-nosing of the firm you have picked the wrong blog - ZH continues to be blocked at 200 West.


ZH may continue to be blocked at 200 West but apparently brown noses are always welcome. Walk-ins are encouraged by waving security checks of purses and over-the-shoulder European man bags.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Screwball's picture

Man bags CD?  Tell me you don't carry a man bag. :-)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Wouldn't be caught dead with one. Not that there's anything wrong with them.

Sadly, I am beginning to show some man boobs. Does that count? :>)

chinaguy's picture

"not use Goldman, or someone else's research, just because there are issues with ethical conduct......."

My thoughts exactly. Wake up & smell the coffee.

Your family has your back, If you are lucky....everyone else would smoke you for a 50 BPs.

Chemba's picture

ZH claims that Goldman disseminates lies, half-truths and/or misleading opinions in order to benefit its proprietary book, to the detriment of its clients.  According to the narrative, Goldman expresses a firm view publicly, for its clients, that is contrary to its "real" firm view, and that the lies benefit Goldman.  OK, I see.

So then why would ZH post Goldman Sachs research as having any useful insights since it just "lies" and "manipulations"?  You would never be able to untangle the "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" embedded, so what is the point?

Is ZH pulling back from the narrative?  Is the narrative now limited to "unethical behavior" by certain trading desks?  Is it now the case that Goldman's various analysts actually share their real analysis, insights and conclusions w/o any concern for the firm's proprietary positions?  That it is just a few rogue traders or product structurings?

As to making a favorable impression with the firm, that was already accomplished long ago.

I am only pointing out the ridiculousness of elements of the narrative.

Otherwise, keep up the great work!

Tyler Durden's picture

If you are unable to untangle the "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" of the Goldman reports, don't read them. Otherwise do, for their obvious informational value. What you do with that information is up to you, especially as you keep in mind the track record of Goldman's sellside advice.

Chemba's picture

I don't need to untangle any "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" because it does not exist.

I accept Goldman Sachs research for what it is: one analyst's, or one desk's, or one group's (e.g. Econ) opinion, based on its analysis.  It is based on nothing other than that, and has nothing to do with what is happening on the other side of the wall(s).

Those opinions, like everyone else's, are sometimes right, often wrong.

The track record of Goldman's sell side research is like that of every other firm; spotty at best, usually chronically late.  There are structural reasons why sell side analysts are often wrong on their calls, including fact that the public nature of their calls and persona make them slow to change their views based on facts.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Yup, there's a Chinese wall built around every cubicle over at GS. And BoA and so on and so on.

They must be good because the exact same one over in China has lasted for hundreds of years.

caconhma's picture


Did you ever hold a meaningful employment at any mid- or large-size companies?

Nothing is ever leaving corporate walls without being reviewed and approved by at least your boss and a legal department. Anybody below a VP level "follows" the party line. Legally, any corporate employee is a "company representative".  Certainly, there is a "room to play" but it is within the company boundary.

In developing an intelligent judgement, you never ignore any info regardless of its source(s). Only analyzing the info, one takes into considerations the source(s) credibility and potential agenda. Finally, even a broken clock twice a day shows a perfectly correct time.

As for Goldman, their business success tells you that they have a quite good idea of what is going around.

VWbug's picture

but goldman is an evil squid and everyone who works for them is part of the matrix, and have chosen to be evil, so this whole analysis must be another disinformation game that is part of a much bigger plan to bankrupt the entire world and then rule over it like fuedal lords.

i would ignore it.

/sarcasm off

MichaelG's picture

I did think they were an archetypal example of the faults of our current economic system - not evil, just good at taking advantage of the invisible hand-on-the-scales - but in the face of your withering sarcasm I now realise they are simply doing God's work.

How's Johnny Bravo doing?

Cognitive Dissonance's picture


How's Johnny Bravo doing?

As best as I can tell, old JB's suffering from multiple (online) personality disorder.

VWbug's picture

i know it somehow helps you all to think only 1 person in the entire world thinks you are all depressed, socially dysfunctional, scared, envious incompetents, so i hate to burst your bubble, but i did see johnny b say something about inflation equalling growth or some such nonsense which i completely disagree with.

i am a good austrian you see.

Anyway, continue to call me a shill, a troll, another poster (as if that means anything, lol), but whatever you do, don't open your mind to the possibility you are just wrong.

hopium bitchez!

Johnny Bravo's picture

I know, right?

These people are all under the fantasy that they're so right that only one person in the entire world is capable of disagreeing with them.
It's kind of pathetic.

They think that because their opinions are the majority on a blog where everybody agrees with each other without much thought that the world works that way too.

There are plenty of people that find the claims of gold bugs ridiculous.  In fact, they're a fringe element as far as investing is concerned.

And now that gold got its 61.8 fib instead of its 50 fib, they think that "JB was oh so wrong."

It's funny.  They try to taunt you when you're off by like 1% or something, yet continue to pay 1300 bucks for an asset that is worth nearly 8% less.  (Oh, is it 7% less than you paid for it now?  Wow.  You're in the money!  You've only lost a year's worth of returns the minute you buy gold.  What a sound financial decision... )

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

JB, stop talking to yourself and fetch me a beer.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Now now JB, you know that's lemonade. But around the corner fudge is made. So pull your thumb out and help yourself just like you normally do on ZH. :>)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I wasn't talking to you VWbug. But since you seem to have self identified yourself with JB, I guess that's OK.

Johnny Bravo's picture

That's because anybody who is "against" gold is automatically accused of being me, regardless of whether that's actually even a realistic idea.

VWbug's picture

many people have called me johnny b, usually only when they run out of arguments.

i wish i was johnny b, it'd be nice to be young again, with a long, bright future ahead.

some advice johnny b: don't hang around here too much, these guys bring you down.

It's seriously depressing to read how everyone is against them, how the world doesn't make sense, how they can't wait to shoot and lynch people.

other than that, it's entertaining to see how their minds work.

Being the contrarian i am, they almost have me turned into a bull from a bear in 3 short weeks.

VWbug's picture

I wasn't talking to you VWbug. But since you seem to have self identified yourself with JB, I guess that's OK.

gee einstein, but the guy above you did make the insinuation, again, have a few comprehension problems do ya?

So tell me, does having the mind of a child come handy in your line of work?

please, please don't tell me you are some kind of psychologist, i couldn't get past more than 1 paragraph of the drivel you wrote, so i really don't know.

maybe a child psycholigist?

anyway, i guess zh is a good place for you to troll for clients.

traderjoe's picture

Why do you bother coming and posting then?

I visit different blogs for different perspectives from time to time. When I disagree with the central meme of the blog I usually don't post a comment. Do you really think you are going to convince ppl with your pithy comments?

JB- I'm so sick of your 8% premium comments. Absolute blather. I can buy large gold bars for 1% premiums, shipping included. The price quoted for spot is before processing, shipping, etc. No different then buying any other finished good at a retail price. And when you sell the coins back, you get most of the premium back. A 1-2% bid-asked spread is wide, but not absurd. I'll listen to another "gold is going down" argument, especially in a liquidation cascade, but the 8% reason is dumb. 

Johnny Bravo's picture

Also, a price goes up 3%, that is inflation.
Due to the price going up 3%, the company's revenue for that period grew 3%.

Inflation = growth.

How is that hard to understand for people?

Meridian's picture

When you are a paid shill do you get a lower rate for assuming an existing identity? Do only senior shills get to create new persona's?