« Tuesday Blogwrap Supreme Court Weighs House of Detention Re-Opening »

January 7, 2009

Wednesday Links

70-Washington-Dumbo-0109.jpg
State’s Unemployment System Buckles Under Demand [NY Times]
In Fed Rate Cut, Fears of Long Recession [NY Times]
6% of City Workers Make $100K a Year [NY Post]
Two NJ Nets Dancers Move to Brookyln [NY Post]
Community Board Budget Cuts to Hit Hard [NY Post]
Outbreak Closes Brooklyn Animal Shelter [NYDN]
Real Estate Market Sees Significant Drop [NY1]
Dime Opens New Branch on Montague [CNN]




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:29 AM | Comments (18)
Categories: Daily Links

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7857

Comments

State’s Unemployment System Buckles Under Demand

Wow I was going to blast this one! And the Asshats still believe that NYC Real Estate market will be OK???!!

"In Fed Rate Cut, Fears of Long Recession "

Read this..

Fed Fears Long Recession by CalculatedRisk

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/fed-fears-long-recession.html

Here is the "Oh No" taken from the FOMC minutes..

"Real GDP was projected to decline for 2009 as a whole and to rise at a pace slightly above the rate of potential growth in 2010. Amid the weaker outlook for economic activity over the next year, the unemployment rate was likely to rise significantly into 2010, to a level higher than projected at the time of the October 28-29 FOMC meeting. The disinflationary effects of increased slack in resource utilization, diminished pressures from energy and materials prices, declines in import prices, and further moderate reductions in inflation expectations caused the staff to reduce its forecast for both core and overall PCE inflation."

Wave Buh bye..

Can we acknowledge the collapse of the Mutant Asset Bubble now??!! How long the Asshat holdout will go on??!! The data is coming in real bad and when Obama takes the reins, he is going to find all the dead bodies buried in the White House...

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at January 7, 2009 9:03 AM

Does the What believe he's the only one who reads the news???? When you spend your whole life getting your news from blogs you become like those Target employees What...pretty much useless.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 7, 2009 9:19 AM

"Real GDP was projected to decline for 2009 as a whole and to rise at a pace slightly above the rate of potential growth in 2010. Amid the weaker outlook for economic activity over the next year, the unemployment rate was likely to rise significantly into 2010, to a level higher than projected at the time of the October 28-29 FOMC meeting. The disinflationary effects of increased slack in resource utilization, diminished pressures from energy and materials prices, declines in import prices, and further moderate reductions in inflation expectations caused the staff to reduce its forecast for both core and overall PCE inflation."

It's clear from your comments that you don't actually understand this statement.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 7, 2009 9:30 AM

Dave, you're right but since the Fed pretty much got it all wrong up to now the conclusion is probably correct.

Posted by: jawbreaker at January 7, 2009 9:37 AM

jawbreaker.....its the inflation/disinflation/deflation thing that's the hardest to call right now. At some point, maybe not until 2010, we will return to an inverted yield curve with short term rates going way up. But I think that short term rates are still likely to decline from here.

The problem is now that the Fed is trying to push rates down further but everyone who bought into Treasuries for safety is now selling them (which pushes rates up) to put the money back into the stock market. The stock market is THE leading indicator and it's lately been looking like it wants to discount a stronger economy in 6-9 months. The GDP numbers will turn back positive as quickly as they tuened down

The push-pull on the treasury market that I alluded to above is where the volatility will now reside.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 7, 2009 9:43 AM

You may be a market professional and are hopefully right - it would be nice to think that both the approach of supercharging the money suppy and a massive government spend will fix the problem, but it seems far from clear yet. And then there the danger of not damping down in time if we overcorrect. An economist's wet dream to be testing the last century's worth of economic theory in the real world.

Posted by: jawbreaker at January 7, 2009 9:53 AM

Please don't call me a "market professional." I never want to be that wrong about things!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 7, 2009 9:57 AM

lol @ only 6 % of city workers making over 100K a year. stick it to the people who are always yapping that most people in nyc make well over 100K a year and if you dont you should move to jersey and stuff. just because maybe you and your expensive cocktail buddies make over 100K a year doesnt mean most of the city does. tho, when they say city workiers do they mean people who work for the city? if so then ignore my previous rant.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 7, 2009 10:01 AM

yes rob, municipal employees.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 7, 2009 10:06 AM

That story about the Nets Dancers may appear on the NY Post web site, but it's from the Post's weekly subsidiary, the Courier-Life chain (see yournabe.com).

It's kind of a funny story:
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2009/01/slow-news-leads-to-front-page-treatment.html

Posted by: NormanOder at January 7, 2009 10:27 AM

6% of municipal employees stil isn't alot...especially when you consider that most of those are concentrated in a handful of agencies and it takes years for most people to reach those salaries on the municipal pay scale (unless you're well connected).

Disclosure: former City employee.

Posted by: BrookLynn at January 7, 2009 11:23 AM

Rob:
Per 2007 census figures only 15 percent of NYC households earn $100,000 or more. I'm guessing the percentage of all New Yorkers who earn that much is about 10%.

Posted by: greenwood at January 7, 2009 11:33 AM

Only 15 percent of all NYC households earn $100,000 or more? Then how in the world is it possible that all of Manhattan, half of Brooklyn, and some of Staten Island consists of housing only affordable by the 15 percent? Don't tell me 85 percent of the population lives in the Bronx or Queens.

Or are they not counting the independently wealthy and Europeans?

Posted by: mopar at January 7, 2009 1:17 PM

The numbers are correct, although they wouldn't account for trustafarians and, I assume, wealthy foreigners. And more tellingly, the median household income is about $49,000. How is all the ridiculously priced real estate in this city sustainable? I've been trying to figure that out for years...

Posted by: greenwood at January 7, 2009 2:24 PM

this should be something people can understand. we are looking at the most expansive monetary (and soon to be fiscal as well) set of actions in our lifetime. if you are not getting into inflation correlated assets right now (stocks, commodities, real estate) you are going to get left behind in a horrible way. now is not the time to let What-esque rants scare you away. once the economy visibly bounces it will be way too late for you.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 7, 2009 3:19 PM

Greenwood, wait a sec, I have always heard $70,000 is the median household income in NYC, which actually makes perfect sense and does explain the crazy prices. NYC is full of wealthy people.

Posted by: mopar at January 7, 2009 11:08 PM

Mopar,
Nope, $48,631 for 2007. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/life-or-something-it-city-s-median-income.
There are a lot of wealthy people, but not nearly as many as you would think. I don't have the exact figures (easy enough to Google), but only about 2.5% of NYC households make over $200,000 a year.

Posted by: greenwood at January 8, 2009 9:33 AM

That is totally mystifying. Wonder if different organizations come up with different medians. I thought mine was based on tax numbers.

Posted by: mopar at January 8, 2009 12:56 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions