Let’s take another look at the Seattle area’s employment situation.
First up, year-over-year job growth, broken down into a few relevant sectors:
Big gains for construction and manufacturing, both up seven percent. Retail slipped into the red slightly, but the other sectors we track are all still showing gains on the year.
Here’s a look at the overall Seattle area unemployment rate compared to the national rate:
The Seattle area is still outperforming Washington State and the nation as a whole, with September unemployment coming in at 7.6% for the US, 7.7% for Washington, and 7.0% for the Seattle area.
Still a ways to go until we get back to a strong local economy, but we continue to do better in Seattle than most other areas.
- Seattle Unemployment: Washington State Employment Security Department
- Washington & US Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Seasonally adjusted series used for all data sets.
00
Do you have access to data on the number of local jobs? Preferably going back to 2007?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The 1st and 3rd spike in unemployment occurred during brief periods when Democrats controlled the House and Senate the other spike was caused by an act of terrorism…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 2 – First, the 2001 recession was not caused by 9/11. It was caused by the collapse of the dot-com bubble. This collapse started in 2000 and by 2001 the recession was in full swing. Educate yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#The_bubble_bursts
Second, the early 1990s and most recent recessions were not caused by politicians that were in power as it happened. Recessions are a consequence of previous booms that take years to build up to. By the time these recessions hit, there was nothing any politician could do to stop it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It’s interesting to me that while Seattle have lower unemployment than the national average, Washington State overall is higher. Any ideas what is skewing the Washington State average so high?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Dave0 @ 3 – I noted that too, but I don’t remember who controlled Congress prior to 2000. If it was the Democrats, one fact pattern would explain all three situations (ignoring correlation does not prove causation).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Dave0 @ 4:
If I had to guess, probably unemployment is higher in more rural areas in every state than in their urban areas.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’m Sorry Tim
Anbody that still uses just U3 massaged unemployment data is not counting ‘em the way we did during the Great Depression, its “cooked books”. The U6 data is currently 14.7% [includes P/Ts and severely underemployed], while national U3 is down to 7.8%. Add in U4/U5 Giveups not counted anymore and all the decrease in U3 did was transfer them to the U6/U4/U5 groups or swept ‘em out of the BLS count altogether. If we counted ‘em like we did in the Great Depression 1930s the totals would likely triple, no one likes to talk honestly about it, it makes our country look 3rd world today. It reminds me of the way the DOW stocks are tracked, when a company makes the averages look bad, its simply removed from the DOW averages.
Yes we’ve added a few jobs, I agree with you there, but even your -20%+ pits you track in 2010 mean we’re still deep in a dodo pit from a couple years ago with measly 2-7% growth. What does BLS document for Seattle/Bellevue/Everett’s Total Employment Count the last 3 Years? Its clearly flat lined [no growth] at about 1.5M, albeit a huge spike down month to month in late 2012 to eat up any earlier year 2012 growth…check it out:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV53426406?data_tool=XGtable
When I see this BLS Total Labor count rise documented above 1.5M for Seattle/Bellevue/Everett, then we’ve really added jobs. Bear in mind too, if the Total Labor count isn’t rising as we simultaneously insource workers from abroad we are in dodo.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Dave0 @ 3 – What’s your degree in DaveO? mines in Mechanical Engineering. Do you have any education? Let me guess. You’re a democrat with a poly sci or communications degree….
Downturns are caused by lack of confidence… Check out the dates of Obamas 1st and 2nd debates with McCain… both debates happened the day before the 1st and 2nd largest drops in the history of the stock market…. just the prospect of getting that guy in office tanked the market…. get educated indeed…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 8 – My degree is in economics, and I’ve been an active investor in the stock market for 15 years. So I’m pretty confident in my knowledge of macroeconomics and financial markets. The timing of the presidential debates just happened to be during the worst recession in our lifetimes. Do you really think that the drop in the markets was due to what some politician said and not because Lehman Brothers or Washington Mutual had just become bankrupt? How ignorant are you? Did you even bother to click the link I provided?
I’m done debating with you. Clearly you are just a troll that doesn’t even care about following economic data like the jobs numbers posted here.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 8 –
LOL Corndogs
I also hold a BSME too, with my graduate NucE background.
Isn’t it funny how the non-engineers are quick to allege there’s a shortage of engineers, while we out sourced almost all the automotive engineering jobs out of America and basically closed down the engineers last hope, NASA. Hades, we don’t hardly make anything anymore in America, why does this country even need engineers anymore?
Then the non-engineers [liberals and conservatives BTW] bring in MASSES of insourced technicals to replace us and theoretically half the salaries of what remains of our scarce engineering job market. I’ll get down from the soap box, but if you aren’t an engineer, remember this, automotive engineering is a nation’s manufacturing backbone and guess what, we still have the best engineers in the world, right here in America. Our military proves it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 6 – I found a map of unemployment rates by county in August: https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/economic-reports/monthly-employment-report/map-of-county-unemployment-rates
Looks like what’s pulling the average up for Washington overall is mainly SW Washington (including Pierce Co.) and the Olympic Peninsula. Ferry and Stevens counties are pretty high, but I don’t think these would pull the average much considering the population is so low there.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 7 – To compare apples to apples, here are the low, high, and latest U3 unemployment rates during the last ten years:
* Low: 4.4% (Dec. 2006)
* High: 10.0% (Oct. 2009)
* Latest: 7.8% (Sep. 2012)
And here are the low, high, and latest U6 unemployment rates during the last ten years:
* Low: 7.9% (Dec. 2006)
* High: 17.2% (Oct. 2009)
* Latest: 14.7% (Sep. 2012)
One of the reasons that the U3 unemployment rate is the “official” unemployment rate is because it allows for comparisons between countries – it’s the measure used by many other nations. Personally, I’m happy that the United States at least gathers and makes available these different measures of unemployment.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 8 –
For that matter it seemed like the stock market always seemed to take a dive when George W Bush gave a speech. But economic reality and the stock market are not the same thing. If that were so, Obama would be a shoo in for re-election. The DJIA is up about 70% since he took office. If Obama were so bad for business, why would people be buying stocks?
I’m not defending the guy or suggesting that anybody vote for him, but it seems to me that the economy is going to go in a certain direction and whoever is President isn’t going to have all that much influence on it, but they’ll take credit if the economy is humming and get blamed if it’s crashing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Still hard to fathom why with an employment rate like that Washington real estate has been stuck at the top for so long.
Even with a jobs recovery, compared to the national average home price, your dollar would get you a lot less here.
I think California is going to drain this areas population dry the next five years, with better priced housing, better weather and infrastructure and job creation beginning to go gangbusters.
While we’ve got a lot of federally funded “infrastructure” projects pumping up construction, we’re really seeing the beginning of the end for Big Tech and that means you know who.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 5 –
If you call the rise of interest rates to 18% and the later decline of interest rates to 7% or less “political” then, yes the previous boom and subsequent bust was “political”. But the direct cause of the boom was interest rates drawing down from 18% to historically low rates. Also the wide acceptance of 2 wager earner families qualifying for the primary home mortgage.
Not sure what caused the end of the boom, but there was some chaos around Desert Storm. This of course being the boom and bust period of the 80s and early 90s. Not here in Seattle, but generally everywhere else. I think local employment changes altered the impact on the Seattle Area vs most of the Country at large at that time.
Does anyone know what years Microsoft and other local companies had their greatest number of new hirees?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Lo Ball Jones @ 14 –
CA draining our population because home prices are lower there for “big tec” job holders? WTF are you smoking? Have you seen home prices in San Fran lately? You did check the chart above, right? Looks to me like everything except retail is on a slow but steady growth path.
Seattle is indeed, at least for now, special.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 13 – “For that matter it seemed like the stock market always seemed to take a dive when George W Bush gave a speech.”
Give specifics…. I don’t think you can…. my claim is very specific Debate 1 and 2 equals 1st and 2nd largest declines in the history of the stock market…
“Obama would be a shoo in for re-election. The DJIA is up about 70% since he took office. If Obama were so bad for business, why would people be buying stocks?”
We’re not talking about the day he took office. We’re talking about the day investors said “wholly sheet that guys gonna be the president?” You don’t have to wait till inauguration to sell a stock…. The Dow Jones is still below where it was in 2007
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 16 –
There is more to California than a few square miles in downtown San Francisco…not that the coastal Libs would take note.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Dave0 @ 11 – That might be a historically low rate for Ferry County! I would have guessed it was higher.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Ira Sacharoff @ 13:
Because low interest rates make them fear holding bonds, despite the Fed’s attempts to keep rates low. Also, I hate it when the press uses this term, but “profit taking” in bonds. They not only want to lock in their gains on bonds, but also be taxed at pre-Obama tax increase tax rates. After they do that the money has to go somewhere. Low bond rates doesn’t make a new investment in bonds that attractive, even ignoring the risk of higher rates.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Lo Ball Jones @ 14:
What job creation? Silicon Valley is doing well, but I don’t recall any other major gains down there.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Dave0 @ 9 – “Do you really think that the drop in the markets was due to what some politician said and not because Lehman Brothers or Washington Mutual had just become bankrupt?”
It isn’t about what he said. It’s about him being a Democrat and being elected to office with a Democratic controlled House and Senate that was already in power for two years.
Lehman Brothers fell because it had a significant portion of it’s investments in housing-related assets, making it vulnerable to a downturn in the market. The downturn in the market coincides with Democratic control of the House and Senate beginning Jan 2007. Again…. lack of CONFIDENCE….. Yes, I absolutely think that the people who hold elected office play a role in determining the confidence of the American people.. We have a very fragile economy…. it is more a deck of cards now then it has ever been. At any point, even now, you can say prices are too high.. the key is to understand the triggers…
Democrats in the House and Senate caused the lack of confidence that collapsed the housing market….. this of course put pressure on Lehman as you stated… Obama showing his face on TV.. was the final trigger to collapse the market……
Your degree in economics is not difficult to obtain… so you lose the education contest… If you don’t understand what I just laid out for you, you aren’t much of an economist….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 13 – “whoever is President isn’t going to have all that much influence on it, but they’ll take credit if the economy is humming and get blamed if it’s crashing. ”
What is important is the composite of the entire body of government and the likelihood of legislation being passed that will do financial damage to the people holding the dollars… The trifecta of democrat house/senate/president is a very bad thing for people with money… for example we now have socialized health care, more regulations and a direct assault on people making more than $250K, very predictable outcome of the trifecta thus the blow to confidence preceding inauguration this time around…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 10 – “Isn’t it funny how the non-engineers are quick to allege there’s a shortage of engineers, while we out sourced almost all the automotive engineering jobs out of America and basically closed down the engineers last hope, NASA. Hades, we don’t hardly make anything anymore in America, why does this country even need engineers anymore?”
I’m a contract engineer for Aerospace… my MO is to take temp jobs without benefits in exchange for a higher rate of pay… I’ve been on my current assignment for almost 7 years and getting time and a half often times in excess of 70 hours…. so it does seem like there is a shortage of Aerospace Engineers. I’m not too worried about be replaced by techies… techies just cause inefficiency and confusion and drag the projects out longer…. Another contractor told me “confusion equals cash” he’s right.
They keep pushing diversity, and as we know from the book of Genesis, diversity is what God created to stop people from accomplishing great feats of engineering….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 22 –
The housing market is the broadest asset market in America. You’re saying that a majority of Americans voted in the Democrats, and then panicked for no other reason than that they got their wish??? And the first place that a general panic showed was in housing prices???
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 23 –
If looking to tax those making over $250K at a higher (or perhaps the same) rate as those making less than $250K constitutes a direct assault on those people, does not the Republican mirror image effort constitute a mirror image direct assault on the other 99% of the people?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 26:
Everyone is going to have to suffer some to get us out of this mess, but let me ask you this: How many people do you think make over $50,000 a year who work for a person or company making under $250,000 a year? Probably very few. And do you think paying more taxes will make the other employers (those making over $250,00 a year) hire more or less people?
Everything needs to be about jobs. That’s why I’ve proposed a different tax rate for those earning a living from W-2 income as opposed to 1099 income. Tax those earning more than $250,000 a year from W-2 income more, but not those with 1099 income. Any yes, I would tax 1099-Div and 1099-int income at the W-2 rates.
It can make some people feel real good to stick it to the rich, but actually sticking it to the rich can cost other people their jobs. Losing a job hurts a lot more than paying a few extra percent in tax.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Sheesh, I take a break from this nonsense and you bozos are still arguing about the red vs the blue team.
The election was over a year ago. How? Suppose your tell you kids they can have a stick of gum or a lolly pop. Is that democracy? You already decided what is acceptable to you, the grown up. It’s the same thing in politics. The wealthy corps decided who was going to get a billion $ and constant media attention. They win either way. Everybody else is effectively shut out.
This whole political reality TV show is just to let us kids think we have a vote. If you think both parties aren’t the same, look up Obama’s promises 4 years ago. He said everything Bush did was wrong, then changed nothing of consequence.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27 –
I think we know who’s working 1099, eh?
While I wouldn’t mind arguing tax policy with you sometime, my point today is considerably more narrow, and really focused on misleading rhetoric.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 29 – Assuming you mean me, I make well less than $250,000 a year.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 22 –
Unfortunately your educational elitism didn’t translate into an understanding of economics.
CitiGroup collapsed. Here’s an after the fact primer for you: http://www.globalresearch.ca/colossal-financial-collapse-the-truth-behind-the-citigroup-bank-nationalization/11117
This is the time line of the collapse: http://timeline.stlouisfed.org/pdf/CrisisTimeline.pdf
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 25 – “You’re saying that a majority of Americans voted in the Democrats, and then panicked for no other reason than that they got their wish??? And the first place that a general panic showed was in housing prices??? ”
If it weren’t for people making less than 30K, and brainwashed college students, there wouldn’t be enough votes for a viable Democratic party… These are not home owners…. by no stretch of the imagination do Democrats represent housing investors… the housing market tanked because of the investors who dumped their loads… who are these investors? Certainly not the bluntskulls who elected Barack Obama…. could it be those pesky 1%ers that want to keep their capital gains at 15%?…. your democratic friends are just the rats swimming away from the ship when it took on water.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 31 – Losh sit this one out… we don’t have time to wade through your nonsense…. let the smart people play for awhile
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 26 – “If looking to tax those making over $250K at a higher (or perhaps the same) rate as those making less than $250K constitutes a direct assault on those people, does not the Republican mirror image effort constitute a mirror image direct assault on the other 99% of the people? ”
Who ever defined the ‘rate’ at which you pay tax to be the bar of fairness?. I could argue that every person regardless of race or financial status should pay the exact same amount…. is that not an equally compelling concept of fairness?..
We already have a progressive tax code. In case you didn’t know you DO pay a higher rate at higher incomes…. The capital gains tax of 15% is not for rich people. This is a tax on investing your own money… money that you already paid taxes on when you first recieved it….It applies to all people who invest….. One could argue that it is not “fair” to pay taxes on your own money more than once.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 33 –
Economics are global. Wealth has no boundries on political persuasion. You will find wealthy people are both Democrats, and Republicans.
It’s infurating, I know, but each party has it’s own agenda when it comes to creating wealth. You could say that green energy is a new wealth builder. I think that’s a Democrat pork project.
As far as taxes being progressive, or paying taxes on money that has already been taxed? You need more money to play with to see how the game is played.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 35 – Nothing that you just posted has anything to do with what I’m talking about….. Regarding your previous post with the timeline of the housing collapse, your time line started in Feb 2007 which precisely supports my initial post that stated that the downturn coincided with the Democratic House/Senate beginning Jan 2007….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 –
You could also add to that inflation fears from interest rates being low, government borrowing being high and the Fed printing money through QE.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 36 –
It’s a global economic collapse, and the United States was slow to notice. CitiGroup began failing over seas, and the United States felt it couldn’t, or wouldn’t, happen here.
It has nothing to do with Democrats, or Republicans.
What we did here, our policies, were irrelevant.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Corndogs @ 32:
It’s a yes or no question. I don’t blame you for avoiding a direct answer. However, it doesn’t help that you now suggest that the housing market tanked because… the 1%’s were dumping their rental SFR’s??? That is simply, observably, and obviously wrong. The big tank in the housing market was owner occupants. That’s because they were losing their jobs. It was exacerbated by declining employment and tighter money leaving no one new to pick up the slack. It was shrinking households as kids didn’t leave, people doubled up, and a lot of immigrants went back to Mexico.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Corndogs @ 34:
You could argue that every person should pay the exact same amount, just as some could argue that every person should receive the exact same amount; but you would make yourself ridiculous to do so, which is why I presume you don’t do so directly.
Are you suggesting the SSI is progressive? Do people really pay higher income tax rates at higher incomes? How do you square that with Romney’s 14% rate? And that is before we get to the issue of playing with income recognition. Much income is never recognized, or recognized in non-taxable fashion – see Romney’s IRA, 1031 exchanges, and estate step up rules. Your views of finance seems much more informed by ideology than nuts and bolts knowledge.
Also, capital gains is a tax on new earnings, not on the money you already own. But since you bring it up, property taxes are a tax on an asset you already own. Why shouldn’t other financial assets have an asset tax too? Thanks for the idea.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 40 –
Oh, and getting back to the original point: If taking 20% of the money one is putting into a trust fund never to be used in one’s lifetime is tantamount to direct assault, how is taking realistic opportunity for education, access to healthcare, shelter, or even food from someone’s plate less so?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 41 – Please explain that better. I have no idea what you’re asking.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Well, the one takeaway I had from debate 2 was that I’d either get more of the policies of the last 4 years (disastrous interventionist bailouts, devaluing dollar, stagflation through fed intervention), or I’d get Romney. Who pointed out that he’d like to devalue the dollar to the point where American salaries are competitive with current Chinese ones. Where’s that emergency exit again?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: me @ 43 – Blame our primary system. The Dems didn’t run anyone against a President who had very high unemployment numbers, and the Republicans ran a bunch of extreme right wing nutcases (and Romney and Huntsman).
Given the character assassination that goes along with running for President, and then the secluded from reality lifestyle which follows if you’re successful, is it any wonder there aren’t very good candidates?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 42 – Thanks for asking. I was trying to amplify my earlier challenge to Corndog’s beef that raising taxes on the wealthy is a “direct assault”. I am here comparing the impact of taxes on people at the extremes. I am saying that it is one thing when the government relieves you of money you hoped to use for support of your unborn generational dynasty. It is a much more impactful thing when it means that you eat less or have difficulty securing decent shelter.
Consider someone starting out (or starting over) at minimum wage. What is that, $1600 per month? I don’t know how you would make it on that. Bit I do know that SSI, medicare, (SEP for a 1099′er) are very real taxes. After that, people at the bottom must then spend virtually everything on basic living expenses, of which many items are taxed again.
Who’s really taking it the shorts?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 40 – “Your views of finance seems much more informed by ideology than nuts and bolts knowledge.”
Let’s keep it simple, Mitt Romney paid A LOT of taxes, one man paid more federal income tax than the entire lower 50%. to look at the “rate” is idiocy and a fake bar of fairness. If you want the top 20% to keep paying 80% of the bill, you better structure the tax system in a way that will keep them in the game… or we’ll all be screwed.
“property taxes are a tax on an asset you already own. Why shouldn’t other financial assets have an asset tax too? ”
Apparently you don’t understand how to construct an argument and you don’t know what a fallacious argument is, like most democrats. Obviously, it does not logically follow that because we have taxes, therefore we should have more taxes..
“just as some could argue that every person should receive the exact same amount”
Another failing of the Liberal mind. A concept of equal distribution can only be predicated by an initial taking because the Government has no money to give. If the system involves 50% of people who do not contribute, there can not be equal distribution that would be fair by any measure.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 39 – “That is simply, observably, and obviously wrong. The big tank in the housing market was owner occupants.”
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2011/12/flip-this-house-investor-speculation-and-the-housing-bubble.html
“In this post, we present new findings from our recent New York Fed study that uses unique data to suggest that real estate “investors”—borrowers who use financial leverage in the form of mortgage credit to purchase multiple residential properties—played a previously unrecognized, but very important, role. These investors likely helped push prices up during 2004-06; but when prices turned down in early 2006, they defaulted in large numbers and thereby contributed importantly to the intensity of the housing cycle’s downward leg.”
That’s a little excerpt from the New York Fed. I forget, are you the guy that said he had a degree in economics? If you are, why don’t you quit listening to other dummies in your office and figure stuff out for yourself…. Investors contributed to the upsurge, the resulting sell off, and now more than ever they are buying in again…. If you don’t understand how housing had slowly converted to an investment commodity more and more in the last few decades, you’re never gonna be able to understand what’s going on….
I will reiterate, your lowlife home owners who walked away from their homes (often prematurely) are just rats leaving a ship… the have an affect but not the cause…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 41 – “how is taking realistic opportunity for education, access to healthcare, shelter, or even food from someone’s plate less so? ”
Once again, a failing of the liberal mind. Not giving somebody something that belongs to me, is not the same thing as taking something away from someone.
No one else on this planet has the right to recieve goods or services from another person. This started out as charity and has ended up as entitlement… it’s really a sickness of the mind….sorry to say friend..
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 45 – “Consider someone starting out (or starting over) at minimum wage. What is that, $1600 per month? I don’t know how you would make it on that. Bit I do know that SSI, medicare, (SEP for a 1099′er) are very real taxes. After that, people at the bottom must then spend virtually everything on basic living expenses, of which many items are taxed again.
Who’s really taking it the shorts? ”
It is the fear of being in this lowly state that serves to motivate people to success. Motivation is key to productivity, it’s what makes Capitalism work… There is no way in hell you have a degree in economics. By the way, no one is starving to death in this country… if you think they are show me the statistics. Fact is, the tell tale sign of low income is lack of physical movement, resulting in obesity,
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 38 – “It’s a global economic collapse, and the United States was slow to notice. CitiGroup began failing over seas, and the United States felt it couldn’t, or wouldn’t, happen here.
It has nothing to do with Democrats, or Republicans.
What we did here, our policies, were irrelevant.”
Nope, what’s been established here is that Lehmans going bankrupt was a big part of the downward pressure on the stock maket collapse… Lehman was heavily tied to housing assets which contributed to their collapse based on the housing market that tanked first…. the housing market tanked as investors started deciding to pull out of their holdings…. this coincides per your timeline on Feb 2007.. Dems took control of house and senate Jan 2007…. and the two biggest days that the market went down were immediately following debate 1 and 2 where Barack Obama was seen as the likely next President…. no one has shown anything to disprove that.. Same lack of confidence occured when Bill Clinton took office with the Democrat trifecta…. thus the midterm landslides going to the Republicans both times…. LACK OF CONFIDENCE… case closed.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 39 – “The big tank in the housing market was owner occupants. That’s because they were losing their jobs. ”
Looking at the unemployment charts here and comparing housing prices per case shiller… Seattle housing prices peaked in mid 2007, unemployment in King County remained below 5% until almost 2009. Given this information you are clearly and absolutely wrong…. you just got smoked. It was housing bust first, unemployment 2nd… facts are facts.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 50 – What a buffoon! Lehman was involved in doing criminal business for years and it finally caught up with them. Lack of confidence caused their demise? How about exposure, dunce?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 46 – Simple is appealing and a great way for people who care enough to learn the intricacies to manipulate the people who don’t. And the tax code has a lot of intricacies.
Redefining “taxes” to “income taxes” is pathetically transparent dishonesty.
Income taxes for the richest Americans are the lowest they’ve been in living history. You’re afraid you can’t keep them in the game at Clinton era rates? Ridiculous.
“property taxes are a tax on an asset you already own. Why shouldn’t other financial assets have an asset tax too? ”
Apparently you don’t understand how to construct an argument and you don’t know what a fallacious argument is, like most democrats. Obviously, it does not logically follow that because we have taxes, therefore we should have more taxes.”
It was your argument that people shouldn’t be taxed on assets they already own. I’m showing that that argument doesn’t hold true in the real world. You are showing that you are both incorrect and inconsistent. Boy do I feel like a dope?
“just as some could argue that every person should receive the exact same amount”
Another failing of the Liberal mind. A concept of equal distribution can only be predicated by an initial taking because the Government has no money to give. If the system involves 50% of people who do not contribute, there can not be equal distribution that would be fair by any measure.”
Yes, that was a reference to communism which I was stating as a position equally ridiculous to your implication of a universal dollar tax. I’m not the best writer, but I didn’t think the context there to be difficult.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 50 –
This is another laugh out loud moment for me, because your reasoning is so childish.
Finance is a world outside of politics. Following your reasoning we should forget about Worldcom, and Citigroup to focus on the housing sector exclusively.
It has nothing to do with housing, but everything to do with mortgages that were bundled, bought, sold, and traded. It turned out the face value of the mortgage far exceeded the value of the property. The price of property was inflated globally. China, Europe, Russia, South America, and my favorite Dubai, which is a city built on sand, all have properties priced far in excess of value.
Consumer confidence? Where do you come up with this stuff? Consumer confidence determines if you buy a car, or TV, but hardly creates economic collapse.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 47 –
Interesting article. If you will read their methodology, they have redefined investor to mean someone who owns two houses after the purchase is complete. Some of those were surely jr. investors. Many more were people who thought they had moved up to multiple homes. If you read your quote, these “investors” “contributed” to the downdraft AFTER prices moved down in “early 2006.” It is easy to forget that things in Seattle happened on a different timeline, but to revisit your original revelation: How did the election of 2007 create national investor fear starting in 2006?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs @ 49 –
So fear is the basis for our society? And of course, a lot of people have to be examples to keep the fear real. And you think we’re assaulting the rich?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Corndogs at 48
First off, you are misinterpreting what I said. I am not talking programs here. I am saying that taxing people (you know, taking) who make minimal income takes away resources that would go to these basic needs.
Second, are you saying that the rich don’t have the right to receive goods and services from another person? Would you include police services?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Corndogs @ 51:
Yes, facts are facts. I have conflated the pricing stall with the foreclosure boom where it should have been with the earlier stall in new employment. As others have said here, the hot market sold into future sales that couldn’t be sustained – I would add to that “especially with a declining economy”. (You know that employment is a lagging indicator, right?) Of course, as the article you posted earlier states, the national dynamic for that decline started in early 2006. So it seems your theory of investor fear from the subsequent election results is also clearly and absolutely wrong.
You have not only “smoked” me, but also yourself. Hopefully, a little listerine will make things better.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 45 – Thanks. Don’t forget both that the SS tax drops off at higher income levels, and doesn’t even apply to some types of income. You don’t pay SS tax on rental income or investment income.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Seattle is just lucky to have Amazon in town. Take away the (related) jobs added by Amazon, and you will see that there is nothing special/positive about Seattle employment situation in the past couple years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By David Losh @ 54:
Consumer confidence has been the go-to argument for austerity (read: cut taxes and eliminate/starve social programs) policies for the last 3 or 4 years. It’s worked really well in the UK, Spain, Portugal, and Greece… Confidence!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: WestSideBilly @ 61 – By David Losh @ 54:
RE: Corndogs @ 50 –
” Consumer confidence? Where do you come up with this stuff? Consumer confidence determines if you buy a car, or TV, but hardly creates economic collapse.
Consumer confidence has been the go-to argument for austerity (read: cut taxes and eliminate/starve social programs) policies for the last 3 or 4 years. It’s worked really well in the UK, Spain, Portugal, and Greece… Confidence!”
You’re both a couple of idiots. I didn’t say ‘consumer confidence”.. I’m talking about confidence of investors. Losh, your brain is mush
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 53 – You lost, thanks for playing
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 55 – “AFTER prices moved down in “early 2006.” Prices moved down in mid 2007 you lose.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By corndogs @ 64:
On the national scene, prices moved down in early 2006. Read your own article, dummy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By corndogs @ 63:
I guess if you can’t refute a single one of five points you can just declare yourself winner.
Run, Forrest, run.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: corndogs @ 62 –
Investor confidence? Where do you come up with this stuff?
You must mean when investors move money to safe havens then.
This is so childish I can’t believe I’m responding.
Lehman Brother was taken over in bankruptcy in October 2008, with it’s main client base retreating in 2007, over sub prime mortgages. OK, so what?
Sub prime mortgages had been condoned as investment quality for at least the previous five years back to 2003. So what?
Everything began to unravel in 2006, continued to rattle around Europe, and ended with us making banks too big to fail. The Investors did fine, and didn’t care who was elected, or what Congress does. The wheels were already in motion.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Lo Ball Jones @ 18 – yes, there is more to CA than their big, expensive coastal cities. Unfortunately, there aren’t many jobs to speak of in those other parts of CA.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 66 – Did you notice that after the 2nd debate, deemed to be an Obama victory the market dropped 300 pts?…… did you notice after the 3rd debate it dropped another 200?….. No better evidence of the truth than history repeating itself…… If Obama was sitting in a clear path to victory it would have tanked much further…… this beyond any realm of coincidence….. yes, you lose!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: corndogs @ 69 –
Really? Beyond the realm of coincidence? I would say two isolated data points are ENTIRELY within the realm of coincidence. In fact, if you actually look at the DJIA after the March 16th debate it, um, doesn’t move. For a few days. So you have ONE data point. Some pattern. I’m pretty sure the markets OVERREACT to important news, not underreact and take their time.
I could just as easily say that the DJIA was going up-up-up from June and October, along with Obama’s prospects.
Or I could be rational and plot the 538.com percentage chance of Obama winning against the DJIA, and see that they don’t have a dang thing to do with each other.
Maybe, just maybe, the DJIA dropped on the 23rd because of weak quarterly earning reports. Because that’s EXACTLY what happened, you dunce.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Doug @ 70 – It’s the difference between correlation and causation. There used to be patterns between the outcome of the election and football games. I really don’t think it’s likely one affects the other, but some of those went on for years, not just two days.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Doug @ 70 – look at first and 2nd debates 2008.. they coorespond to 1st and 2nd largest declines in stock market history… a day delay after the 2nd debate this year is reasonable considering the debate wasn’t a clear victory, it took a few days to sink in…. but the market is down 500 now in 8 days….. what makes it more amazing is I talked about it before it happened….. the odds of that are staggering… unless you understand the cause….which I do,.which is lack of confidence in a douche bag President
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Doug @ 70 – “I could just as easily say that the DJIA was going up-up-up from June and October, along with Obama’s prospects.
Or I could be rational and plot the 538.com percentage chance of Obama winning against the DJIA, and see that they don’t have a dang thing to do with each other. ”
No you couldn’t say that because nobody cares about that stuff. When an anticipated event occurs and is widely viewed, that matters. When a guy who looks like a black Alfred E Newman is on the big screen and his prospects change immediately in front of the whole country and the aftermath is reported in the media….. it makes a difference, an immediate difference…. what you’re talking about probably helps explains why the economy continues to suck in general and the market is still below 2007 levels.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: corndogs @ 69 –
Ah, Corndoggy; you brought me a present. I see Doug and Kary have already opened it. They found the most ridiculous statistical invalidity ever, the faulty data point (out of 2 mind you), the cherry picking, the post hoc ergo prompter hoc. But look; they left the inconsistency for me.
Remember, you started this meme with the idea that the housing market tanked because the Dems took the house in 2006. (And never mind that housing started to go down first). But now you switch horses to the DJIA. I suppose you would have to do so since the housing market thing doesn’t support your meme then or now. But just for consistency don’t we need to go back to look at DJIA at election time 2006 and after? Oh, shucks. It went up. In fact in went up from 12,156 on election day to 12,565 by office taking time, and to 12,919 by April 20, 1997.
Ah, but you’ll always have 2008. Well, while you were wetting your pants about the debates, people of a financial bent were worried about the bond market freezing up as some of Wall Street’s major players were collapsing. I suppose they have no sense of proportion. Or I guess we can add history to economics, finance, and statistics as areas where you are totally unknowledgeable.
Rate this comment:
0 
0