- Joined
- Oct 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 308
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes...you did.
Fine.2016 was a long time ago.
And despite 'all this'?But going into the end of 2021 the economy is objectively pretty great. There's 4% unemployment. Employers cannot hire enough people fast enough. It's the easiest environment in the last couple of decades to get a job. Consumption is up, demand is up, wages are up, stocks are up.
We're seeing big increases in spending power among the lower income groups. Hence inflation. No matter how much money rich people get, they aren't going to go clean out a Walmart. Part of that is supply interruptions, but a good part of that is just increased consumption. People in the lower income groups are doing better.
They can’t find a job because they’re not looking for a job. The unemployment rate is the percent of available labor not being used. People not trying to work couldn’t be hired even if there were jobs for them, so they tell us nothing about how relatively easy or difficult it is to find work.And the U-3?
Means nothing.
It does not count unemployed people who gave up looking for work.Unemployment Rate: A Hoax – Battle For Truth
The government was telling us and the media was reporting the unemployment rate has diminished. However, how can we account for the millions of Americans who have just stopped searching for work and have ceased collecting unemployment entirely? These individuals aren’t on the estimate when...www.battlefortruth.org
Which is nonsense as they are still unemployed...they just cannot find a job.
Ok, the E/P ratio is currently 58.8% (of those in the US excluding children under 16, active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health facilities)The Employment-population ratio is what you should be watching.
And you were wrong then, too.And I said the SAME thing when Trump was in power.
In the US the captains of capital decided to leverage it as a eugenic cleansing exercise once they knew they could no longer deny it was a thing, which they did at first as the substantial people rearranged their stock portfolios.How do you think the management of the pandemic was wrong?
I do as well.
But I am just wondering in what way you think it was wrong.
(I promise I will tell you what I think if you tell me)
Increases in american worker productivity and pay/wages/reward/compensation were divorced one from the other in the 1970's. And the captains of capital never looked back. I find it hilarious hearing the "job creators" moan about no one wanting to work anymore.Fine.
This link shows that the middle class (50'th-99'th percentile) have a lower percentage of America's total wealth now then they did in 2016.
So if anything - it has gotten worse.
And despite 'all this'?
The wealth gap keeps growing, consumer confidence keeps falling,
tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confidence
Plus personal consumer debt last quarter was a record and the economy - despite TRILLIONS of dollars thrown at it - has averaged well under 3% Real GDP since the Great Recession.
And the equity rise?
Benefits the wealthy almost entirely (hence the lower classes losing ground in the wealth gap).
The national debt has exploded and inflation is the highest in a generation.
And the U-3?
Means nothing.
It does not count unemployed people who gave up looking for work.Unemployment Rate: A Hoax – Battle For Truth
The government was telling us and the media was reporting the unemployment rate has diminished. However, how can we account for the millions of Americans who have just stopped searching for work and have ceased collecting unemployment entirely? These individuals aren’t on the estimate when...www.battlefortruth.org
Which is nonsense as they are still unemployed...they just cannot find a job.
The Employment-population ratio is what you should be watching.
And I said the SAME thing when Trump was in power.
The economy IS FANTASTIC for the wealthy.
Lousy for almost everyone else.
Wow?They can’t find a job because they’re not looking for a job. The unemployment rate is the percent of available labor not being used. People not trying to work couldn’t be hired even if there were jobs for them, so they tell us nothing about how relatively easy or difficult it is to find work.
The BLS added for people whom 'Do not want a job now':Ok, the E/P ratio is currently 58.8% (of those in the US excluding children under 16, active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health facilities)
So that’s 41.2% of those theoretically free to work who are not working. Except 36% of the population do not want a job.
So?So that’s no help in evaluating the job market.
Wrong.And you were wrong then, too.
Nope. You're trying to play gotcha. It won't work.Yes...you did.
The first quarter had annualized growth of more than 20%.'Asset valuation levels grew by 20% in the first quarter of 2021 alone:'
Oh for Goodness sake...Nope. You're trying to play gotcha. It won't work.
The first quarter had annualized growth of more than 20%.
You don't want to have a discussion. Pedantic bullshit is the best you have to offer.
This is why you lose the gotcha game:Oh for Goodness sake...
In Q4 2020 - the Total Assets were $147.8 (trillion).
In Q1 2021 - the Total Assets were $153.1 (trillion).
That is a rise of $4.3 (trillion).
That is 2.9%.
You are right in that I did my quick math wrong.This is why you lose the gotcha game:
Go hump some someone else's leg.
I don't care. Go hump someone else's leg. You're not worth any more of my time.You are right in that I did my quick math wrong.
Sorry.
I doubt that.I don't care.
Wow. Let me rephrase, so you can understand what I actually said, and then apologize to me.Wow?
What an insult you just laid on all discouraged workers.
There are a near, infinite number of reasons why discouraged workers gave up looking.
Not just because they 'couldn't be hired'.
I’m not following your logic. Passive job searchers (those whose job search could not result in actually getting a job) are not in the labor force but it is assumed that they do want a job, which is why they’re not asked. I don’t know what you mean by “added” or which statistic you think is inaccurate because of that.The BLS added for people whom 'Do not want a job now':
'Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job, such as passive jobseekers.'
So the stat is useless as we have no idea how accurate it is.
I did NOT say the employment-population was entirely useless, I said it was no help in looking at the LABOR MARKET. The E/P ratio tells us what percent of the population is economically active and supporting the rest of the population. That is useful, especially in conjunction with stats specifically about the job market. But it doesn’t tell us about people succeeding or failing to find work, because it doesn’t tell us how many want or are able to work.So?
You are calling the Employment-Population Ratio 'no help in evaluating the job market'?
You just proved that you do not know what you are talking about on this.
Every economist (should) know that NO consistently, tabulated statistic offers 'no help'.
First you insult tens of millions of American 'discouraged workers' by that smart ass remark of yours.
if you had a decent amount of integrity? You would apologize to all American Discouraged Workers for that EXTREMELY, insensitive and derogatory comment. But I am guessing you won't)
Just the truth. The economy sucks, Biden sucks, and the people who voted for him are the one's we have to thank.why do you think you can make shit up and get away with it? Do you actually think you can lie about the economy, inflation and every other moronic thing you posted, and nobody will notice?
Just the truth. The economy sucks, Biden sucks, and the people who voted for him are the one's we have to thank.
How do you not get embarrassed when you post such moronic and demonstrably incorrect shit?
Not spending $6T trying to buy votes.
So you admit its buying votes. Progress.Not accepting your $6T figure, but better spending money to buy votes that goes to helping the middle class and those with less than spending money to buy big $ donors and help the uppermost class and large corps make more money than they need to further accumulate wealth without them lifting a finger for it, except for future donation.
When will liberals understand that denying the truth does not change the facts? But then again, if they could distinguish reality from fantacy, they would not be headuptheirass liberals...How do you not get embarrassed when you post such moronic and demonstrably incorrect shit?
I’m not following your logic. Passive job searchers (those whose job search could not result in actually getting a job) are not in the labor force but it is assumed that they do want a job, which is why they’re not asked. I don’t know what you mean by “added” or which statistic you think is inaccurate because of that.
I did NOT say the employment-population was entirely useless, I said it was no help in looking at the LABOR MARKET. The E/P ratio tells us what percent of the population is economically active and supporting the rest of the population. That is useful, especially in conjunction with stats specifically about the job market. But it doesn’t tell us about people succeeding or failing to find work, because it doesn’t tell us how many want or are able to work.
Go back to the 1950’s when the economy was booming and note that the employment/population ratio was a lot lower than it was during any of the recessions from the 1970’s on, even though the economy was better.
As previously explained, no, I did not. And there are only 450,000 discouraged workers
If you had any integrity, you wouldn’t have deliberately exaggerated the number of discouraged workers by orders of magnitude and you wou would apologize for insulting me over your misunderstanding of my words.
So, your theory is that people have too much money? Supply shortages played no part?Because they went around bank lending and gave it away. Stimulus checks?
Your statement lacks a grasp on reality and therefore lacks merit.
Demand was higher than supply BEFORE the shortages. Spending way up, I believe I linked a graph earlier.So, your theory is that people have too much money? Supply shortages played no part?
You're missing the point:Demand was higher than supply BEFORE the shortages. Spending way up, I believe I linked a graph earlier.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?