NO Henny Penny, there is no impending depression

[chance1]

I was just waiting for this one... the economy is not good because... you say so? You've been listening to too much of Palin. So what does she have to say on this matter? Yeah, I guess your personal perspective is so enlightening. I talk to people too and they say otherwise.

And BP can post as he please.
And to answer my own prior question, no this is NOT a jobless recovery. Anyone who says it is quite mistaken!

Don't get ur panties all twisted
Travel for biz a lot - i can list them if u likey
I talk to cabbies, hotel employees, people who work at the companies I visit
I see I hear
And yes BP can do what he likes

And I can ask him to stop big footing his own thread

 

[BostonPirate]

Dude I have been shopping like a triple expresso, tiny dog, botox, suburban housewife (on my own money) for a long freakin time and I am used to the sales. I have seen many a cycle in the last 20 years. As I said never so huge a break.

I think we have one more correction coming on a grand scale. Too many foreclosures are still not finalized. Tons of property sits empty. Cheesy ass jobs arent around so those figures wont change much.

It needs a tipper in one direction or another. It will either be positive with innovation which has always spawned our past or negative with something failing huge on a world scale. not us necessarily but we will feel the roll.

As far as consumerism goes the donkeys have it ...sorta.... since the confidence factor is rising for the last two years. only dropping significantly corresponding to the Arab Spring which jacked oil.

<!--CHART BEGIN--><iframe src='http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iframe/chart.aspx?url=/united-states/consumer-confidence' height='420' width='700' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe><br />Source: <a href='http://www.tradingeconomics.com/?source=iframe' target='_blank'>tradingeconomics.com</a><br /><!--CHART END-->


I think right now it is still anyones ballgame.

the new foreclosure regs require that banks wait to officially foreclose for up to three years in some instances.

I believe it was done to scatter the damage over a long time instead of letting it hit all at once and cause real estate to depreciate entirely.

You are right though... we will not see the end of this wave of foreclosures for years.

 

[JB3]

if it ships in july/august then they need to sell it in june/july to make space... right?

what month is it?

Nope. They don't start clearing it out until the beginning of July. Right now they're in the middle of stocking up for father's day. (and by ship, I mean, to the stores, not to customers. They don't stock it on the floor until the beginning of August)

 

[JB3]

Obama Created More Jobs in 2010 than Bush Did in 8 Years

http://ecopolitology.org/2011/01/12/obama-created-more-jobs-in-2010-than-bush-did-in-8-years/

Your inability to understand what question to ask shows your complete lack of understanding of the employment issue here.

I'm not arguing that he hasn't created jobs. I'm arguing that the jobs that have been created are not remotely enough to matter. So yes, this is a jobless recovery.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm not arguing that he hasn't created jobs. I'm arguing that the jobs that have been created are not remotely enough to matter. So yes, this is a jobless recovery.

what does Jobless mean then?

we have a recovery that created more jobs in one year than in the 8 before it, yet you say its jobless.

 

[BostonPirate]

Nope. They don't start clearing it out until the beginning of July. Right now they're in the middle of stocking up for father's day. (and by ship, I mean, to the stores, not to customers. They don't stock it on the floor until the beginning of August)

.

So the summer clearance period of retail lasts two weeks?

 

[JB3]

what does Jobless mean then?

we have a recovery that created more jobs in one year than in the 8 before it, yet you say its jobless.

The economy has to create over 200,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Adding anything less than that is irrelevant. Its like treading water or a car sitting idle just spinning its tires. So yes, in every sense of the word it is jobless.

 

[foodandart]

...And to answer my own prior question, no this is NOT a jobless recovery. Anyone who says it is quite mistaken!

You're still in school, I see.

Hm. Hang on to that hope kid.

I suppose there's worse things to be than an optimist!

 

[JB3]

.

So the summer clearance period of retail lasts two weeks?

The Summer clearance doesn't happen until Fall. The Spring clearance already happened. (ended at the end of April)

Right now retail is actually in a rare in-between period between the end of the Spring clearance and the beginning of the Summer clearance. (that starts at the same time as back to school)

 

[BostonPirate]

The economy has to create over 200,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Adding anything less than that is irrelevant. Its like treading water or a car sitting idle just spinning its tires. So yes, in every sense of the word it is jobless.

but you just said that it had to add 200,000 just to break even.

so how can that be jobless?

come along here with me, buddy....

next step....

Growth of the job market has to outpace the the growth of the need for jobs, or the economic expansion, so that means that.,...

the economy is growing, not receding or depressing.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not arguing that he hasn't created jobs. I'm arguing that the jobs that have been created are not remotely enough to matter. So yes, this is a jobless recovery.

Okay, you guys are operating on different definitions: one's using an accountant's definition, the other a politician's.

Actually, a politician uses whichever definition helps him out at any particular moment, so that wasn't fair.


It would be helpful if we had a set of definitions here. We'd need to define unemployment, for starters, and then a few other things. For the moment, we have jobless(BP) and jobless(JB3), which are "no new jobs at all" and "not enough new jobs to keep up with population growth", respectively.

jobless(BP), it's plainly not a jobless recovery. The other way... I think it;s arguable.


BTW, does anyone know if the CCC was axed by Congress, or just let die?

 

[foodandart]

but you just said that it had to add 200,000 just to break even.

so how can that be jobless?

come along here with me, buddy....

next step....

Growth of the job market has to outpace the the growth of the need for jobs, or the economic expansion, so that means that.,...

the economy is growing, not receding or depressing.

Yup. There's 50-thousand or so, new McJobs that count in the plusses column. Growth galore. We should all be dancing on streets paved with gold, right about this time next year.

 

[BostonPirate]

Yup. There's 50-thousand or so, new McJobs that count in the plusses column. Growth galore. We should all be dancing on streets paved with gold, right about this time next year.

tell ya what buddy

call your congressman and ask him where the jobs are. Remember back before the 2010 election when old Boner said he knew how to create jobs?

Where are the jobs he created?

The economy receded during the bush presidency for eight years. Jobs bled out of the nation and now we have to make more because once they go, THEY GO.

That means things cost more and people get paid less.

If you have a hard time understanding what that means then you ought to stop embarrassing yourself here.

 

[JB3]

but you just said that it had to add 200,000 just to break even.

so how can that be jobless?

come along here with me, buddy....

next step....

Growth of the job market has to outpace the the growth of the need for jobs, or the economic expansion, so that means that.,...

the economy is growing, not receding or depressing.

For all intents and purposes the economy is spinning its wheels. If it isn't adding those 200,000, it actually falls FURTHER behind because the next month it has to add more to keep up. That's why its jobless; the number of jobs that ARE being added don't matter. It isn't enough to make any difference and support any gains in any other areas.

 

[BostonPirate]

For all intents and purposes the economy is spinning its wheels. If it isn't adding those 200,000, it actually falls FURTHER behind because the next month it has to add more to keep up. That's why its jobless; the number of jobs that ARE being added don't matter. It isn't enough to make any difference and support any gains in any other areas.

So you're saying the economy is expanding faster than the job market can keep pace with?

 

[JB3]

Unemployment has been more or less declining, job growth has been more than sufficient... but I guess this is a jobless recovery... donchaknow?

Unemployment hasn't been declining. One of the great criticisms of how unemployment numbers are compiled is that they don't take into account those that have stopped looking. If those were included unemployment would be much, much higher. (I believe the last figure was 20% or so.)

 

[JB3]

So you're saying the economy is expanding faster than the job market can keep pace with?

No. That 200,000 is a baseline figure regardless of how the rest of the economy is doing. The economy could be stagnant (which it is) and it would still need to add 200,000 jobs to keep the employment rate where it is from one month to the next.

BTW: I missed ya BP. Its good to have someone to debate that knows what they're talking about.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unemployment hasn't been declining. One of the great criticisms of how unemployment numbers are compiled is that they don't take into account those that have stopped looking. If those were included unemployment would be much, much higher. (I believe the last figure was 20% or so.

It's between 16% and 18% now, and wildly variable between regions.

You two are arguing over the value of a point on a curve and the slope of the curve at that point. Try using the definitions I gave -- I'll even abbreviate them:

JL(BP) = no new jobs at all
JL(JB3) = not enough jobs to keep ahead of the number of new workers

 

[BostonPirate]

Unemployment hasn't been declining. One of the great criticisms of how unemployment numbers are compiled is that they don't take into account those that have stopped looking. If those were included unemployment would be much, much higher. (I believe the last figure was 20% or so.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/unemployment-rate-rises-to-9-0-but-economy-adds-244000-jobs/

 

[BostonPirate]

No. That 200,000 is a baseline figure regardless of how the rest of the economy is doing. The economy could be stagnant (which it is) and it would still need to add 200,000 jobs to keep the employment rate where it is from one month to the next.

BTW: I missed ya BP. Its good to have someone to debate that knows what they're talking about.

thanks

ok so we are back where we started then... IF the economy is stagnant then the unemployment rate would be rising. IF the unemployment rate is not rising even though its adding jobs then theres an expansion happening.

Hence the title of the thread....

There is NO impending depression. There is no impending recession.

There IS a severe manufacturing issue. America has to make stuff or it wont grow jobs and it wont see an improved consumer confidence. The working class fuel the economy, not the rich.

The working class need more cash to make the whole thing work better, and that wont happen as long as we are on an excessive cutting binge without raising revenue through taxation.

That has to come from the mega corps and it has to come from the rich. They are the only ones with stagnant funds available.