1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Economy

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TigerVols, May 14, 2020.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    He works for the Heritage Foundation, doesn’t he?
     
    Deskgrunt50 likes this.
  2. Deskgrunt50

    Deskgrunt50 Well-Known Member

    No agenda from the Heritage Foundation, I’m sure. And even with the revised numbers…it’s still very strong job growth.
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  3. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    Didn't even have to wait an hour for Bigg Raguhat to weigh in.
     
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    It is kind of funny - the "Good Old Days" that many still pine for - whether they were alive or not - during the post WWII boom, pre-Civil Rights, Women's Lib etc. ...people don't really factor in that Europe and Asia were disaster zones for years following WWII - we were the only economic power standing, of course the economy was strong. And now - with much more competition from traditional and non-traditional economic powers - we're doing pretty well, even better than....

    https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/2023-the-year-chinas-economic-miracle-ended
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The household survey showed the number of employed people FELL by 683K . That only equates to "very strong job growth" when a bunch of charlatans pull numbers out of their sphincters and people actually parrot them. Explain to me how that works and I'll listen.

    The previous two months were revised down by 71K jobs. Those were the last "bad for Biden" numbers. Not a peep on the revisions by the people who mindlessly parrot this DPRK stuff. The headlines would have been completely different last time around if those revised numbers had been reported up front.

    The labor force participation rate is now down to 62.5. Of course we are at full employment when you just stop counting all the people capable of working who no longer work. It's a shell game. That drop in participation equates to 700K people having dropped out in the last month alone. That is not a strong labor market. It's a sign of a troubled economy.

    We lost 1.5 million full time jobs in the period, and now have a record number of people working MULTIPLE jobs to get by -- which the BLS (and the administration running things) amazingly then turns around and counts as multiple jobs THEY created [how exactly does Joe Biden (or Donald Trump or anyone uselessly screwing up the country from the oval office) create a job?]. FWIW, those full-time job losses represent the biggest non-covid related drop since 1994.

    I'd never rely on their numbers themselves to try to understand the employment picture in this country. They literally survey households. ... and then release a number that bears zero relationship to the actually surve. If they were statistically adjusting things for any kind of legitimate reason. ... they wouldn't CHANGE the methodology so frequently -- in absurd ways that coincidentally allow them to announce headline numbers monht after month that they think are good for the politician running the show (and it is not just the non-farm payrolls. ... this farce has been happening across a number of data series) and then get revised dramatically to less rosy numbers when people move on.

    This isn't an indictment of Joe Biden in particular for what it is worth. ... although he invites scorn when he (like Trump used to) acts like he has some magic wand that creates jobs. He certainly can do things that hamper the health of the economy, and he has, but this economy is a complete slave to monetary flows being steadily increased (and the corresponding runaway debt that comes with it). It doesn't produce anything healthy -- which is why people are so disaffected -- and the wealth disparities and losses in purchasing power that are killing millions of people get more pronounced the longer it goes on. Right now, that falls to Jay Powell, not Joe Biden, just as it did when Donald Trump was president. But yeah, " bad for Biden." A hundred million people are just too stupid to know how economically secure they REALLY are.
     
    exmediahack likes this.
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Downward revisions for 11 of the past 12 months is ... curious.
     
  7. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    I love that it’s Joe Biden’s fault corporations found they could make more money by making every service job a part-time job.

    The moment we tied healthcare to the job, this was a long equation leading to this moment.
     
    exmediahack likes this.
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Fuckin' Roosevelt. See what the left let it get to? :)
     
  9. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    I understand why it happened, but if both labor and corporations could’ve seen where it would lead…
     
  10. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    But it wouldn't need to lead anywhere terrible if taking a 10-second image of your insides didn't cost $2,500 and a night in the hospital didn't cost more than a night at the Four Seasons (the hotel, not the landscaping company).
     
  11. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    Can I interest you in a $14,000 motorized hospital chair with heated leather seats? It will tell you how much you weigh the second you sit on it!
     
    doctorquant likes this.
  12. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    We've talked about buying a new truck on this thread.
    Ford finally has it to where you can build a '24 Ranger, take the info to your dealer, and start the process.
    I did, and I walked out when the guy told me it would be 8-12 months. I asked, "did you mean WEEKS?" No. He meant months. That's ridiculous. In 8-12 months they should be in the '25 model year.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page