It's interesting how you always try to frame the argument this way. Everything I've written on this latest page of this thread has been notably of the word "recession" except for the quote from the article stating that the White House says that some parts of the country are in a recession. If you want to stick strictly to the definition of recession, then fine, we haven't hit a nationwide recession yet. I guess that's a comfort to the people that are losing their homes, jobs, and retirement savings.
The nation can be in serious economic trouble without experiencing a recession. Do you dispute that there is serious economic trouble?
Of course, it's easy for Andrew to be a jerk about this. It's not like he actually has to worry about paying any bills right now. We might hear a somewhat different tune after he graduates and tries to find a job.
How about not? Unlike most working Americans right now, I haven't become accustomed to massive and unsustainable economic growth. Oh noes, I can't run up my credit on a second home in Maui when my paycheck is only 50k a year! Despite all the gloom and doom you espouse, I understand that my economic future will not be as easy or simple as my parents. However, the demand for my skills in the market are up. More and more companies are looking for CS majors while Universities are putting out less and less majors. A rise in demand with a decrease in available workers means I'll bet set for a while. As long as I don't spend above my means, stay smart with my retirement funds (I've already started a ROTH IRA and a 401k), and maintain my value in the workplace, I'll be fine.
Ah, the old "I'm better than everyone else" gambit.
I guess there's not much of a way to counter that. You've obviously got your life all mapped out and you're smarter than everyone else in America, so there is absolutely no way that you'll ever have any money trouble for the rest of your life. You'll always make the absolutely 100% correct decision regarding money for the rest of your life and you'll never be affected by the rest of the economy tanking. That must be nice for you.
No, says James Pethokoukis, senior writer for U.S. News & World Report (Money & Business). "Unless you redefine 'recession' to mean any period where unemployment increases from record low levels' or 'any period where the economy shrinks if exclud[ing] trade' or 'any period where politicians benefit by badmouthing the economy.' But using commonly accepted data, nope."
Are we in a recession?
No, says Donald L. Luskin, chief investment officer fr Trend Macrolytics. "Of course we are not. Don’t be silly. Over history, average real GDP growth (quarter annualized) is negative 1.5%, and the second quarter was just reported at positive 1.9%. Over history, adjusting for the size of the labor force, payroll job losses average 266,000 in recessions. In July we just lost 51,000. Over history, the average unemployment rate in recessions is 6.2%. In July it was only 5.7%. Anyone who thinks this is a recession has obviously never learned any economic history. Are we headed into a recession? Maybe. At least that’s something we can debate. But if the word 'recession' is to have any meaning, then we certainly are not in one now."
The unemployment rate is 6.1% as of September. Payroll employment decreased by 159,000 in September alone. Source
Is it a recession yet? Maybe not, but it's going to be. I'm not worried; I'm a government employee, and other than the current hiring freeze in my department, we're just weathering things.
I guess there's not much of a way to counter that. You've obviously got your life all mapped out and you're smarter than everyone else in America, so there is absolutely no way that you'll ever have any money trouble for the rest of your life. You'll always make the absolutely 100% correct decision regarding money for the rest of your life and you'll never be affected by the rest of the economy tanking. That must be nice for you.
I live well below my means. That's better insurance against a bad economy than nearly anything else you could do.
Everyone has to decide how much to prepare for bad times, and how much risk to assume. I'm in a position to assume very little risk, and in fact currently have practically zero risk (no substantial debt, large savings, no financial oblications, high-paying and relatively safe job, highly marketable skills, numerous professional contacts, several backup professions, excellent health, and a wealth of easily liquidated assets).
If I had more existing risk than I do now, I would be more worried, and would be taking reasonable actions to mitigate said risk. I would also be much more averse to the assumption of additional risk.
Some people have far more substantial obligations. I do not. Many people do not. These people are largely safe from all but the most disastrous economic downturns, the ones for which no reasonable person can reasonably prepare.
I guess there's not much of a way to counter that. You've obviously got your life all mapped out and you're smarter than everyone else in America, so there is absolutely no way that you'll ever have any money trouble for the rest of your life. You'll always make the absolutely 100% correct decision regarding money for the rest of your life and you'll never be affected by the rest of the economy tanking. That must be nice for you.
Look, like I said it's not going to be easy or simple. However, there is no sense in bitching and whining about the economy, just deal with it.
There seems to be a lot of pointing fingers in this thread though "OMG Georgia Bush fucked up our moneyz!" or "The greedy corporations and Republicans cheated!" However, the bottom line is that things aren't looking to good because the average consumer right now lived way above their means. People bought and sold stocks looking for short and quick gain in capital. Why do you think the CEO's of these large corporations cut so many corners and cheated customers? Because the stockholders expected unsustainable growth. If they didn't produce, the CEO's would be fired within a year.
So, if you want to blame anyone, blame yourself. Blame the American consumer for expecting too much, too quick in the past 60 years. Blame the customer who didn't research their loan or admit to themselves they couldn't afford it. Blame the Democrats and Republicans for pandering to citizens instead of telling them how it really is. Blame Obama and McCain for essentially having the same plan for the economy as the last few decades. You think Obama is change? Please, it's mostly rhetoric. I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't have a perfect plan and I don't know everything, but at least I can accept our situation and do something about it rather than bitch, moan, and blame.
I'm willing to admit the economy is not optimal. But it's unrealistic to cry that the sky is falling during the trough following unparalleled market growth.
The economy could get very bad. But right now, the numbers show we're at the threshold of recession, not in one. If we're using the term "recession" to define the point at which concerns grow to outright economic danger, then it's illogical to be the harbinger of doom during a trough.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I trust numbers more than popular panic during an election year. Right now, the numbers show a trough from very good times to mediocre times. A lot of people are suffering; a lot of people made bad decisions. The fact that growth is not infinitely sustainable is not proof that the economy has failed, or that we are heading for a depression, which was the question initially asked by the thread.
As for unemployment, 6.1 percent is historically not that bad.
There seems to be a lot of pointing fingers in this thread though "OMG Georgia Bush fucked up our moneyz!" or "The greedy corporations and Republicans cheated!"
I don't have a perfect plan and I don't know everything, but at least I can accept our situation and do something about it rather than bitch, moan, and blame.
I've looked, and you have to go pretty far back through the thread to find anything like "OMG Georgia Bush fucked up our moneyz!", whoever Georgia Bush is. Most of the thread has been talking about the downturn and what affect the downturn might have on people. There was a medium sized bit where some idiot was asking why he should be concerned if his house was upside down; but there has been little, if any, bitching, moaning, or blaming.
I'm willing to admit the economy is not optimal.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I trust numbers more than popular panic during an election year.
A couple of months ago, you weren't even willing to admit that the economy is not optimal. Trust in numbers is good, but the thing about those numbers is that they change, they can change fast, and they're all trending downwards. We're seeing a lot of factors, such as housing, the stock market, and unemployment, that I believe are going to have a synergism that will make what we're seeing now look tame.
As for unemployment, 6.1 percent is historically not that bad.
A couple of months ago, you weren't even willing to admit that the economy is not optimal. Trust in numbers is good, but the thing about those numbers is that they change, they can change fast, and they're all trending downwards. We're seeing a lot of factors, such as housing, the stock market, and unemployment, that I believe are going to have a synergism that will make what we're seeing now look tame.
You are right. I should be totally unwilling to reevaluate an ever-changing situation. I should stand firm no matter what the data shows and be completely intellectually unreflective. Forgive me.
If you bothered to look at the chart I posted above, 6.1 percent is about the 50-year median. It's not worth panicking. It's certainly not the 9 percent we saw in '75, or 11 percent in '83, or 8 percent in '93.
A couple of months ago, you weren't even willing to admit that the economy is not optimal. Trust in numbers is good, but the thing about those numbers is that they change, they can change fast, and they're all trending downwards. We're seeing a lot of factors, such as housing, the stock market, and unemployment, that I believe are going to have a synergism that will make what we're seeing now look tame.
You are right. I should be totally unwilling to reevaluate an ever-changing situation. I should stand firm no matter what the data shows and be completely intellectually unreflective. Forgive me.
Actually, you seem pretty alarmist. You used to be pretty certain that all the complaining about the economy was just chicken little ravings of paranoid lunatics, but now you seem to be coming around to the realization that all is not rosy. And that because that's what's shown by the data, huh?
Do you notice any sort of a trend in that data? As in maybe it's trending downwards? I'll be interested to see how your opinion has changed in a couple of months after what's probably going to be a bleak Christmas retail season.
If you bothered to look at the chart I posted above, 6.1 percent is about the 50-year median. It's not worth panicking. It's certainly not the 9 percent we saw in '75, or 11 percent in '83, or 8 percent in '93.
Yes, but it's not good, either. I lived through all those years in the 70s. It was very hard to find work. You can be very smart and you can have marketable skills out the wazoo, but if there are no jobs available, you're still going to be unemployed.
And what about that trend? Are today's unemployment figures showing that the unemployment rate is declining?
Actually, you seem pretty alarmist. You used to be pretty certain that all the complaining about the economy was just chicken little ravings of paranoid lunatics, but now you seem to be coming around to the realization that all is not rosy. And that because that's what's shown by the data, huh?
If you want to redefine alarmism to mean looking at data to show where we are, then yes, I am alarmist. But if you want to use the correct definition of alarmism to mean jumping to the conclusion that the worst possible outcome is the most likely, then I am not an alarmist.
And what about that trend? Are today's unemployment figures showing that the unemployment rate is declining?
The trend is that today's unemployment rate is about the 50-year median. That's nothing to panic about.
Actually, you seem pretty alarmist. You used to be pretty certain that all the complaining about the economy was just chicken little ravings of paranoid lunatics, but now you seem to be coming around to the realization that all is not rosy. And that because that's what's shown by the data, huh?
If you want to redefine alarmism to mean looking at data to show where we are, then yes, I am alarmist. But if you want to use the correct definition of alarmism to mean jumping to the conclusion that the worst possible outcome is the most likely, then I am not an alarmist.
Is that the definition of alarmist? I though it was
alarmist (ə-lär'mÄÂst)
n. A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
I think I remember that a person who thinks "the worst possible outcome is the most likely" is a "pessimist". Now, I certainly fit the bill for being a pessimist. I have had tons of experience that tends to show that the worst outcome is the most likely.
And what about that trend? Are today's unemployment figures showing that the unemployment rate is declining?
The trend is that today's unemployment rate is about the 50-year median. That's nothing to panic about.
Does the phrase "whistling past the graveyard" mean anything to you?
Does the phrase "whistling past the graveyard" mean anything to you?
No. You're ancient.
Well, you're doing it right now, bone daddy.
I've looked up your antiquated idiom. You're right. I'm pretty happy. I think you are allergic to being happy. I think you feed on negativity and try to breed it.
Is this phrase really new to you or are you just cudgeling the Queen's dainties?
Am I what-whating a who-who-diddly? It's like you're speaking Atlantian or mole people-ish.
Now, you're just being intentionally obtuse if you say you've never heard the phrase "cudgeling the Queen's dainties". How about "clubbing the Queen's knickers"?
You know, I don't know about where you work, but if my company has a bad year but my location does well, I don't get a bonus (or I get a greatly reduced one). I can't even imagine if my company did so badly that a financial bailout was needed...
You know, I don't know about where you work, but if my company has a bad year but my location does well, I don't get a bonus (or I get a greatly reduced one). I can't even imagine if my company did so badly that a financial bailout was needed...
This needs to end. I think that we should collectively demand our money back if this frivolous spending continues.
They need to give the bonuses or their top talent will leave? If your in a position where you get 600 000 to multimillion dollar bonuses how hard would it be to find a open position somewhere else that has the same benefits? How many people this high up in the company would actually leave compared to just waiting it out a few years. The crisis will likely end and they will get their big bonuses back or it goes Mad Max and it didn’t matter if they left. I understand lower level workers getting pay cuts and possibly finding work elsewhere; if you had super human desk jockey that gets a 20 000 dollar bonus I can see keeping him happy to retain his talent. The people in upper management with the real big dog salaries though, where would they all go if everyone’s taking the hit? It’s not like you can go on craigslist and find these jobs on a whim.
You know, I don't know about where you work, but if my company has a bad year but my location does well, I don't get a bonus (or I get a greatly reduced one). I can't even imagine if my company did so badly that a financial bailout was needed...
As a government worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs, this has happened to us. Upon our yearly performance review, our supervisors rate us on a 5 point system, with 5 being the highest. If your performance appraisal is 4 or higher, you will get a bonus.
Last year, I got an "Oustanding"/5 and received a bonus of $3000, this year we are only getting half that because our supervisors say it's due to the economic crisis. It sucks, but at the same time I understand. More than likely our Section Chief will put our department in for a group award because we exceeded our goal in collections for fiscal year '08 by 5 million.
Comments
The nation can be in serious economic trouble without experiencing a recession. Do you dispute that there is serious economic trouble? Ah, the old "I'm better than everyone else" gambit.
I guess there's not much of a way to counter that. You've obviously got your life all mapped out and you're smarter than everyone else in America, so there is absolutely no way that you'll ever have any money trouble for the rest of your life. You'll always make the absolutely 100% correct decision regarding money for the rest of your life and you'll never be affected by the rest of the economy tanking. That must be nice for you.
Is it a recession yet? Maybe not, but it's going to be. I'm not worried; I'm a government employee, and other than the current hiring freeze in my department, we're just weathering things.
Everyone has to decide how much to prepare for bad times, and how much risk to assume. I'm in a position to assume very little risk, and in fact currently have practically zero risk (no substantial debt, large savings, no financial oblications, high-paying and relatively safe job, highly marketable skills, numerous professional contacts, several backup professions, excellent health, and a wealth of easily liquidated assets).
If I had more existing risk than I do now, I would be more worried, and would be taking reasonable actions to mitigate said risk. I would also be much more averse to the assumption of additional risk.
Some people have far more substantial obligations. I do not. Many people do not. These people are largely safe from all but the most disastrous economic downturns, the ones for which no reasonable person can reasonably prepare.
There seems to be a lot of pointing fingers in this thread though "OMG Georgia Bush fucked up our moneyz!" or "The greedy corporations and Republicans cheated!" However, the bottom line is that things aren't looking to good because the average consumer right now lived way above their means. People bought and sold stocks looking for short and quick gain in capital. Why do you think the CEO's of these large corporations cut so many corners and cheated customers? Because the stockholders expected unsustainable growth. If they didn't produce, the CEO's would be fired within a year.
So, if you want to blame anyone, blame yourself. Blame the American consumer for expecting too much, too quick in the past 60 years. Blame the customer who didn't research their loan or admit to themselves they couldn't afford it. Blame the Democrats and Republicans for pandering to citizens instead of telling them how it really is. Blame Obama and McCain for essentially having the same plan for the economy as the last few decades. You think Obama is change? Please, it's mostly rhetoric. I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't have a perfect plan and I don't know everything, but at least I can accept our situation and do something about it rather than bitch, moan, and blame.
The economy could get very bad. But right now, the numbers show we're at the threshold of recession, not in one. If we're using the term "recession" to define the point at which concerns grow to outright economic danger, then it's illogical to be the harbinger of doom during a trough.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I trust numbers more than popular panic during an election year. Right now, the numbers show a trough from very good times to mediocre times. A lot of people are suffering; a lot of people made bad decisions. The fact that growth is not infinitely sustainable is not proof that the economy has failed, or that we are heading for a depression, which was the question initially asked by the thread.
As for unemployment, 6.1 percent is historically not that bad.
Do you notice any sort of a trend in that data? As in maybe it's trending downwards? I'll be interested to see how your opinion has changed in a couple of months after what's probably going to be a bleak Christmas retail season. Yes, but it's not good, either. I lived through all those years in the 70s. It was very hard to find work. You can be very smart and you can have marketable skills out the wazoo, but if there are no jobs available, you're still going to be unemployed.
And what about that trend? Are today's unemployment figures showing that the unemployment rate is declining?
I think I remember that a person who thinks "the worst possible outcome is the most likely" is a "pessimist". Now, I certainly fit the bill for being a pessimist. I have had tons of experience that tends to show that the worst outcome is the most likely. Does the phrase "whistling past the graveyard" mean anything to you?
Is this phrase really new to you or are you just cudgeling the Queen's dainties?
Duh.
You know, I don't know about where you work, but if my company has a bad year but my location does well, I don't get a bonus (or I get a greatly reduced one). I can't even imagine if my company did so badly that a financial bailout was needed...
Last year, I got an "Oustanding"/5 and received a bonus of $3000, this year we are only getting half that because our supervisors say it's due to the economic crisis. It sucks, but at the same time I understand. More than likely our Section Chief will put our department in for a group award because we exceeded our goal in collections for fiscal year '08 by 5 million.
I'm just happy I'm getting something.