Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In all likelihood, there won't be as much of an uptick in unemployment during the next recession. There isn't the massive redundancies created as a result of bubbles in the real economy, except for certain cities' real estate. Most of the startups for telecom and internet that were formed in the 1990's are gone. New home sales are basically back to the normal levels of the previous 20 years before the 2000's.
U-6 is inflated now for the same reason the labor force participation rate is in decline. Japan went through the same decline in labor force participation rate after the prime earner cohort reached its peak in 1990.
Hah. I'll believe that when I see it. U6 is inflated right now because there are millions of people stuck in part time gigs who want full time jobs. And there are no full time jobs for them. Nothing else to it.
Hah. I'll believe that when I see it. U6 is inflated right now because there are millions of people stuck in part time gigs who want full time jobs. And there are no full time jobs for them. Nothing else to it.
You're trying to compare different eras without the understanding of what occurred during those periods.
Many of the retired aren't coming back. Negative rates is perhaps an attempt to force people back to work. Many of them can't work full-time due to the onset of physical disabilities and mental decline.
Far fewer people are needed to build homes. A lot of those jobs went to immigrants. The day labor sites have mostly disappeared here, and the few remaining have a dwindling number of men hanging out. Related activities, such as mortgage processing, are back to levels of the 90s when the buildout hadn't started.
Without the cash buyers, real estate would be much slower.
How does gov't spending increase the costs of production?
'Productivity is an average measure of the efficiency of production. It can be expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used in the production process, i.e. output per unit of input.'
The government has a nack for spending way more than anyone could even estimate to get a final product, weather it be a plane, a road, or a hospital (see below) so therefore the measurement of productivity falls.
Example:
Veterans Affairs medical center outside Denver...
Not even completed yet, this $1.7 billion facility is already among the most expensive hospitals in the world, and it’s just one of several VA hospital projects that are greatly over budget and behind schedule, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
'Productivity is an average measure of the efficiency of production. It can be expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used in the production process, i.e. output per unit of input.'
The government has a nack for spending way more than anyone could even estimate to get a final product, weather it be a plane, a road, or a hospital (see below) so therefore the measurement of productivity falls.
Example:
Veterans Affairs medical center outside Denver...
Not even completed yet, this $1.7 billion facility is already among the most expensive hospitals in the world, and it’s just one of several VA hospital projects that are greatly over budget and behind schedule, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
Sure.
But without Gov't who would be building the hospital?
Answer: No one.
The fact that this facility is built inefficiently, is one thing. But that doesn't mean another hospital will be built more or less efficiently.
Gov't also pays docs a low ball fee to see Medicaid/Medicare patients. By the millions of visits per year. So does saving all that money mean more efficiency? Of course not.
But without Gov't who would be building the hospital?
Answer: No one....
I would like to suggest that if the government did not take our money to squander it we would have it to spend more effectively and to society's benefit.
There are plenty of comparisons available so you can draw your own conclusions.
I would like to suggest that if the government did not take our money to squander it we would have it to spend more effectively and to society's benefit.
There are plenty of comparisons available so you can draw your own conclusions.
That could be true in many cases.
But much R&D and spending has and is done via cental gov't that increases the private sectors productivity. Roads, highways, bridges, RR, airports, communications, military, NASA, internet, drugs and vaccines to name a few.
I would like to suggest that if the government did not take our money to squander it we would have it to spend more effectively and to society's benefit.
There are plenty of comparisons available so you can draw your own conclusions.
Not really. For big things, private money is simply not big enough.
A favorite example I like to use is the city of Seattle. It was government investment that basically created that city, particularly its waterfront. But also its major industries later through New Deal & WWII investments.
Without all, that Seattle would be a small town today.
You're trying to compare different eras without the understanding of what occurred during those periods.
Many of the retired aren't coming back. Negative rates is perhaps an attempt to force people back to work. Many of them can't work full-time due to the onset of physical disabilities and mental decline.
Far fewer people are needed to build homes. A lot of those jobs went to immigrants. The day labor sites have mostly disappeared here, and the few remaining have a dwindling number of men hanging out. Related activities, such as mortgage processing, are back to levels of the 90s when the buildout hadn't started.
Without the cash buyers, real estate would be much slower.
And you are trying to talk like a text book that knows everything. To my ears it sounds no different from the people saying "you can never lose money on real estate" back in the mid 2000s.
People who want to work full time but can't due to disabilities is counted in U5, not U6. We have a massive problem with able bodied people stuck in part time jobs because they can't find full time work. And it isn't related to our age structure. People who have retired are not counted in any unemployment figure because they aren't working and they aren't looking for work.
Until we get U6 to 9% or below, as it was during past boom times, we won't be seeing any glamorous gdp reports. And we probably shouldn't raise rates until then either because recession tends to follow federal funds rate increases.
Federal Reserve Boston Chief Rosengren said that it is time to raise the rate. He cited the overheated property sector in Boston as reason for rate hike. This time Wall Street takes it seriously and Dow Jones Industrial dropped by almost 400 points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
