U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2018, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,749 posts, read 1,209,866 times
Reputation: 5052

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balkins View Post
Hi Friends,

What are some of the best indicators of a economic slowdown?

I've read that car sales are the first to indicate a economic slowdown.

Here's a read on it.

On the other hand, we have this report that seems to indicate all is well?
LINK

BUT, what are some other indicators that work "in today's world?"

I think we live more in a international environment that affects our economy more so than ever.

Anyone else have an indicator that they follow that can be used as a barometer to "indicate future economic activity?"



Thanks!
Unemployment...when it goes up, economic activity tends to slow down.

For Silicon Valley, new investment money is critical to the area. When 1 out of $3 invested in the world arrives within 50 miles of your house, having great pitches is better than making great products. IPOs are big too for staying power, but the VC money especially will all be spent in 12 months.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/...ext-big-thing/

If I was in a rural farming area, I'd be looking at commodities. Mining area would be looking at commodity prices. Some people subscribe to looking at the Dow Transports, but that thing is to volatile to get to crazy on it. The confidence numbers are lagging indicators in my opinion. The volatility index tells me any unexpected hit will hurt.

So I'd be looking primarily at job creation. Locally, it's slowing down, as is VC spend, but it's not crashing to a halt. The tax breaks don't help a bunch of money losing companies, and the lack of deductibility of state taxes and limits on homes will certainly hurt the area. Where CA goes, the country tends to follow after a year or so. So at this point, I'm looking to trade in my consulting gigs for a permanent role. Investment wise I'm steering more money overseas under the so far completely wrong "decoupling has to happen sometime right?" theory...but I'm doing it as I take profits in domestic issues, nothing widespread and mostly because I think the sterling and the USD are going to have a rough year.

We're ok for a bit yet though. Start looking for signals in 12 months. Make sure your cash reserves are ready. Wife and I can't wait to pick up more property, but it takes time to build up the warchest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:47 AM
 
155 posts, read 87,316 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Why wouldn't I consider 8% low, it's on the low end of historical values for U-6 since it was first measured, through boom and bust cycles of the economy and employment. Calling it anything but low means you have some unreachable arbitrary standard for unemployment that has never been met.


Median weekly ages are at historical highs right along with the low unemployment numbers, how do you reconcile that with your claim that more people are accepting lower and lower wage jobs?




Again you're taking something that is at a very healthy level and trying to spin it as something negative.

Here are defaults: https://www.federalreserve.gov/relea...f/delallsa.htm

For all consumer loans in Q3 2017 the default rate was 2.27, way lower than historical norms. Despite the slow trend upward they are still at very good levels.




ANd here is my answer, you are a ZeroHedger. Therefore all economic indicators that show the economy is doing just fine must be ignored so that logical hoops can be jumped through to see it as bad, complete with the usual reference to the mainstream media. Hey your source ZeroHedge was the reason I restarted this thread, they were the ones who started the "Baltic Dry" craze a couple years back.

Why didn't Baltic Dry correctly show impending calamity like all the ZeroHedgers on here were claiming? It went down, it came back up?

If you're so interested in truth, why did you lie about U-6 never having recovered from the recession when it clearly has? By purposely misstating that aren't you engaging in exactly what you claim to despise from the evil mainstream media?
Nice how you conveniently ignore every part of my response that isn't the u-6 unemployment claim that you are still going nuts off of. Honestly I haven't looked at it at some time, so as I said the labor participation and employment to population ratio are much better indicators as they give you an idea of all the people who have dropped out of the workforce.

Are you actually going to try and argue that real wages for workers have kept pace with any reasonable measure of cost of living, inflation, productivity, etc.? Please don't make me operate google for you.

Fine, I will:
https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-ar...ing-in-america

And here is a piece highlighting how the "recovery" in jobs has largely been focused on lower wage employment:

Bias toward low-wage job creation in the US continues | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

And then you conclude by attacking the source of one of links as being bad information? It's a graph using household income data, how does zero hedge have anything to do with it? Did you READ what it says, what are YOUR thoughts on those implications?

It doesn't take much to easily look at the economy and see what is happening. Yes, you have soaring asset bubbles (housing, stock market) that are keeping the rich happy and people seemingly afloat, and certainly some strong sectors like tech and service. But when you look at the levels of household debt, when you look at real wage growth since the 70's/80's compared with the exorbitant rise in cost of living since that time, when you look at the monopolized, broken markets that have taken over our economy (healthcare, education, finance) you see a pretty dark picture for the average American right now, which definitely played a big part of why Trump got elected as well - "draining the swamp" and such, like that would happen lol..

Last edited by weiwuwei; 01-02-2018 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 07:54 PM
 
4,721 posts, read 2,255,657 times
Reputation: 8734
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Nice how you conveniently ignore every part of my response that isn't the u-6 unemployment claim that you are still going nuts off of. Honestly I haven't looked at it at some time, so as I said the labor participation and employment to population ratio are much better indicators as they give you an idea of all the people who have dropped out of the workforce.
Well you're lying again here. I clearly addressed wages and credit defaults, it is right there in my post that you quoted. I'm pointing out your U-6 claim because it makes me suspicious of every "fact" you bring up when the first thing you posted to support your argument turns out to be false.

Your preferred economic measures routine is quite common among people who don't have the facts to back up their argument, they simply disregard every data point that isn't convenient to them and focus in on something else while arguing that is the one true economic indicator.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Are you actually going to try and argue that real wages for workers have kept pace with any reasonable measure of cost of living, inflation, productivity, etc.? Please don't make me operate google for you.

Fine, I will:
https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-ar...ing-in-america

And here is a piece highlighting how the "recovery" in jobs has largely been focused on lower wage employment:

Bias toward low-wage job creation in the US continues | Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Congrats, you've done some desperate googling to find some opinion pieces instead of explaining why actual data on real wages shows they are higher now. Let's look at your links:

1. First link states "Since the early 1970s, the hourly inflation-adjusted wages received by the typical worker have barely risen, growing only 0.2% per year." Do you really think that supports your argument that wages are lower or that more people have taken lower paying jobs? Hint = it doesn't.

2. Second link is over 1.5 years old. In the last 12 months alone job gains in categories the author identified as "above average pay" include:
- professional and business services +548k
- manufacturing +189k
- construction +184k
- wholesale trade +55k
- trans & warehousing +89k
- financial activities +150k

Meanwhile the biggest lower paying sector he identified retail trade has actually decreased by 22k. Both education/health and leisure had gains by they were dwarfed by above higher than average paying sectors. If you want to use this bloggers method for proving lower paying jobs are more common then you've managed to prove the opposite and completely sink your argument that more people are taking lower wage jobs. So how again is avg hour wages rising when everyone is taking lower jobs?

Google is your friend, but chasing your conclusion by finding opinion pieces that either don't prove your argument or are outdated don't help. How about you take a turn and explain why your blogger's source (BLS data) shows real average hourly earning are higher now than a year ago? Then you can explain why that doesn't match your argument that wages haven't kept pace with inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
And then you conclude by attacking the source of one of links as being bad information? It's a graph using household income data, how does zero hedge have anything to do with it? Did you READ what it says, what are YOUR thoughts on those implications?
I'm attacking it because you're following the exact pattern of most who source ZeroHedge to prove the economy sucks, they ignore things like real wages and unemployment (or lie about them like you do) then are interested in whatever different measures they can dream up like Baltic Dry or that graph you posted. The second link is hilarious, you are actually using as evidence an opinion piece where author states that everything is a bubble and it will pop someday. You think that proves the economy is bad? Did you sign up for the newsletter he offered where he will explain how to profit from it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
It doesn't take much to easily look at the economy and see what is happening.
Agreed, all you need is someone with a conclusion that they are keen on shaping their worldview to match. That person lies about macroeconomic data, ignores major economic indicators like employment/GDP/wages, and throws their lot behind newsletter prognosticators that provide as evidence everything seeming like a bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 09:40 PM
 
155 posts, read 87,316 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Well you're lying again here. I clearly addressed wages and credit defaults, it is right there in my post that you quoted. I'm pointing out your U-6 claim because it makes me suspicious of every "fact" you bring up when the first thing you posted to support your argument turns out to be false.

Your preferred economic measures routine is quite common among people who don't have the facts to back up their argument, they simply disregard every data point that isn't convenient to them and focus in on something else while arguing that is the one true economic indicator.
You completely ignored the multiple times I brought up that credit card debt is at record highs.

We already went over this. Yes the U-6 is back to pre-crisis levels. No, I still don't think nearly one in ten people being unemployed or underemployed is a sign of a healthy economy. And doesn't change the fact that the participation rate is lower as well as employment-to-population ratio, not to mention other measures like homelessness, skyrocketing cost of living compared with wages, etc.

Quote:
Congrats, you've done some desperate googling to find some opinion pieces instead of explaining why actual data on real wages shows they are higher now. Let's look at your links:
Neither one are opinion pieces. They are clear arguments supported by charts and sourced data. Are you able to respond to the content of what I am saying or must you try and continuously attack the reputation of the links, while providing none of your own?

Quote:

1. First link states "Since the early 1970s, the hourly inflation-adjusted wages received by the typical worker have barely risen, growing only 0.2% per year." Do you really think that supports your argument that wages are lower or that more people have taken lower paying jobs? Hint = it doesn't.
I never said wages are lower, I said wages have been basically flat and have not even come close to keeping up with productivity increases or the skyrocketing cost of living. And yes, this clearly proves that lol.. your response of "hint= it doesn't" doesn't give me a lot of hope for the rest of this discussion though.

Quote:
2. Second link is over 1.5 years old. In the last 12 months alone job gains in categories the author identified as "above average pay" include:
- professional and business services +548k
- manufacturing +189k
- construction +184k
- wholesale trade +55k
- trans & warehousing +89k
- financial activities +150k

Meanwhile the biggest lower paying sector he identified retail trade has actually decreased by 22k. Both education/health and leisure had gains by they were dwarfed by above higher than average paying sectors. If you want to use this bloggers method for proving lower paying jobs are more common then you've managed to prove the opposite and completely sink your argument that more people are taking lower wage jobs. So how again is avg hour wages rising when everyone is taking lower jobs?
Here you go, from last month Glad I'm doing all the leg work here.

US labour market steady*but low wage bias continues | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

What do you mean when you say avg hour wages rising? You understand the average weekly earnings data release is not inflation adjusted? You understand that getting paid 10/hr in 2008 and 12/hr in 2018 is a loss of purchasing power when the cost of rent, healthcare, education, insurance, etc. has increased at a faster rate? (this is a hypothetical before you accuse me of not having a source, I just want to make sure we are on the same page of what I am talking about before we go further).

Quote:
Google is your friend, but chasing your conclusion by finding opinion pieces that either don't prove your argument or are outdated don't help. How about you take a turn and explain why your blogger's source (BLS data) shows real average hourly earning are higher now than a year ago? Then you can explain why that doesn't match your argument that wages haven't kept pace with inflation.
That is what I am responding to above. Inflation is all relative and that is the crux of what we are talking about here, so to say average pay was x and now its y means nothing unless we are looking at how that compares with what the average person spends their income on. Back in the 1950's the average family income was nearly half the cost of a home! ($3300/$7300). In 2014 it is closer to 1/4, 50k to about 190k (if you want 2017 numbers you can actually do some research of your own). This doesn't even consider the lower rate of homeownership and subsequent rise in rent costs especially in cities. Nor have we even looked at the exponential rise in cost for other large household expenses like college education or health insurance.

Quote:
I'm attacking it because you're following the exact pattern of most who source ZeroHedge to prove the economy sucks, they ignore things like real wages and unemployment (or lie about them like you do) then are interested in whatever different measures they can dream up like Baltic Dry or that graph you posted. The second link is hilarious, you are actually using as evidence an opinion piece where author states that everything is a bubble and it will pop someday. You think that proves the economy is bad? Did you sign up for the newsletter he offered where he will explain how to profit from it?
Actually I'm directly linking and graphing real wages not ignoring them. Yes I do think that a bubble economy is a bad thing, because it is not real. It is held up by a stock market manipulated by share repurchases instead of productive investment, record levels of credit card debt, housing prices that should've crashed but got bailed out and now wall street is renting out the homes that no one can afford and we see the home ownership rate at record lows. Again, do YOU have any thoughts on what the chart is saying? Do you disagree with the data? Do you have a counter-argument? Or any argument?

Quote:
Agreed, all you need is someone with a conclusion that they are keen on shaping their worldview to match. That person lies about macroeconomic data, ignores major economic indicators like employment/GDP/wages, and throws their lot behind newsletter prognosticators that provide as evidence everything seeming like a bubble.
Again, attacking the reputation of the sources I provide while providing nothing in return.

It is true that over the past couple years the economy has gotten comparably better than the first 5-7 years after the crash, which were abysmal. But we (assuming you are not a billionaire or own a ton of stock/real estate) still haven't really recovered from 2008, so in that sense the signs of economic slowdown remain, they've just been painted over with a fine legislative brush and mass ignorance/misinformation while the "people who matter" in this country have made out like bandits.

Last edited by weiwuwei; 01-03-2018 at 10:30 PM.. Reason: correction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 12:27 PM
 
4,721 posts, read 2,255,657 times
Reputation: 8734
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
You completely ignored the multiple times I brought up that credit card debt is at record highs.

We already went over this. Yes the U-6 is back to pre-crisis levels. No, I still don't think nearly one in ten people being unemployed or underemployed is a sign of a healthy economy. And doesn't change the fact that the participation rate is lower as well as employment-to-population ratio, not to mention other measures like homelessness, skyrocketing cost of living compared with wages, etc.
Credit card debt being at record highs doesn't in itself indicate a poor economy, that is a great example of how someone can look at data and draw poor conclusions.

The U-6 measure is interesting because you cited it as evidence of a poor economy when you were lying about it having never recovered, but now that it's been proven it has recovered you're suddenly not interested in it and are screaming about LFPR. If we take your original argument using U-6 it works against you, that's why you're now trying to ignore it.

You're incorrect on homeless, just as you were on U-6.


You're incorrect on labor underutilization just as you were on homeless and U-6, current unemployment numbers are considered healthy full employment consistent with a healthy economy.

You're incorrect on cost of living versus wages just as you are on just about everything you type, real wages are higher than ever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Neither one are opinion pieces. They are clear arguments supported by charts and sourced data. Are you able to respond to the content of what I am saying or must you try and continuously attack the reputation of the links, while providing none of your own?
Wow you seriously believe providing charts and data makes something not an opinion piece? Data is interpreted differently, as is the significance of trends. Someone selling an investing newsletter who's saying everything is a bubble that will pop is an opinion piece unless he can see the future. I bet when ZeroHedge was screaming that Baltic Dry Index proved recession coming you were right there with them saying it wasn't an opinion piece because they have a chart showing BDI.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
I never said wages are lower, I said wages have been basically flat and have not even come close to keeping up with productivity increases or the skyrocketing cost of living. And yes, this clearly proves that lol.. your response of "hint= it doesn't" doesn't give me a lot of hope for the rest of this discussion though.
Real household wages are highest in history, so you're wrong. Again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Here you go, from last month Glad I'm doing all the leg work here.

US labour market steady*but low wage bias continues | Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Yep you're doing the leg work of finding opinion pieces from bloggers. This guy making assumptions about people's motivations who aren't looking for work isn't science, and looking at broad job categories from Jan 2010 to now doesn't support your claim that "ARE accepting are increasingly lower and lower wage jobs" unless we all want to pick arbitrary timeframes to support our argument.

You don't have anything to say about the categories over the last year that had the most increases? Just more links to opinion blogs?


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
What do you mean when you say avg hour wages rising? You understand the average weekly earnings data release is not inflation adjusted? You understand that getting paid 10/hr in 2008 and 12/hr in 2018 is a loss of purchasing power when the cost of rent, healthcare, education, insurance, etc. has increased at a faster rate? (this is a hypothetical before you accuse me of not having a source, I just want to make sure we are on the same page of what I am talking about before we go further).

That is what I am responding to above. Inflation is all relative and that is the crux of what we are talking about here, so to say average pay was x and now its y means nothing unless we are looking at how that compares with what the average person spends their income on. Back in the 1950's the average family income was nearly half the cost of a home! ($3300/$7300). In 2014 it is closer to 1/4, 50k to about 190k (if you want 2017 numbers you can actually do some research of your own). This doesn't even consider the lower rate of homeownership and subsequent rise in rent costs especially in cities. Nor have we even looked at the exponential rise in cost for other large household expenses like college education or health insurance.
Real wages are rising. Look up what "real" means when we talk about wages and you'll save a lot of pointless typing like above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Actually I'm directly linking and graphing real wages not ignoring them. Yes I do think that a bubble economy is a bad thing, because it is not real. It is held up by a stock market manipulated by share repurchases instead of productive investment, record levels of credit card debt, housing prices that should've crashed but got bailed out and now wall street is renting out the homes that no one can afford and we see the home ownership rate at record lows. Again, do YOU have any thoughts on what the chart is saying? Do you disagree with the data? Do you have a counter-argument? Or any argument?
Nope, you fail.





Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Again, attacking the reputation of the sources I provide while providing nothing in return.
Again, lying about whether receiving a counter argument.



Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
But we (assuming you are not a billionaire or own a ton of stock/real estate) still haven't really recovered from 2008, so in that sense the signs of economic slowdown remain, they've just been painted over with a fine legislative brush and mass ignorance/misinformation while the "people who matter" in this country have made out like bandits.
Go go ZeroHedger! Mass ignorance! Misinformation. Sheeple!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 01:47 PM
 
155 posts, read 87,316 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Credit card debt being at record highs doesn't in itself indicate a poor economy, that is a great example of how someone can look at data and draw poor conclusions.
Did I say it in itself indicates a poor economy? No, just like I never said wages are falling, two separate lies you have made up to try and fit your narrative.

Quote:
The U-6 measure is interesting because you cited it as evidence of a poor economy when you were lying about it having never recovered, but now that it's been proven it has recovered you're suddenly not interested in it and are screaming about LFPR. If we take your original argument using U-6 it works against you, that's why you're now trying to ignore it.

You're incorrect on homeless, just as you were on U-6.
I am not trying to ignore it, you have brought it up repeatedly since the first post since it seems to be the only thing you want to talk about. As I just said, I don't see nearly one in ten being un/underemployed being the mark of a good economy, do you?

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...the-west-coast

More evidence of the homeless issue. Again, did I ever say homeless in itself is at record levels or that it is in itself a cause for recession? No. These are all contributing factors to the larger issue which you seem totally oblivious of.

Quote:
You're incorrect on labor underutilization
Oh, ok you say I'm incorrect so that must be true.

Quote:
just as you were on homeless and U-6, current unemployment numbers are considered healthy full employment consistent with a healthy economy.

You're incorrect on cost of living versus wages just as you are on just about everything you type, real wages are higher than ever.
Except that they're not and I've given you repeated sources to why thats not the case, which you just ignore and say "you're incorrect" because that is the entirety of your argument.

Quote:
Wow you seriously believe providing charts and data makes something not an opinion piece? Data is interpreted differently, as is the significance of trends. Someone selling an investing newsletter who's saying everything is a bubble that will pop is an opinion piece unless he can see the future. I bet when ZeroHedge was screaming that Baltic Dry Index proved recession coming you were right there with them saying it wasn't an opinion piece because they have a chart showing BDI.
Again back to attacking the sources and the baltic dry thing which I have never heard of and has no relevence to the discussion. Are you ever actually going to respond to what the chart says? I've asked three times now this is getting pretty pathetic lol..

Quote:
Yep you're doing the leg work of finding opinion pieces from bloggers. This guy making assumptions about people's motivations who aren't looking for work isn't science, and looking at broad job categories from Jan 2010 to now doesn't support your claim that "ARE accepting are increasingly lower and lower wage jobs" unless we all want to pick arbitrary timeframes to support our argument.

You don't have anything to say about the categories over the last year that had the most increases? Just more links to opinion blogs?
One year of slight change doesn't change the overall trend. We are talking about decades of stagnant wages that not kept pace with productivity growth as they used to or kept pace with the exponential rise in housing, education, healthcare. This is the central point here which you have not even attempted to address, like almost everything else although I'm sure you want to keep going over U-6 a few more times?

Quote:
Real wages are rising. Look up what "real" means when we talk about wages and you'll save a lot of pointless typing like above.

Nope, you fail.

Again, lying about whether receiving a counter argument.
Real wages have been stagnant or slightly increased for the past several decades depending on the source, meaning the average persons standard of living has not improved since the 70's/80s, whereas prior to this they moved in lockstep with productivity growth. In a growing and prospering economy wages and standard of living are supposed to improve over time as the economy grows, crazy concept huh?

Where is any counter argument, besides you harping on over U-6? This is like talking to a 4th grader at this point, let me know when you have an argument other than "nope, you're wrong" or "you fail" lol

Quote:
Go go ZeroHedger! Mass ignorance! Misinformation. Sheeple!
Actually public opinion does seem to get it right for the most part when polled, but the legislation we end up seeing from congress tends to be the opposite. But I'm guessing you think we are living in a functional democracy where leaders have the best interests of the people at heart, right?

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/con...-dream-n768366

Some more facts from BLS and Case Schiller just off a quick google search, just so you have something else to ignore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 07:42 PM
 
4,721 posts, read 2,255,657 times
Reputation: 8734
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Did I say it in itself indicates a poor economy? No, just like I never said wages are falling, two separate lies you have made up to try and fit your narrative.
You said wages aren't keeping pace with inflation, which is saying real wages are falling, which is false.
You said wages were basically flat.
You said household debt paints a dark picture for the average American.

Funny to see you running away from your own points when you realize they aren't supportable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
I am not trying to ignore it, you have brought it up repeatedly since the first post since it seems to be the only thing you want to talk about. As I just said, I don't see nearly one in ten being un/underemployed being the mark of a good economy, do you?
You said U-6 never recovered to pre-recession levels, which was easily proven false.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...the-west-coast

More evidence of the homeless issue. Again, did I ever say homeless in itself is at record levels or that it is in itself a cause for recession? No. These are all contributing factors to the larger issue which you seem totally oblivious of.
So let's get this straight, you pointed out homelessness as a measure of a bad economy, then link something that points out it has been steadily dropping since 2010, with last year being the first rise of 1%? You're the master at sinking your own arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Oh, ok you say I'm incorrect so that must be true. Except that they're not and I've given you repeated sources to why thats not the case, which you just ignore and say "you're incorrect" because that is the entirety of your argument.
Well no, I've explained why you're incorrect. Your bad economy has turned to be you lying about U-6, you spout about credit/debt then suddenly are saying it's not the sign of a bad economy, you accidentally point out homelessness has been on a mostly positive trend for some time now, and of course you summarize with the standard media lies sheeple blah blah of the ZeroHedge fan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Again back to attacking the sources and the baltic dry thing which I have never heard of and has no relevence to the discussion. Are you ever actually going to respond to what the chart says? I've asked three times now this is getting pretty pathetic lol..
I tried to make a point but it keeps going way over your head so I'll type slower. You link to a chart and believe it is some indicator of a bad economy, yet many others just like you who cherry pick odd measures to justify their feeble arguments have done so in the past with Baltic Dry being a prime example.




Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
One year of slight change doesn't change the overall trend.
Like your link saying homelessness has been going down every year exccept last year when it went up 1%? THat was your evidence of a poor economy. Well played.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Real wages have been stagnant or slightly increased for the past several decades depending on the source, meaning the average persons standard of living has not improved since the 70's/80s, whereas prior to this they moved in lockstep with productivity growth. In a growing and prospering economy wages and standard of living are supposed to improve over time as the economy grows, crazy concept huh?
Standard of living has improved, and this doesn't jibe with

[i]"Are you actually going to try and argue that real wages for workers have kept pace with any reasonable measure of cost of living, inflation"[/quote]

By saying real wages are stagnant or slightly increased you are saying they have kept pace with inflation. Derp.



Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
Where is any counter argument, besides you harping on over U-6? This is like talking to a 4th grader at this point, let me know when you have an argument other than "nope, you're wrong" or "you fail" lol
I love when you type "lol" in a post saying someone is else like a 4th grader, it's perfect irony.

You keep attacking U-6 because you were busted and you hate it. You tried to use to to make a point but when you found out you were wrong you suddenly aren't, just like the credit thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
But I'm guessing you think we are living in a functional democracy where leaders have the best interests of the people at heart, right?
Never said that, but we give a golf clap at your feeble attempt to attribute an opinion to me to attack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2018, 04:47 AM
 
2,240 posts, read 1,386,969 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwuwei View Post
True, if you consider 8% unemployment to be low. It has recovered from the peak of the 2008 crisis though yes. A better indicator I find is the employment to population ratio, which includes the people who have just given up entirely on working, numbers which could "magically" come back into the workforce if we had say, a New Deal-esque jobs program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employ...pulation_ratio

Also a helpful article showing how the drop in labor participation rate since the crash is not all because of the boomers.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/ar...e-the-peak.htm

More importantly, the jobs that people ARE accepting are increasingly lower and lower wage jobs than what they had previously, such as service sector jobs.




There were historic levels of bankruptcies following the crash, bringing delinquency rates down to where they are now, and starting to rise again.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...008-2017-04-03

People are clearly stretched to the limit. When that happens, the bubble bursts and the economy crashes.



All of the ones you mention? Corporate profits are largely fictitious (as well as the stock market in general) as companies are not investing their money into their companies, but simply doing share repurchases (sometimes debt-financed) to continually raise their companies share price. Consumer spending again is pushed to the limit as people have borrowed as much as they possibly can to try and keep up with drops or stagnant wages, or just giving up on the economy/workforce entirely.

Important graphic here:

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...612_bubble.jpg

Infographic: The Everything Bubble Is Ready to Pop | Mauldin Economics

This is one big fantasy world the mainstream media feeds us, and it gets very ugly when you start looking behind the curtain.
Not that you’ll listen because your “proof” is from zero hedge...but how can you say Buying back shares isn’t an investment in the company? When they buy it back, that’s them believing their stock will go up and in fact they’re choosing that investment over others.

Buying back their own shares is changing the capital structure.....with low interest rates, it’s better to have cheaper AND tax deductible interest payments of debt.

If I know my stock is going to be going up and my company is going to be profitable, I’d rather pay out fixed interest sums for capital I need than to make variable dividends and share in my success with other owners. Equity is expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2018, 05:39 AM
 
4,721 posts, read 2,255,657 times
Reputation: 8734
Almost everything poor weiwuwei has brought up to bolster his claim that the economy never recovered from 2007 has worked against him, and when he realizes it you get comedy like "Did I say it in itself indicates a poor economy?"

That's the reason for the unquantifiable appeal to emotion type argumenents about how the mainstream media is misleading the public and links to people selling investment newsletters predicting everything is going to crash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 12:48 PM
 
155 posts, read 87,316 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Not that you’ll listen because your “proof” is from zero hedge...but how can you say Buying back shares isn’t an investment in the company? When they buy it back, that’s them believing their stock will go up and in fact they’re choosing that investment over others.

Buying back their own shares is changing the capital structure.....with low interest rates, it’s better to have cheaper AND tax deductible interest payments of debt.

If I know my stock is going to be going up and my company is going to be profitable, I’d rather pay out fixed interest sums for capital I need than to make variable dividends and share in my success with other owners. Equity is expensive.
The stock price is going up BECAUSE they are buying back the shares. If they wanted to invest in the company, they would INVEST IN THE COMPANY (i.e. expansion, new plants, hiring, new products, etc.) Spending profits (and in many cases going into debt) to finance equity buybacks is an obvious sign of a company with nothing else to do with their cash. And since C-level bonuses are often tied to share price, bingo done deal.

lieqiang - if there was anything approaching a counter-argument beyond baltic dry, zero hedge, and u-6, or an original response to the chart I've posted (rather than criticizing the source) then maybe we can continue. But you seem very upset and it is not a constructive argument at this time. As I've mentioned, stagnant wages that have not kept pace with productivity or the skyrocketing cost of living have led to record levels of indebtedness. Savings rate has crashed, homeownership rate has crashed, labor participation and employment levels have dropped off, there are very real crises like opioid use and homelessness, and now we see real estate and consumer loan growth dropping off. The economy is held up by a fictitious stock market, fictitious housing prices that should have crashed but never did (and are really a burden for those who don't own a home), and a modest jobs recovery that skews towards lower wage service jobs. Just like in 2008, we borrow and borrow as long as we can to try and keep up, but eventually the math doesn't work anymore and the demand drops, the jobs drop, and we are back into another crash. Unfortunately, this time wall street already cleaned up and owns the mortgages and owns the regulation and the stock market, so the only ones who are going to suffer are the average joe.

This is all very easily independently verifiable with just a bit of research or by talking to the average american trying to make ends meet. Perhaps the data you see and your own experience leads you to see the economy as doing well, and that's fine. Trust me, I'd rather you were right than me and there are some brights spots like tech, the up and coming pot industry, rising minimum wages in the more liberal states, but overall I just don't see it right now. Let's hope you are correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top