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.
By that logic there were no losses in wealth when the housing bubble crashed.
Sorry for setting you up as I knew you would respond with that.
For people like me, who bought a house and obtained a mortgage in 1992, it made no matter. The difference is that there was a housing boom and many people bought homes within a few years of the crash at inflated prices. Many others borrowed on the equity on their homes. For them, it was an actual loss in equity.
Sorry for setting you up as I knew you would respond with that.
For people like me, who bought a house and obtained a mortgage in 1992, it made no matter. The difference is that there was a housing boom and many people bought homes within a few years of the crash at inflated prices. Many others borrowed on the equity on their homes. For them, it was an actual loss in equity.
And the millions who invested in tech stocks? The hundreds of thousands who lost jobs in the tech sector?
And the millions who invested in tech stocks? The hundreds of thousands who lost jobs in the tech sector?
Your propaganda skills are atrocious.
I don't have propaganda skills, just facts.
Millions invested in tech stocks but not all at their highs. Your $6T number is assuming they did. Where does your "hundreds of thousands who lost jobs" estimate derive from?
Dude, you're being childish. Most economists USED to say 250,000 before the boomers started retiring. Here are a few years of birth data. Note that before and during the war live births were about a million less than the years just after the war. All things being equal there are at least a million more retiring in 2012 verse 1944+66=2010. You're living in a new normal. Take 100,000 off that 250,000. They used to say the earth was flat...
Year live births births per 1000
1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3 3,965,000 25.1
1954 3 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0
Today birth minus deaths give us 1,600,000 new citizens. Crude math but that also says a bit under 150,000 population growth a month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The quote actually said that most economists sbay 150,000-200,000 and that Barclays Capital says differently. Barclays Capital =/= most econeomists
Ii was NOT the one who said that we need jobs because people move around if that's what you're suggesting. That's laughable. I said we need jobs because of population growth. And I am certainly not the one who said we needed 250,000 - I said 150,000.
And - BTW - some baby boomers are retiring early, but just as many are retiring late.
Since you retired in 2006 (at 52 or 53 no less, an age at which the vast majority of people would never be able to retire), I gather you think that only 75,000 new jobs were needed per month then? Right? I bet not...you would probably say 250,000...because that was during the Bush years.
Millions invested in tech stocks but not all at their highs. Your $6T number is assuming they did. Where does your "hundreds of thousands who lost jobs" estimate derive from?
Same as homes; few bought at the peak pricing, and the media largely reported unrealized losses.
Apparently a lot of the shriking workforce is from baby boomers starting to retire.
Boomer retirements drive down jobless rate | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/usatoday/article/54791590?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CBusiness% 7Cs - broken link)
Quote:
Many more employed than unemployed Americans dropped out of the labor force last month, likely indicating that most were retirees rather than discouraged workers, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics. Of the 6.7 million people who dropped out of the labor force last month, about 60% were employed.
That's been the pattern since at least 2010. The number of employed Americans leaving the job market has risen, while the ranks of unemployed dropping out have fallen.
Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist of Barclays Capital, cites more evidence from government data. In the first quarter, 18.8% of Americans who were not in the labor force and said they didn't want jobs were 55 or older, up from 17.8% when the recession started.
He says that closely tracks the rise in Social Security recipients. Maki says the increase in Boomer retirements likely means job growth of only 75,000 to 100,000 a month is needed to keep the unemployment rate steady.
And the millions who invested in tech stocks? The hundreds of thousands who lost jobs in the tech sector?
Your propaganda skills are atrocious.
That is the difference between you guys and normal people. You're talking "propaganda" and spin, we're talking FACTS, no more, no less. You should try it.
We know that the job gains are lack-luster. The question is what to do about them? The conservative answer is cut spending and cut taxes for rich people. The progressive answer is fiscal and monetary stimulus.
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.
