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.
I heard a startling statistic that only a relatively small portion of all the jobs in the US pay a decent wage. At some point during the recovery we will have to get past looking at the unemployment rate as a reliable indicator. The good jobs are gone and they are not coming back. Too many people are holding out for more pay and they will be sorry if they don't just take the best they can get and "shed the fat" out of their life style. I'm sure there are many economic theories as to why 3 million Jobs are unfilled. If 3 million people filled those jobs tomorrow wouldn't that stimulate the economy?
I heard a startling statistic that only a relatively small portion of all the jobs in the US pay a decent wage. At some point during the recovery we will have to get past looking at the unemployment rate as a reliable indicator. The good jobs are gone and they are not coming back. Too many people are holding out for more pay and they will be sorry if they don't just take the best they can get and "shed the fat" out of their life style. I'm sure there are many economic theories as to why 3 million Jobs are unfilled. If 3 million people filled those jobs tomorrow wouldn't that stimulate the economy?
The housing market is showing signs of recovery. The job market, though not at pre-recession levels, is better than it was in 09-10. The economy is rebounding but far from pre-recession levels. How much does it have to do as a result of Obama being in office? None really
The good jobs are gone and they are not coming back.
The fire hose of federal money is being aimed directly at the finance, insurance, education, and lately, the real estate sectors of the economy. There are lots of 'good jobs' to be had there.
It won't last forever, but for now, this is where the bubbles are being blown by the government.
A prime example why one needs to cite credible sources and not ones who will skew the data in order to present the story they want to tell.
The 2nd graph is marked 1929-1933. The Great Depression actually did occur in 1929, so that period is appropriate.
However, the first graph above is marked "Figure 1: Percent Change in Manufacturing Employment During the Great Depression and the 2000s." The 2000s? The Great Recession occurred in 2008. Manufacturing has been declining for decades. That isn't measuring the decline in manufacturing from the Great Recession. The authors are using an 8 year period to exaggerate their point, which is misleading at best and a fraud at worst.
A prime example why one needs to cite credible sources and not ones who will skew the data in order to present the story they want to tell.
The 2nd graph is marked 1929-1933. The Great Depression actually did occur in 1929, so that period is appropriate.
However, the first graph above is marked "Figure 1: Percent Change in Manufacturing Employment During the Great Depression and the 2000s." The 2000s? The Great Recession occurred in 2008. Manufacturing has been declining for decades. That isn't measuring the decline in manufacturing from the Great Recession. The authors are using an 8 year period to exaggerate their point, which is misleading at best and a fraud at worst.
I would say you are exaggerating. Nobody said anything about a "great recession". They are simply pointing out a serious trend that is actually worse than what we consider our worst. You seem to be manufacturing you own comparisons of what you think are apples to apples and dramatizing it. The time frames are defined.
You can look at official numbers yourself, directly from the source. Year by year doesn't change the trend.
I would say you are exaggerating. Nobody said anything about a "great recession". They are simply pointing out a serious trend that is actually worse than what we consider our worst. You seem to be manufacturing you own comparisons of what you think are apples to apples and dramatizing it. The time frames are defined.
The authors are compare the Great Depression period (4 years, 1929-1933) to the period 2000-2009, nine years. Why do you think? My belief is that it gives them the conclusion they think.
Yet, the title of this thread is "Honest Debate - does anyone believe that we are in a recovery?" If the discussion isn't the recovery from the Great Recession, what are we discussing? Indeed, if those authors aren't measuring the Great Recession it has no bearing on this thread.
The authors are compare the Great Depression period (4 years, 1929-1933) to the period 2000-2009, nine years. Why do you think? My belief is that it gives them the conclusion they think.
Yet, the title of this thread is "Honest Debate - does anyone believe that we are in a recovery?" If the discussion isn't the recovery from the Great Recession, what are we discussing? Indeed,[b] if those authors aren't measuring the Great Recession it has no bearing on this thread.
I already told you the reason I think. Now in bold. They are simply pointing out a serious trend that is actually worse than what we consider our worst.
Sorry I disagree. Economic recovery trends are relevant. Read the information or don't, but I don't suggest making baseless claims about one's motivations based on your own views. As I said, feel free to take the year to yr breakdown and make your own comparison. That article is also discussing how "manufacturing" is defined.
"Just 54 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 currently have jobs, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. That's the lowest employment rate for this age group since the government began keeping track in 1948. And it's a sharp drop from the 62 percent who had jobs in 2007 -- suggesting the recession is crippling career prospects for a broad swath of young people who were still in high school or college when the downturn began."
"And the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979."
"Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied with November for the lowest since December 1984."
"The New York Times delivers some news so grim that it had to cook the headline to hide it: “Median Household Income Down 7.3% Since Start of Recession.”
Well, yes, but as the Times reluctantly admits in the very last paragraph of the story, 5.6 percent of that decline has occurred since the Obama “recovery” began."
Yes that is correct...just over 3/4ths of the decline in household income happened during the "recovery".
"Of particular concern to Sy is the decline in average hours worked – which may signal there’s less work that needs to get done."
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.
