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.
If your question is answered simply by job availability then Texas would be the answer. Specifically the swath stretching from Houston through Dallas and up into Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The reason? Energy. The nation's energy comes from this area and there is always a market for it. This is assuming of course you have no issues with living in this area. North Dakota is another place. This is because they have a lot of jobs from some reason, but nobody wants to live in that moonscape of a place.
Charlotte will bounce back like it did in the 70s after the Carter years..
In the 70s AFTER the Carter years? Carter was in office until 1981. 1981 wasn't "in the 70s."
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindaloo
Since most Americans are ignorant on economic matters, they don't understand economic trends are a fact of life and recessions are unavoidable. They are nobody's fault.
Recessions are unavoidable, but the depths to which they take us can be avoided if smart policies are in place before they start. The severity of this recession is largely tied to failures in the banking and financial markets which, in turn, were the result of lax government oversight that allowed them to get away murder. Now we're suffering the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindaloo
Nevertheless, when we pull out of the recession, your president will take credit for the great job he has done by pulling us out of the recession with his glorious stimulous package. LOL!
You mean like George W. Bush was doing several years ago when he was taking credit for the booming real estate market? This stimulus package is based on the Keynsian economic model, which Ronald Reagan also followed to get us out of our last major economic mess (which was not as severe as what we're in now). During his time in office, Ronald Reagan increased the national debt by nearly 300%. So far, Obama has increased the national debt by about 13%. So putting things in context, Obama's deficit spending is not likely to come anywhere near Reagan's deficit spending. And one major difference between the Reagan and Obama spending is Reagan's was mostly military spending, while Obama is mostly infrastructure spending. Meanwhile, since Reagan, our nation's infrastructure has crumbled to the point where we've fallen behind the rest of the developed world and becoming less competitive as a nation. We used to be number one by every measure. (Today, we're ranked 17th in education, 37th in healthcare, our airports are substandard compared to other countries, as our our roads, and we literally have bridges falling down.) Remember that the deficit spending FDR did to pull us out of the Great Depression was also spent on building up our infrastructure and made us the envy of the world. This led to the longest period of economic growth -- 30 plus years -- of any country in modern history and, along with the G.I. Bill, the creation of the largest middle class in the entire history of the world. Today our middle class is eroding. So if we're going to do deficit spending, it ought to be spent building up our infrastructure and our people. We are already number one in the world in military spending, and if we cut our military spending in half we'd STILL be number one in military spending; meanwhile, everything else has been going to pot.
Location: livin' the good life on America's favorite island
2,221 posts, read 4,405,561 times
Reputation: 1391
^^My understanding is the Stimulus bill falls WAY short in helping improve our infrastructure which I find very troublesome. Only 5% of the money is targeted to infrastructure, IMO alot of money goes toward entitlements and pork using the smokescreen of infrastructure rebuilding. I challenge you to prove that this bill has a significant amount of money toward infrastructure because this is not the case. How the stimulus plan breaks down - USATODAY.com
^^My understanding is the Stimulus bill falls WAY short in helping improve our infrastructure which I find very troublesome. Only 5% of the money is targeted to infrastructure, IMO alot of money goes toward entitlements and pork using the smokescreen of infrastructure rebuilding. I challenge you to prove that this bill has a significant amount of money toward infrastructure because this is not the case. How the stimulus plan breaks down - USATODAY.com
Sorry, I meant to say infrastructure and the people. The G.I. Bill, for example, was not about infrastructure, but about providing educational opportunities and the ability to buy homes. (Yes, I know that came after WWII.) I think investment in our people is equally as important as investing in our infrastructure. It's about preparing ourselves with the tools we need for the future. I don't necessarily agree with all the non-infrastructure stimulus spending that's going on now, but I agree with most of it. Any spending that ultimately gives makes us stronger, healthier and more competitive as a people is not, IMO, pork (a term which attached to anything one particular interest group doesn't want it spent on).
Vin, I don't agree with your assessment about the recession being nobody's fault, at least this recession and its extent.
I do agree that CLT will recover, as will Detroit.
What I meant was that the economic cycle is too strong for any one person to control. There are variables that lead up the intensity of the recessions, depressions, and recoveries, that are generally beyond the control of a President. An economic cycle can't be blamed on Bush any more than recovery can be credited to Obama. It all depends on being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time. Sorry, my term "nobody" was presented in an unclear manner.
If your question is answered simply by job availability then Texas would be the answer. Specifically the swath stretching from Houston through Dallas and up into Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The reason? Energy. The nation's energy comes from this area and there is always a market for it. This is assuming of course you have no issues with living in this area. North Dakota is another place. This is because they have a lot of jobs from some reason, but nobody wants to live in that moonscape of a place.
TX is hurting too, not as bad as here but last heard their unemployment rate is like 8 or 9%.
Sorry, I meant to say infrastructure and the people. The G.I. Bill, for example, was not about infrastructure, but about providing educational opportunities and the ability to buy homes. (Yes, I know that came after WWII.) I think investment in our people is equally as important as investing in our infrastructure. It's about preparing ourselves with the tools we need for the future. I don't necessarily agree with all the non-infrastructure stimulus spending that's going on now, but I agree with most of it. Any spending that ultimately gives makes us stronger, healthier and more competitive as a people is not, IMO, pork (a term which attached to anything one particular interest group doesn't want it spent on).
This is not the time to be concerned about preparing people for anything. Lots of "prepared people" are out of work. We need jobs, not more entitlement programs. Anyone who wants an education in the last 20 years could have gotten it with all the loan $$$ floating around and all the community colleges with slots open. What we need is JOBS that these qualified folks can take advantage of. This "preparation for the future" stuff is bogus. We can't even get half the kids in this country to graduate from high school.
[quote=brichard;11982688]In the 70s AFTER the Carter years? Carter was in office until 1981. 1981 wasn't "in the 70s."
You are right. I meant the 80s. Nevertheless, the Carter years were not the best. I can remember with giving back the Panama City Canal, the Cuban boat bandits given entry into the country, seige of the American embassy in Iran, unbelievable high interest rates on homes, skyrocketing gas prices, gas lines, and rationing. I still supported the guy, but now when I look back I don't know why. I still think was a good guy until he bame a nutcase a few years ago.
Why not? I believe they are paying around 85 cents an hour now.
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.
