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.
It's not like things have been booming since that time. GDP growth has not been impressive, even with all the QE and ZIRP, and who knows how many more acronyms. Equities and corporate profits lifted off, leaving wages, and everything else, in the dust.
We've had a spate of these circa-2008 threads resurrected recently. It's been an illuminating read. While indeed in the months after said threads were started, markets were roiled by unprecedented (since 1929-1932) disruptions, overall the recovery was no less breathtaking. At no time are we entirely free of possible calamity. Today's 2100-level of the S&P-500 could in principle collapse in the near future. Or it might not. But crucially, it is 2100 now. In March of 2009 it was what, 700? And what was it in the spring of 2008, when this particular thread was started? The world did not end, however harshly it was traumatized.
I do wonder, though... the stock market isn't that much higher today, that it was at its earlier peak, of the spring of 2000. How far have we risen over 15 years?
A "structural economic depression." OMG, where do these people come from? There is a depression for sure and it matches the size of a hammer blow to the head.
A "structural economic depression." OMG, where do these people come from? There is a depression for sure and it matches the size of a hammer blow to the head.
This thread was posted in 2008. Gee, what was going on at that time...
We've had a spate of these circa-2008 threads resurrected recently. It's been an illuminating read. While indeed in the months after said threads were started, markets were roiled by unprecedented (since 1929-1932) disruptions, overall the recovery was no less breathtaking. At no time are we entirely free of possible calamity. Today's 2100-level of the S&P-500 could in principle collapse in the near future. Or it might not. But crucially, it is 2100 now. In March of 2009 it was what, 700? And what was it in the spring of 2008, when this particular thread was started? The world did not end, however harshly it was traumatized.
I do wonder, though... the stock market isn't that much higher today, that it was at its earlier peak, of the spring of 2000. How far have we risen over 15 years?
Using 2000 as a benchmark, the U.S. is much worse off, when you look at the workforce participation rate, return on savings (hardly any at this point), % of the workforce employed full-time, and the numbers of breadwinner and tech jobs. The latter two are particularly telling, we're running a deficit in both departments, with 30M more people living here. Tech jobs are down something like 1.5M, compared with 2000, and so-called breadwinner jobs are way down in the hole, too.
It's interesting to read these old threads. Like many, I knew something was wrong by January of '08, but couldn't quite put a finger on why things were screwed up, nor could I imagine just how bad things would be 8 months later, and on into '09. Many of us will be prepared this time around, we've enlightened ourselves regarding economics, and how to weather the storm.
Using 2000 as a benchmark, the U.S. is much worse off, when you look at the workforce participation rate, return on savings (hardly any at this point), % of the workforce employed full-time, and the numbers of breadwinner and tech jobs. The latter two are particularly telling, we're running a deficit in both departments, with 30M more people living here. Tech jobs are down something like 1.5M, compared with 2000, and so-called breadwinner jobs are way down in the hole, too.
Am I missing something? How are tech jobs down when BLS shows so many more people working in tech jobs?
If you can define "breadwinner job" I'd be interested to look into that too. That might be down or might not (I have no idea) but given your claims on tech jobs versus BLS data I'm a bit skeptical.
do you compare the growth of jobs against the population growth within the same period? Computer jobs increased by 1 million plus what was the growth in labor. If potential computer labor grew by 10 million but jobs only 1 million there would be unemployment. While there is growth it did not keep up with the number of workers looking for work. All the people who are 40+ who are unemployed because there are more people in the country. the 40-64 age group make up around 46% of the working population. Jobs may have increased in the country but not for this group, it has decreased.
The 20-39 age group makes up only 37% of the country. The older group is growing faster and then the younger group. Our issues is not enough jobs. People who lose their jobs at 57 years old are forced into early retirement or significantly lowered paying jobs.
the government does not promote the real unemployment figures because of the methods they use to count unemployment, however regardless if they talk about it, the results are less consumerism. If one extrapolated job count with population growth it would help quantify what is happening.
Regards,
PS. according to the US census 2010 the 40-64 age groups is 102,380,409 million people while the 20-39 age group is 82,826,589 million. If the 40+ group is loosing their jobs and the young people are having a hard time finding jobs that leaves a whole lot of people out of work. Wait till the new president is elected and takes office, then all hell is going to break loose.
Using 2000 as a benchmark, the U.S. is much worse off, when you look at the workforce participation rate...
LOL! The LFPR is not an economic indicator. It does have a cyclical component, but it is driven chiefly by demographic factors. It was projected to peak in 1999-2000 and then begin a long, steady decline as the principal demographic vector switched from women entering the workforce to baby-boomers leaving it. Absent some significant immigration reform, LFPR is currently projected to continue declining at least through the middle of the next decade.
How'd this prediction work out? All the funny money did indeed reflate all the bubbles. Don't fight the fed, OP.
Yeah wages suck for the average person who's living paycheck to paycheck and medical costs are through the roof but the top 5% or so have managed to reflate all their bubbles and keep things chugging along alright... "liquidity" and "debt laundering" are back full force. Good times.
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.
