NationStates Jolt Archive

Lower Deficits, Booming Markets ('http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_m236TcaC_k&refer=news')

Gee, I guess there's only one thing that Bush isn't fucking up, and that's the economy.

Even while we're in a war...

Along with record highs in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index of large-company shares and the smallest yield premiums on the riskiest corporate bonds in the past month, low bill yields are a sign of confidence. Bush's approval ratings are at record lows because of the Iraq war. Bush drew a 32 percent approval rating in an AP-Ipsos poll on June 7 and 28 percent in a Newsweek poll on May 5.

Voters are even less fond of Bush than in September 2005, after he praised Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael D. Brown as doing ``a heck of a job'' managing the recovery of New Orleans and surrounding areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Brown stepped down 10 days later.

Financial markets say the voters are wrong. Three-month bill yields averaged only 13 basis points lower than the federal funds rate in September 2005. The S&P 500 is up almost 25 percent, and high-yield bond spreads are almost a percentage point narrower, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. The average yield premium was 266 basis points as of June 21, compared with 354 in September 2005. A basis point is one one-hundredth of a percentage point.

``Treasury bills, more than anything, reflect'' the smaller supply of government debt, said James E. Glassman, senior U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. ``Because this year was such a blowout for Treasury, to prevent cash from piling up they offer fewer Treasury bills.''

Usually, there's inflation during war, and we're not getting that, either.

Two problems. One, the stock market is generally a really shitty indicator of an overall economy, because it really only tracks corporate profits. Now, if you're primarily an investor, that's probably good news for you, but for everyone else, it's not so great, and considering that the vast majority of the US population doesn't depend on corporate profits for income, a booming market doesn't do much for them. It's helping out my retirement account, for instance, but it's not really impacting my life right now.

Second is that you're making the typical mistake you always do and act as though there's "an economy" that's doing well or poorly. There isn't. It's all relative to where you are on the economic ladder. If you're a wage worker, chances are this economy isn't doing much for you. If you're a CEO, you're probably making out like a bandit. If you make less than $200K a year, you're probably not feeling much in the way of greatness in the economy; if you're making more, you're loving life.

From my standpoint, because the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is widening at a rate unseen since the Gilded Age, the economy is for shit, especially when you factor in the housing crash, since housing has been driving the economy for the last 5 years. But hey--I'm below the median income for my area, so I have a different perspective than you do, no doubt.

Two problems. One, the stock market is generally a really shitty indicator of an overall economy, because it really only tracks corporate profits. Now, if you're primarily an investor, that's probably good news for you, but for everyone else, it's not so great, and considering that the vast majority of the US population doesn't depend on corporate profits for income, a booming market doesn't do much for them. It's helping out my retirement account, for instance, but it's not really impacting my life right now.

Second is that you're making the typical mistake you always do and act as though there's "an economy" that's doing well or poorly. There isn't. It's all relative to where you are on the economic ladder. If you're a wage worker, chances are this economy isn't doing much for you. If you're a CEO, you're probably making out like a bandit. If you make less than $200K a year, you're probably not feeling much in the way of greatness in the economy; if you're making more, you're loving life.

From my standpoint, because the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is widening at a rate unseen since the Gilded Age, the economy is for shit, especially when you factor in the housing crash, since housing has been driving the economy for the last 5 years. But hey--I'm below the median income for my area, so I have a different perspective than you do, no doubt.

Low unemployment. The lowest wage paid in my area is 16 dollars an hour for full-time work.

I'm a bit over the median for my area, but right at median when you consider I have five children.

Lowest wage paid around here is 5.25 an hour. Though I do love the stock market gains, doing wonders for the old 401k.

Oh yes, don't forget the mantra when the economy tanks. "It's Clinton's fault!"

Low unemployment. The lowest wage paid in my area is 16 dollars an hour for full-time work.

I'm a bit over the median for my area, but right at median when you consider I have five children.

Low in rate, but only because you have people who have traded one decent job for two shitty ones. Meanwhile, wages have continued to be stagnant (much like they have for the last 30 years), and the areas where costs have gone up the most aren't factored into the inflation figure--energy and food. Throw in increasing health care costs, and you still have a pretty crappy economy for most people making the median or below. But go ahead--crow about the economy.

I guess you are incapable of looking at the big picture of economics.

We have a deficit so big we could probably coat the entire surface of road island with a layer of hundred-dollar bills six inches thick and it probably wouldn't be enough to pay off our deficit.

Bring Clinton back. No, not Hillary. Bill. Please.

Second is that you're making the typical mistake you always do and act as though there's "an economy" that's doing well or poorly. There isn't. It's all relative to where you are on the economic ladder. If you're a wage worker, chances are this economy isn't doing much for you. If you're a CEO, you're probably making out like a bandit. If you make less than $200K a year, you're probably not feeling much in the way of greatness in the economy; if you're making more, you're loving life.


A local paper had a story this weekend. Going over tax returns, etc. they reported that the people who made a million or more saw their income level rise 186% Everybody else was about 2% on the average. In California 48% of the States income is controlled by 14000 households.

Income disparity has reached 1920's levels.....

Low unemployment. The lowest wage paid in my area is 16 dollars an hour for full-time work.

I'm a bit over the median for my area, but right at median when you consider I have five children.

Don't forget underemployed. If you had for example an engineer who lost his job and found one part-time; it is not exactly a sign of a great economy.

Sixteen an hour is very good. About the lowest I know is about 7.25

Low in rate, but only because you have people who have traded one decent job for two shitty ones. Meanwhile, wages have continued to be stagnant (much like they have for the last 30 years), and the areas where costs have gone up the most aren't factored into the inflation figure--energy and food. Throw in increasing health care costs, and you still have a pretty crappy economy for most people making the median or below. But go ahead--crow about the economy.

We can't hire enough skilled workers. There just aren't enough. I'd love to hire ten more people, but I can't find them. And these aren't for minimum wage jobs, either. I'm paying interns $19 per hour, techs are salaried at about $50,000 per year, and engineers are at around $80,000 for those with enough experience to find there way around a schematic.

If people can't prepare themselves for the jobs that are available, then they can't complain when they can't get the same old "good" job that they always had.

In other trades, electricians start at about $17 per hour, but there aren't enough. Diesel mechanics can get $55,000 per year easily, but there aren't enough. A/C techs can make upwards of $50,000 per year, too, but the companies can't get enough. My daughter got offered $15 per hour to change tires at a Big Ten tire store.

Employers just can't find the talent they need. Who's fault is that?

I guess you are incapable of looking at the big picture of economics.

We have a deficit so big we could probably coat the entire surface of road island with a layer of hundred-dollar bills six inches thick and it probably wouldn't be enough to pay off our deficit.

Bring Clinton back. No, not Hillary. Bill. Please.
The only good that would do would have been to keep our spendthrift Congress in check. They wouldn't have passed the entitlements that they did for GWB. And that would have been a good thing, I can't deny that.

I guess you are incapable of looking at the big picture of economics.

We have a deficit so big we could probably coat the entire surface of road island with a layer of hundred-dollar bills six inches thick and it probably wouldn't be enough to pay off our deficit.

Bring Clinton back. No, not Hillary. Bill. Please.

Read the article, specifically the part about the deficit reduction this year.

America is at war now :confused:

We can't hire enough skilled workers. There just aren't enough. I'd love to hire ten more people, but I can't find them. And these aren't for minimum wage jobs, either. I'm paying interns $19 per hour, techs are salaried at about $50,000 per year, and engineers are at around $80,000 for those with enough experience to find there way around a schematic.


It's always a matter of definition as to what is called "skilled" There are many who think the salary you offer should bring a 20 year veteran.

You of course leave out Cost of living for your area. You salary sounds like a lot but the day to day expenses probably would not leave much.

Your salaries are pretty low compared to my area.

If people can't prepare themselves for the jobs that are available, then they can't complain when they can't get the same old "good" job that they always had.


Snore.


In other trades, electricians start at about $17 per hour, but there aren't enough.

My father-in-law was a journeyman. You salary sounds impressive but you are leaving out the fact that is an apprentice wage. It used to be on a job site you would have one journeyman for 4 apprentices. He said now there is 1 to 20.

Diesel mechanics can get $55,000 per year easily, but there aren't enough. A/C techs can make upwards of $50,000 per year, too, but the companies can't get enough. My daughter got offered $15 per hour to change tires at a Big Ten tire store.


Again the cost of living for area. Sounds impressive but CoL probably leaves you pretty poor for all we know.

Employers just can't find the talent they need. Who's fault is that?

Much as you love to lay blame on one group. Both have a hand in it.

Read the article, specifically the part about the deficit reduction this year.

WHO CARES! We had a surplus under Clinton, and I'm supposed to be glad our idiot manchild of a president is finally cleaning up the consequences of his little tantrum?

You know, maybe it's a bad idea to eat malted milk balls and listen to Rage Against The Machine while trying to debate.

Snippet.

*Drop Kicks The Nazz*

Eh, what!? A bad indicator of the economy! I'm.... (Speechless)

I think someone needs to go back to school again....

Do you think you would be effected if you lost your job? Because usually, now I know you just think it's a coincidence, but when a company's stock does poorly, it cuts down wages and jobs.

Investors don't just wake up, put a blindfold on and throw a dart at a board labeled 'GM, IMB, Apple, Microsoft' ect... They go off of a selection of reports, more then just 'Corporate Profits' or whatever. You must've ripped that off that NS Calaculator or something, because that terminology... Just isn't really used.

As for your 'income disparity spiel' I would like to see some definite graphs showing a 'spiral of social doom' or whatever you want to call it.

As for the rest, well, hmm... I would say, off the top of my head, 'eh, no' just because it reeks of crazy socialism, but hey, it's too early in the morning for me to get to excited about a debate, so... Yeah.

Read the article, specifically the part about the deficit reduction this year.

I love it! "Deficit reduction" - we're still going deeper into the hole, but at least we've slowed down the rate at which we are drowning in debt. I'll talk about the wonderful economy when I start hearing the word "surplus" (think Clinton) and when the Euro is back to around a dollar. Right now, with a slightly better deficit, the dollar tanking vs just about every other currency, underemployment, outsourcing, widening gap between rich and working poor, and a looming peak oil crisis that the government and industries have done NOTHING about, I'll stick with a somewhat less than rosy assessment of the economy right now.

i wouldn't credit bush for the economy at the moment and sure as hell would not credit pelosi

I love it! "Deficit reduction" - we're still going deeper into the hole, but at least we've slowed down the rate at which we are drowning in debt. I'll talk about the wonderful economy when I start hearing the word "surplus" (think Clinton) and when the Euro is back to around a dollar. Right now, with a slightly better deficit, the dollar tanking vs just about every other currency, underemployment, outsourcing, widening gap between rich and working poor, and a looming peak oil crisis that the government and industries have done NOTHING about, I'll stick with a somewhat less than rosy assessment of the economy right now.

I was surprised. I used to travel a great deal but that is gone now. Especially when you consider the rates:

Euro is $1.34
Pound is now $1.99

Just too expensive for me to fly now......

I love it! "Deficit reduction" - we're still going deeper into the hole, but at least we've slowed down the rate at which we are drowning in debt. I'll talk about the wonderful economy when I start hearing the word "surplus" (think Clinton) and when the Euro is back to around a dollar. Right now, with a slightly better deficit, the dollar tanking vs just about every other currency, underemployment, outsourcing, widening gap between rich and working poor, and a looming peak oil crisis that the government and industries have done NOTHING about, I'll stick with a somewhat less than rosy assessment of the economy right now.

Just shoot me now, before the economics of the retarded force me to jump off a building...

*Sighs*

A strong dollar and no more out-sourcing is just about the biggest oxy-moron; you need to wake up pronto before you find yourself found out as a complete idiot.

People are like "George Bush! Perform a miracle!" When George Bush is like, "Sorry, I'm limited by the bounds of reality." Everyone turns into a "I hte Buch bcuse hes for oils!!!11!!"

Bottom line, a weak dollar = less unemployment, less over seas outsourcing, and a lesser deficit. Mainly because there are more dollars around, and a government budget doesn't use old dollars, it doesn't keep the same value of beforehand.

*Drop Kicks The Nazz*

Eh, what!? A bad indicator of the economy! I'm.... (Speechless)

I think someone needs to go back to school again....

Yeah--you do. The market gauges one thing--corporate profitability. That's it. To look at the stock market and proclaim the economy healthy (or unhealthy, for that matter) would be like the blind man who claimed an elephant was shaped like a tree because he felt its legs. It's one factor among many, and not a definitive one. Try to avoid looking at complex issues in simplistic ways and maybe you'll avoid looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah--you do. The market gauges one thing--corporate profitability. That's it. To look at the stock market and proclaim the economy healthy (or unhealthy, for that matter) would be like the blind man who claimed an elephant was shaped like a tree because he felt its legs. It's one factor among many, and not a definitive one. Try to avoid looking at complex issues in simplistic ways and maybe you'll avoid looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, I think there is some deep rooted differances in how we look at things, while I could spin out a couple other things that people use to judge how well the economy is doing, it will undoubtably just be classified as 'Corporate Profits'.

Like I said, I'm not going to get into a Socialist-Capitalist debate with you, but honestly, the stock market reflects the health of the economy. Mainly because without profit, we have low consumer confidence, higher unemployment, lower wages ect al.

Look at it this way, if 'Corporate Profits' doesn't reflect the general feel of the economy, what does? Isn't the best way to tell something is doing well is by how much it sells by and for how much? Maybe that is too much like 'ebvil capitlsts' for you?

I see your article by the Bloomberg reporter Elizabeth Stanton, and raise you one article by formerAssistant Secretary of the Treasury of the Reagan administration and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts.

Mr Roberts states that -
In the 21st century, job growth in “the world’s only superpower” has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/062507Roberts.shtml

Just shoot me now, before the economics of the retarded force me to jump off a building...

*Sighs*

A strong dollar and no more out-sourcing is just about the biggest oxy-moron; you need to wake up pronto before you find yourself found out as a complete idiot.

People are like "George Bush! Perform a miracle!" When George Bush is like, "Sorry, I'm limited by the bounds of reality." Everyone turns into a "I hte Buch bcuse hes for oils!!!11!!"

Bottom line, a weak dollar = less unemployment, less over seas outsourcing, and a lesser deficit. Mainly because there are more dollars around, and a government budget doesn't use old dollars, it doesn't keep the same value of beforehand.

So if a weak dollar = less overseas outsourcing, then why do we have a weak dollar and MORE overseas outsourcing? We used to have a strong dollar and basically no outsourcing. Something tells me we made a choice along the way that has brought us to this point. I won't consider the economy doing well until we can start making some of those problems better, and something tells me that letting corporations and industry do whatever the heck they want isn't going to help. Consider me a skeptic.

And I would hope that you can see that I was reflecting the serious problems that people lower on the economic ladder face every day. For all the reasons I listed above, be they intertwined or loosely connected, this economy is not doing well by hundreds of millions of Americans. The weakening dollar has increased the cost of consumer goods (mostly because of the cost of oil); outsourcing has led to serious problems of underemployment in the rust belt and other areas; a widening rich/poor gap has led to the invisibility of many of these problems in the corridors of power; lax banking rules have led to a housing bubble in many areas, the collapsing of which has led to many foreclosures; and we still are rolling out some of the most inefficient vehicles for personal transport in the world, leading us to an ecological and economic nightmare sometime in the future. No, this economy is not the shining beacon on the hill. It is not sustainable with its current deification of growth. It is facing serious problems, and I do not know how to solve them. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else on these forums. Probably no one on earth really knows. I would bet you that just about any Democrat, and most Republicans would do a better job than Bush, though.

Okay, I think there is some deep rooted differances in how we look at things, while I could spin out a couple other things that people use to judge how well the economy is doing, it will undoubtably just be classified as 'Corporate Profits'.

Like I said, I'm not going to get into a Socialist-Capitalist debate with you, but honestly, the stock market reflects the health of the economy. Mainly because without profit, we have low consumer confidence, higher unemployment, lower wages ect al.

Look at it this way, if 'Corporate Profits' doesn't reflect the general feel of the economy, what does? Isn't the best way to tell something is doing well is by how much it sells by and for how much? Maybe that is too much like 'ebvil capitlsts' for you?

The market is one of many indicators--just not the sole one, and right now, if you're using it as a primary indicator, you're getting a very skewed view of the economy, skewed, as I said before, toward investors and few others.

For an overall view of the economy, how it's affecting the largest number of people, you need to look at things like wealth distribution, where the growth in wealth is occurring, wage growth, inflation, personal and national debt to income ratios, unemployment and underemployment and interest rates, just to name a few. People who look only at the stock market aren't getting a feel for the underlying weaknesses of the economy because they're only looking at one part of it--corporate profitability.

Snippet.

It's because the market is trying to correct the imbalance; it isn't like one day it is 'strong dollar, a lot of outsourcing' and the next day 'weak dollar, no outsourcing'. It takes time-

As for the outsourcing, well, it's because of a variety of reasons. Mainly the opening and growth of China and India. Both of which were more closed off and innword looking a few years ago. As well, with all of them Enron/Globalcomm repercussions was a shotload of new laws that have done nothing then rape new companies in the ass. For instance, Sarbannes-Oxley. Look, when big business and democrats agree on something, and you're looking to be a small business operator, then you leave the country.

Mainly it is the costs of these new, shitty, laws that I left the Republican party, who 'promised' to restrict government. LOL, they're going to hell.




Like I said, I'm not going to get into a Socialist-Capitalist debate with you, but honestly, the stock market reflects the health of the ewth in wealth is occurring, wage growth, inflation, personal and national debt to income ratios, unemployment and underemployment and interest rates, just to name a few. People who look only at the stock market aren't getting a feel for the underlying weaknesses of the economy because they're only looking at one part of it--corporate profitability.

When wages are low, or out of sync, look over to the service industry.

When debt is high, look at sub-prime mortage stocks.

When interest rates are not in sync, look at banks.

Employment needs a more diverse picture, but basically, the stock market can deliver.

Basically, where cash is king, that's where you should look for the health of the kingdom.

*Drop Kicks The Nazz*

Eh, what!? A bad indicator of the economy! I'm.... (Speechless)

I think someone needs to go back to school again....

Do you think you would be effected if you lost your job? Because usually, now I know you just think it's a coincidence, but when a company's stock does poorly, it cuts down wages and jobs.

Investors don't just wake up, put a blindfold on and throw a dart at a board labeled 'GM, IMB, Apple, Microsoft' ect... They go off of a selection of reports, more then just 'Corporate Profits' or whatever. You must've ripped that off that NS Calaculator or something, because that terminology... Just isn't really used.

As for your 'income disparity spiel' I would like to see some definite graphs showing a 'spiral of social doom' or whatever you want to call it.

As for the rest, well, hmm... I would say, off the top of my head, 'eh, no' just because it reeks of crazy socialism, but hey, it's too early in the morning for me to get to excited about a debate, so... Yeah.
Ya got to remember that Nazz thinks Howard Zinn is a reputable economist...

The market is one of many indicators--just not the sole one, and right now, if you're using it as a primary indicator, you're getting a very skewed view of the economy, skewed, as I said before, toward investors and few others.

For an overall view of the economy, how it's affecting the largest number of people, you need to look at things like wealth distribution, where the growth in wealth is occurring, wage growth, inflation, personal and national debt to income ratios, unemployment and underemployment and interest rates, just to name a few. People who look only at the stock market aren't getting a feel for the underlying weaknesses of the economy because they're only looking at one part of it--corporate profitability.

Unemployment rates are really low - are you saying they are high? The deficit, according to the report linked, is down 39 percent in a single year.

You of course leave out Cost of living for your area. You salary sounds like a lot but the day to day expenses probably would not leave much.

Hell of an assumption Pal. Somehow, I don't think that even metro Atlanta is a high cost-of-living area. Even if it were, it's not far to very low cost areas where housing, utilities, and fuel don't command very high prices...

No, you're on the wrong track. The problem is with the people that won't change with the environment.

Unemployment rates are really low - are you saying they are high?

Of course they are! It's 6.9%! Oh wait, I forgot, the Michigan and US economies seem to have separated in 2000-2001

*slinks away to his minimum wage job*

Hell of an assumption Pal. Somehow, I don't think that even metro Atlanta is a high cost-of-living area. Even if it were, it's not far to very low cost areas where housing, utilities, and fuel don't command very high prices...

No, you're on the wrong track. The problem is with the people that won't change with the environment.

Why not humor me then?

Cost of a gallon of milk.
Cost of a gallon of Gas.
Cost of a bushel of apples.
Average cost of a home.
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood.
Average utility bill.
Basic cost of a cell and landline service.

Lower Deficits, Booming Markets ('http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_m236TcaC_k&refer=news')

Gee, I guess there's only one thing that Bush isn't fucking up, and that's the economy.

Even while we're in a war...



Usually, there's inflation during war, and we're not getting that, either.

The government should never be credited when an economy performs well. Not that ours is performing well atm, but still.

Of course they are! It's 6.9%! Oh wait, I forgot, the Michigan and US economies seem to have separated in 2000-2001

It began to fall apart right around the same time as fuel costs began to increase and the Nasdaq bubble burst in 1999/2000, so that's about right.

Low unemployment. The lowest wage paid in my area is 16 dollars an hour for full-time work.

I'm a bit over the median for my area, but right at median when you consider I have five children.

Where the -fuck- do you live? Most businesses in my area can't afford to work for more than the minimum wage.

I call BS if you say your Burger King flippers are making more than I am (a payroll representative for Sunrise Senior Living HQ) at $15/hr, fulltime.

Ya got to remember that Nazz thinks Howard Zinn is a reputable economist...

I've met cocker spaniels with more knowledge of economics than Howard Zinn. Zinn might be reputable as a historian (in some cases, anyway; in other cases, no), but his "knowledge" of economics is non-existent.

Ok, let me clear something up, i see it alot when people talk about Bill Clinton and it bugs me.

First, only one US President in History since George Washington ever was debt free, this was Andrew Jackson.

Other US presidents have not engaged in deficit spending, such as Bill Clinton. They made sure the Government did not spend more than they made each year. This is a surplus.

HOWEVER, even under Bill Clinton, the US was still in debt, and a lot of it. Throughout its whole history, with the exception of Andrew Jackson, the United States has had a large national debt. Even Bill Clinton still had a national debt of 1 trillion (give or take) dollars.

Basically, a budget surplus does not mean that the country is not in debt, it simply means that the country is spending less than it takes in. So don't say bring back Bill Clinton if you want to get rid of national debt, bring back Andrew Jackson.

-This history lesson was brought to you by Elbona

And yes, the economy is in decent shape. It took a hit from the housing market, but the worst of that is definitely over and overall prospects for growth are looking up going in to the rest of 2007 and beyond. By and large, we're probably past the most recent bottom in this economic cycle and we will see growth accelerate going in to the next few years.

Now, if inflation moderates and energy prices remain stable, we may see even better economic performance than we are. Inflation is still keeping real wage growth low despite high employment, and labor participation is still weak relative to other cycles. We could be doing a lot worse than we are.

Inflation is still keeping real wage growth low despite high employment, and labor participation is still weak relative to other cycles. We could be doing a lot worse than we are.

Any measurements of employment vs underemployment?

Low unemployment. The lowest wage paid in my area is 16 dollars an hour for full-time work.
And I'm sure the cost of living matches it.

Any measurements of employment vs underemployment?

Mainly participation and employment-population ratio. E-P ratio is good and has been increasing fairly steadily, but participation is still lagging and hasn't recovered to its peak levels during the 1990's.

Other indicators like the various unemployment measures can also give a good picture, but they have confirmed a fall in underemployment in the past two years in particular. However, participation is still lagging (although in reality labor participation has been stagnant at around 66-67 percent since 1990, so it's hard to necessarily measure any real change).

And I'm sure the cost of living matches it.

Plenty of people around here see it as a living wage, compared to the "minimum wage" that places outside of this area pay.

Now, if inflation moderates and energy prices remain stable, we may see even better economic performance than we are. Inflation is still keeping real wage growth low despite high employment, and labor participation is still weak relative to other cycles. We could be doing a lot worse than we are.I just looked at some stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It seems like the consumer price index has risen twice as fast as average hourly earnings in the last 6 months. That would suggest using the term 'low' in describing real wage growth is somewhat misleading. Perhaps 'negative' would have been better.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

The first thing, well close to the first thing, you learn in Macroeconomics 201 is that you don't judge the overall economy on the stock market. It indicates a portion of the economy, but to get the best synopsis is to compare YTD reports on:
Stock Market
Employment
Tax Rates and income
stability of currency
and others

When you take a look at the whole you get a much clearer picture of the economy. However, you don't look at wealth distribution or comparisons, that doesn't indicate the overall economy because Mississippi is different from New York. Additionally, when you talk about the entire economy you are talking about the macro level, while many of these things you have been talking about are micro related. You just can't do that, micro and macro run on different principles. With that said...

The US economy is at a good level. Forget about Lou Dobbs' theories, they are unbased (I know he was Harvard educated, but hes missing many important factors in his War on the Middle Class argument).

1. For the person who said look at the engineer who lost his job and has a part time job.
-Not considered in the employment pool anyway. A person who has a part time job is not considered as employed labor. 16-infinity is the labor pool, so long as they are either looking for a full time job, or have a full time job.

2. The argument that employment is low because people give up. While that would indicate low unemployment, the economy would not be growing.

3. Outsourcing is good for the economy. Its a world economy, its not just the United States, when other economies are booming ours should be too. That is a bit generalized, but makes the point.

4. Peak oil doesn't take into account the various other forms of oil other than liquid oil. Really, it wasn't known during Hubbert's time, but since then new synthetic processes, shale oil, and creating liquid oil from coal all factors in greatly extending the time period where peak oil is N/A. (The shale fields of Canada contain 1,700 billion barrels of liquid oil ATM)

5. I'm fairly certain 6.9% is not where the unemployment rate is on the charts. Its more like 5. Which is low. 6.9 is still a decent rate to run on. An economy cannot run on full employment. Unemployment includes cyclical, structural, and frictional. All of which make it impossible for 0% unemployment. People look for new jobs, work only during the summer/winter, etc. Its just how the economy works.

6. Job growth isn't stalled its just simple mathematics, you cannot have growth when the generation entering the work force is a third of the generation retiring. Thats just common sense/simple math.

7. Clinton wouldn't be running in a surplus if he had a war...no President would. So...that doesn't really make much sense.

Finally, you cannot blame or praise the government on how an economy is running. The time it takes the government to pass legislation to fix an economy it usually has fixed itself. Though, most of those pieces of legislation lead to the economy to falter. It really is unfortunate...compare the governments with less constraints on the economy to those with many (US is in the middle leaning less) and you would see that when the government gets involved it really hurts the economy.

The best comparison is Hong Kong with India. It really is amazing how bureaucracy hurts an economy.

For reference, the national US unemployment rate is 4.5%.

T
1. For the person who said look at the engineer who lost his job and has a part time job.
-Not considered in the employment pool anyway. A person who has a part time job is not considered as employed labor. 16-infinity is the labor pool, so long as they are either looking for a full time job, or have a full time job.


Eh? I hear service sector job growth mentioned all the time. Service sector tends to be part-time.

Yeah but its not included in the overall unemployment rates. Unemployment (like I said above) includes people actively searching for a job. If the engineer is content with his part time job (say teaching while researching), then he would not be considered in the unemployment pool.

If he was in the service sector, while looking for a better job, that is unfortunate, and he would be considered in the frictional category. Frictional means he does not have enough information in finding another job comparable to his first. This is actually very common during full employment.

Full employment, would be today if the above stated rate of 4.5% is what it is. I believe it, I've heard that alot recently.

Eh? I hear service sector job growth mentioned all the time. Service sector tends to be part-time.

Not really. The vast majority of the service sector is full time, and has been for at least a good century or so; the shift from industrial to post-industrial economy has shifted the bulk of economic output from manufacturing to the service sector.

3. Outsourcing is good for the economy. Its a world economy, its not just the United States, when other economies are booming ours should be too. That is a bit generalized, but makes the point.


If salaries are declining or not keeping pace with Cost of Living? How is that an improvement?

I have heard the outsourcing will create newer better jobs. What are they? Myrm likes to believe nobody prepares but nobody really says what to prepare for.

Computer science is declining in this country to a point Bill Gates has declared it a real problem. There is a real perception problem. The younger generation doesn't believe the jobs will be available. The "don't worry be happy" defense won't change that. Did that ever work for Reagan? ;)

Not really. The vast majority of the service sector is full time, and has been for at least a good century or so; the shift from industrial to post-industrial economy has shifted the bulk of economic output from manufacturing to the service sector.

I do have to give a doh.

After writing that I realized I was only thinking of retail.

If salaries are declining or not keeping pace with Cost of Living? How is that an improvement?

I have heard the outsourcing will create newer better jobs. What are they? Myrm likes to believe nobody prepares but nobody really says what to prepare for.

Computer science is declining in this country to a point Bill Gates has declared it a real problem. There is a real perception problem. The younger generation doesn't believe the jobs will be available. The "don't worry be happy" defense won't change that. Did that ever work for Reagan? ;)

These things take time. Large scale outsourcing has really just begun. It certainly takes jobs, in particular ones that are heavily unionized. Thats why its such a hot button issue here in the States. However, it allows people to become more specialized and educated. Making our populace even more service oriented.

Its not necessarily a good thing when you think of defense and what not. Especially when we import the fast majority of steel, iron, etc. Certain products, IMO, should not be outsourced. I'm saying that take jobs like phone operators, things of that nature, and moving them to India or China. Makes those people, though unemployed, educate themselves to move to a different job. Thats what structural unemployment is all about.

You know, the master tinker or whatever who is forced out because of the assembly line.

Unemployment rates are really low - are you saying they are high? The deficit, according to the report linked, is down 39 percent in a single year.

Just to clarify this...

Debt is that which is owed.

A budget deficit occurs when an entity (often a government) spends more money than it takes in.

If a deficit decreses 39% in a year that means we are still engaged in deficit spending. For example Billy Bob spent $50,000 last year but only made $40,000. Last year his deficit was $10,000. This year Billy Bob spends $50,000 and makes $45,000. This year his deficit is $5,000.

His yearly deficit decresed by 50%, his debt INCREASED by 50% (assuming he didn't already owe money before last year).

A decreasing deficit is good, but it isn't something to be incredibly happy about.

A decreasing DEBT is very good, you should be pleased when this happens.

These things take time. Large scale outsourcing has really just begun. It certainly takes jobs, in particular ones that are heavily unionized. Thats why its such a hot button issue here in the States. However, it allows people to become more specialized and educated. Making our populace even more service oriented.


The next field to get raped by it will be IT. As highspeed WANs become more common place and the growth of apps such as webex; talented (translation costly) staff are no longer needed. You just need a monkey to push buttons.


Its not necessarily a good thing when you think of defense and what not.


Is it? Salaries decline which lesson the purchasing power of your people. Day to day expenses continue to rise. Just recently the paper reported the average salary increase over the last few years was 2% CoL tends to be 3%

Part of the subprime debacle is the fact people are getting priced out of their homes.

I am concerned by the fact that I hear more and more people say "If I was buying today, I could not buy the home I have now."

I wonder about how things are better when I hear my mother (an RN) and my father-in-law (an electrician) say if they were starting out now, they could not make a living where they were.

Both were able to purchase homes with a little help from their parents. Both said they could not do if they were starting out today.

If the economy is going like gang busters, then why is their a shortage of Nurses and policeman in California? Wages can't keep up with area. They can't entice young women to be an RN as Cost of Living and the salaries offered are not attractive.



Especially when we import the fast majority of steel, iron, etc. Certain products, IMO, should not be outsourced. I'm saying that take jobs like phone operators, things of that nature, and moving them to India or China. Makes those people, though unemployed, educate themselves to move to a different job. Thats what structural unemployment is all about.


So your reward is your job? Ok what jobs should I tell people to train for?

You know, the master tinker or whatever who is forced out because of the assembly line.

We are not talking about lamplighters, etc who are replaced by advancements in technology.

It's the perception of cheap labor. Yet, the quality of labor doesn't seem to get measured (well as far as I know) as I know of few software companies that complain about the quality of code received from the cheaper and thus superior labor gets them.

Again, I hear newer better jobs but nobody has an answer for that they are....

Why not humor me then?

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.50
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $2.86, but diesel is $2.45
Cost of a bushel of apples. -- beats the hell of of me, but a dozen eggs is around $.89
Average cost of a home. --$150,000-$180,000, judging by the signs on the new construction subdivisions
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood.2 Bedroom Apt -- $600
Average utility bill. Power, Gas, Water? Power is about $150/month at my house, in the summer
Basic cost of a cell and landline service.$25/month for landline and about the same for cell
You should really do this for yourself, so that you don't think I'm bullshitting you. These are all estimates, anyway...

Use Winder, GA as a reference point. There are plenty of on-line cost of living calculators at the big job hunting sites, so have at it.

Stupid question time:

How is it bad to have a housing bust, when houses and property are insanely over-valued and property tax structures have largely gone unadjusted so as to not tax people out of their homes (my belief is that you should be taxed on the value of the property on some sort of mitigating scale that revolves around what you actually paid for the place as opposed to what you MIGHT be able to sell it for now).

How is it even possible to sustain continuing growth with housing prices always going up and wages not going up commensurately (and no way they reasonably could, given how fast housing prices shot up). Also, why is it called a bust if it's not a bust everywhere? There sure as hell is no housing bust in Puget Sound, where rentals are turning condo at the rate of 3000 units a year in my home county alone. Some people's rents have gone up as high as 107% in a few months ($375 in March for a room in a house sharing a kitchen and bath, to $775 for the same room in June -- see the Sunday Seattle Times for details).

If people sing up for 20- to 30-year mortgages, and a house which cost $200k ballooned to $400k in only 5 years, how is that good for anyone but the seller (possibly, depending upon how uspide-down they are on their mortgage), and all the mortgage and banking companies?

This is an honest question -- I may be a lefty pinko commie, but I'd like an honest answer absent ideological harangues, please. So, RO, you can only answer if you can keep your usual tirades out of the response.

I love it! "Deficit reduction" - we're still going deeper into the hole, but at least we've slowed down the rate at which we are drowning in debt. I'll talk about the wonderful economy when I start hearing the word "surplus" (think Clinton) and when the Euro is back to around a dollar. Right now, with a slightly better deficit, the dollar tanking vs just about every other currency, underemployment, outsourcing, widening gap between rich and working poor, and a looming peak oil crisis that the government and industries have done NOTHING about, I'll stick with a somewhat less than rosy assessment of the economy right now.

Never mind the Euro -- you can't even go to CANADA for a spending break anymore (CDN$1 = US$1.06, as of Friday's business section of the newspaper)!

For example Billy Bob spent $50,000 last year but only made $40,000. Last year his deficit was $10,000. This year Billy Bob spends $50,000 and makes $45,000. This year his deficit is $5,000.

His yearly deficit decresed by 50%, his debt INCREASED by 50% (assuming he didn't already owe money before last year).

True, but Billy Bob was rewarded with a promotion last year. His pay grade consequently increased from $50,000 to $75,000. So, although his debt increased by 50%, so did his yearly income; additionally, his deficit decreased. What's most important is not any absolute increase in debt or a reduction in the deficit, but rather the relative change in either one of those two criteria in relation to GDP growth. Because of this, tunneling further into debt in order to accelerate GDP growth can have a positive effect on the economy, although by looking solely at the debt, such a rosy view would not emerge.

Bismarck, ND -- where I work.

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.60
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $3.35
Cost of a loaf of bread. -- $2.29
Average cost of a home. -- $170,000
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood, 2 Bedroom Apt. -- $700
Average utility bill. -- $180 (winters here are nasty, even if coal is cheap)
Goin' to the movies (ticket only) -- $5.50 matinee, $8.50 evening.

Seattle, WA -- home.

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.30
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $3.10
Cost of a loaf of bread. -- $2.59
Average cost of a home. -- $375,000 (US avg., according to Trulia.com = $220,000)
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood, 2 Bedroom Apt. -- $1200
Average utility bill. -- $120 (God bless the BPA, hydro power and public utilities)
Goin' to the movies (ticket only) -- $6 matinee, $10 evening.

At $35k/year, I can't live where I grew up and where home and family are.

I'm certainly not going to claim I have the answer...If I did I would run for President. I agree, starting out on the average salary now a days is insanely difficult, but it gets done. The vast majority of our country has moved from an industrial base to a service base. This is from an increase in overall education (say what you want.).

Neither one of your parents are in a position where outsourcing is applicable. Services such as nursing, or being an electrician will be needed for the rest of our existance (barring some great advancement in everything). The same for police officers. Currently, students who are majoring in criminal justice, or nursing are given a great deal of advantages. More money, higher starting pay, more benefits because like you said the numbers are decreasing. The fact of the matter is the government, and more importantly the market finds where our problems are and it fixes itself. Thus the increase in nursing students. (Actually, about a month ago in an economics seminar at my university we were talking about this same exact concept with nurses.)

And about IT that was really just a matter of time, the amount of knowledge accumulated so quickly was amazing. And making technology so easy is a benefit of the hard work of primarily our population. The problem is, like you said, what are they going to do when it will be so easily outsourced. Like I said, thats a structural unemployment if it is that easy. Plus, outsourcing usually requires corporate based managers. So many of these people will still have their jobs, even more complex.

Cost of living is relative as well. Its really unfortunate that problems arise as the economy booms. It just does. The lower end of the spectrum, I don't mean to be rude, will follow at a later time. Its how it worked in the past and its how it works today. But they do increase. For example, in New York rookie police officers make only about 85k, it seems like a lot when you compare it to other officers around the country. But it really is not. However, it is enough to survive in the outer boroughs. As we speak that wage is rising because of the need of police in NYC.

As for housing, as the housing prices increase so do the lengths of the mortgages. Currently the average mortgage here is about 20-25 years. In Belfast it has risen to 30 years and in Japan I believe it is something like 125 years. Its what happens when land prices sky rocket. And it really is unfortunate, but there are still areas in the States where a person can live comfortably, starting out.

Like I said I agree that these things come with a booming economy. A booming economy does not mean everyone becomes a millionaire or billionaire. You really cannot look at this on the micro level, you have to look at the big picture. And the big picture shows a steadily growing economy, and a stable economy all of which are important.

Two problems. One, the stock market is generally a really shitty indicator of an overall economy, because it really only tracks corporate profits. Now, if you're primarily an investor, that's probably good news for you, but for everyone else, it's not so great, and considering that the vast majority of the US population doesn't depend on corporate profits for income, a booming market doesn't do much for them. It's helping out my retirement account, for instance, but it's not really impacting my life right now.

Second is that you're making the typical mistake you always do and act as though there's "an economy" that's doing well or poorly. There isn't. It's all relative to where you are on the economic ladder. If you're a wage worker, chances are this economy isn't doing much for you. If you're a CEO, you're probably making out like a bandit. If you make less than $200K a year, you're probably not feeling much in the way of greatness in the economy; if you're making more, you're loving life.

From my standpoint, because the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is widening at a rate unseen since the Gilded Age, the economy is for shit, especially when you factor in the housing crash, since housing has been driving the economy for the last 5 years. But hey--I'm below the median income for my area, so I have a different perspective than you do, no doubt.

I was going to point all that out, but you beat me to it. Good job Nazz.

We could also throw in the pathetic GDP growth and the real rate of inflation too as icing on the cake.

Never mind the Euro -- you can't even go to CANADA for a spending break anymore (CDN$1 = US$1.06, as of Friday's business section of the newspaper)!

And it's all thanks to black gold, Texas tea...

Never mind the Euro -- you can't even go to CANADA for a spending break anymore (CDN$1 = US$1.06, as of Friday's business section of the newspaper)!

I can remember when I was a kid that we used to have Canadian coins circulating in the northwest because they were worth pretty much the same as American. You'd just get a few quarters a year with a caribou and Elizabeth on them instead of an eagle and George Washington, and no one really gave a dang. It's starting to get close again, so that may start up again, I don't know.

OF COURSE THE ECONOMY IS DOING WELL, THANKS TO GEORGE W. BUSH!

KNEEL BEFORE GEORGE W. BUSH!

:p just kidding lol

*back-hands people who take the above statement seriously*

Well the Tax cuts played a large part in this currently booming economy, but Bush is teh ebil so guess that can't be it.

What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the economy doing well?

And what does the phrase "teh ebil" mean?

What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the economy doing well?

And what does the phrase "teh ebil" mean?

"Teh ebil" means "evil."

"Teh ebil" means "evil."

Thank you. :)

Bismarck, ND -- where I work.

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.60
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $3.35
Cost of a loaf of bread. -- $2.29
Average cost of a home. -- $170,000
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood, 2 Bedroom Apt. -- $700
Average utility bill. -- $180 (winters here are nasty, even if coal is cheap)
Goin' to the movies (ticket only) -- $5.50 matinee, $8.50 evening.

Seattle, WA -- home.

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.30
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $3.10
Cost of a loaf of bread. -- $2.59
Average cost of a home. -- $375,000 (US avg., according to Trulia.com = $220,000)
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood, 2 Bedroom Apt. -- $1200
Average utility bill. -- $120 (God bless the BPA, hydro power and public utilities)
Goin' to the movies (ticket only) -- $6 matinee, $10 evening.

At $35k/year, I can't live where I grew up and where home and family are.

You live in North Dakota? Man... I feel for ya. That place is going into the shitter and fast. Mainly because nobody wants to live there, and the State Government just can't keep people in the state. :D

What exactly happened to the original Seangoli?

To all those who love to quote the recent US stockmarket surge as 'proof' the economy's doing great: Please do a modicum of research first.
Oh, never mind. I'll do it for you.

I love how when the Stock Market was tanking, it was either "All Clinton's fault!!" or "There's a worldwide downturn!" and of course we can't forget "You can't blame Bush - he doesn't control the Stock Market!"

Yet, oddly enough, it starts to perform better and - whoah! - it is all due to Bush!
How amazing is that?
When it does badly, nothing to do with him. Does well, and Bush is hailed as our saviour.

One point of interest:
During 1993 - 2000 (can't remember who was president then - maybe Remote Kimchi can help me out on this), the Dow Jones grew 349% (from 3300 to 11500)
Between the beginning of 2001 to the start of 2006 (again, for the life of me I can't remember who was president) it shrank by 1.56% (from 10900 to 10700)
Between 2006-now, it's grown by 23% - a net growth of 22% since 2001 (10900 to 13350)

Thus:
1993-2000: 250% gain - average year-on-year gain of 17% (with inflation running at an average 3.2% during those 8 years, a return of 13.8%)
2001-now: 22% gain - average year-on-year gain of 3% (and with inflation running at an average 2.5% during that period, a return of just 0.5%)
And just to really ram it home:
$1000 invested in the US stockmarket at the start of Clinton's reign would have been worth $2860 at the end, adjusted for inflation.
$1000 invested in the US stockmarket at the start of Bush's reign would be worth $1039 right now, adjusted for inflation.

In other countries:
stockmarket indicators, 2001-present
Nikkei (Japan): 85% gain
NZX10G (New Zeland): 137% gain
AllOrds (Australia): 113% gain
SSEC (Shanghai/China): 150% gain
Hang Seng (Hong Kong): 119% gain
Strait Times (Singapore): 171% gain
FTSE (UK):34% gain
DAX (Germany):85% gain
CAC40 (France):50% gain

World average: 105% gain - equivalent to 11% compound interest over 7 years
US average: 22% gain - equivalent to 3% compound interest over 7 years


However, if we look at the just the last 4 years, the difference is even more striking:
stockmarket indicators, 2003 - present:
Nikkei (Japan): 115% gain
NZX10G (New Zeland): 100% gain
AllOrds (Australia): 129% gain
SSEC (Shanghai/China): 205% gain (288% gain since May 05!)
Hang Seng (Hong Kong): 153% gain
Strait Times (Singapore): 182% gain
FTSE (UK):85% gain
DAX (Germany):228% gain
CAC40 (France):133% gain

World average: 148% gain - equivalent to 20% compound interest over 5 years
US average: 66% gain - equivalent to 11% compound interest over 5 years

What was that again about how masterly Bush is handling the economy?

Of course, that has to be put in to perspective. Many of those markets' performance during the 1990's was mediocre to downright stagnant, especially in Asia. The recent stock market rally is far more broad-based than it was during the 1990's boom and NASDAQ bubble; world markets are performing very well, especially in the developing world, and that is producing far more broad benefits than the 1990's rally in the United States. The US is lagging, but it is nowhere near the kind of stagnation seen in Asia during the 1990's.

If anything, the recent boom in many world stockmarkets is directly related to their underperformance during the 1990's, as well as the decline in the US following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the recession, 9/11 and the corporate scandals that devastated the stock market in 2000-2002.

5. I'm fairly certain 6.9% is not where the unemployment rate is on the charts. Its more like 5. Which is low. 6.9 is still a decent rate to run on. An economy cannot run on full employment. Unemployment includes cyclical, structural, and frictional. All of which make it impossible for 0% unemployment. People look for new jobs, work only during the summer/winter, etc. Its just how the economy works.

Yes, the 6.9% figure I was quoting, as Vetalia figured out, was the unemployment rate in Michigan, which is in the midst of a "one state recession" (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=197521). As I live in Michigan, it's Michigan's economic troubles that I'm concerned with. I'd care in more than an academic sense about the US economy as a whole if Michigan's economy were in line with it, but we're not, so I don't.

Of course, that has to be put in to perspective. Many of those markets' performance during the 1990's was mediocre to downright stagnant, especially in Asia. The recent stock market rally is far more broad-based than it was during the 1990's boom and NASDAQ bubble; world markets are performing very well, especially in the developing world, and that is producing far more broad benefits than the 1990's rally in the United States. The US is lagging, but it is nowhere near the kind of stagnation seen in Asia during the 1990's.

If anything, the recent boom in many world stockmarkets is directly related to their underperformance during the 1990's, as well as the decline in the US following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the recession, 9/11 and the corporate scandals that devastated the stock market in 2000-2002.

People who do not understand the difference between secular and cyclical will always get killed in the markets.

"one state recession" (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=197521). As I live in Michigan, it's Michigan's economic troubles that I'm concerned with. I'd care in more than an academic sense about the US economy as a whole if Michigan's economy were in line with it, but we're not, so I don't.

Ohio's not too much better, at 5.7%. Of course, there's also a huge disparity between the north and the south; southwestern/central Ohio has a lot lower rate more or less in line with the national average while the north is as high as 7% in many places.

Ohio's not too much better, at 5.7%. Of course, there's also a huge disparity between the north and the south; southwestern/central Ohio has a lot lower rate more or less in line with the national average while the north is as high as 7% in many places.

Yes, the unemployment in Michigan is highly regionalized as well. In the city of Detroit it's about 13%, with the poverty rate around 33%. In the metro area it's better, but the suburbs refuse to cooperate with the city. In other large cities where auto manufacturing was king (Flint, Lansing, etc.) unemployment is high. In places like Traverse City or Ann Arbor it's better than the national average but the cost of living makes the initial cost of moving there quite steep.

And of course, we have the Upper Peninsula which attempts to survive on tourism since the mines dried up, but no one cares about Yoopers anyway.

Economists except our unemployment rate to hit at least 7.5% next year, and then in 2009 we're supposed to see it start to drop as the transition from a secondary to tertiary economy really begins.

Seattle, WA -- home.

Cost of a gallon of milk. -- $3.30
Cost of a gallon of Gas. -- $3.23
Cost of a loaf of bread. -- $2.59
Average cost of a home. -- $375,000 (US avg., according to Trulia.com = $220,000)
Average cost of a rental in a "reasonable" neighborhood, 2 Bedroom Apt. -- $1200
Average utility bill. -- $120 (God bless the BPA, hydro power and public utilities)
Goin' to the movies (ticket only) -- $6 matinee, $12 evening.

Corrected. And it only keeps getting more expensive. Out on the eastside, prices are even shittier (with the home my folks bought for $250,000 being worth nearly a million dollars now). I had to bag any chance of taking my car with me to school next year, because I couldn't afford gas on top of other living expenses.

I hope you can find a way to get back here, though. IMO, it's still the best part of the world.

I have five children.

...

Those poor, poor children...what horrible fate befalls them that they do not deserve.

Anyway, I agree with The Nazz: it's all relative to your position on the economic ladder, and my position is currently unemployed, so it's doing all of jack for me.

Bring Clinton back. No, not Hillary. Bill. Please.

wtf...don't joke dude no hillary or bill!!!



fred thompson for president

wtf...don't joke dude no hillary or bill!!!



fred thompson for president
Right--because what we really need is another B-grade actor in the job. :rolleyes:

Right--because what we really need is another B-grade actor in the job. :rolleyes:

It could be worse. We could vote for Tom Cruise to be President. Then that insane murdering cult will have power over the country, and we'd be right and truly fucked.

Bring Clinton back. No, not Hillary. Bill. Please.

Hmmm, Bill could 'persuade' the females in the Chinese hierachy to forgive the trade defecit of the U.S.A...

And it's all thanks to black gold, Texas tea...

Well, Alberta shale/tar sands, technically, but yeah. Black gold.

I can remember when I was a kid that we used to have Canadian coins circulating in the northwest because they were worth pretty much the same as American. You'd just get a few quarters a year with a caribou and Elizabeth on them instead of an eagle and George Washington, and no one really gave a dang. It's starting to get close again, so that may start up again, I don't know.

Me too! Nobody cared if it was Canadian, and then right about when I got to high school (1984-1988), they started clamping down.

The exchange rate was so favorable that when George W. gave us all $300 (which does nothing but remind you of how broke you are) tax refunds, I spent mine in Victoria, BC. Nothing like stickin' it to the Man and enjoying yourself, all at the same time.

You live in North Dakota? Man... I feel for ya. That place is going into the shitter and fast. Mainly because nobody wants to live there, and the State Government just can't keep people in the state. :D

After two years, I understand why. You've gotta have serious dedication to live there. Having ethylene glycol in your blood four months out of the year helps, too.

Corrected. And it only keeps getting more expensive. Out on the eastside, prices are even shittier (with the home my folks bought for $250,000 being worth nearly a million dollars now). I had to bag any chance of taking my car with me to school next year, because I couldn't afford gas on top of other living expenses.

I hope you can find a way to get back here, though. IMO, it's still the best part of the world.

Good Lord, it's $12 at night now? I haven't been to a movie after the matinee prices in so long, I was guessing.

I hope so, too, as I love the Pacific Northwest with all my little green heart.

Although our economy seems to be doing fine in the sense that we are not having soup kitchens and bread lines rounding every corner, and great appreciation of the S&P 500 (although can anyone tell me if S&P 500 earnings are in step with the appreciation?) I must say that it looks like prices are being inflated. Housing prices are pretty high but seem to be coming down a little, gasoline is up and so is food. I also think that construction materials are up too.