The Economy has Recovered.

[laughing dog]

I understood the illustration.

This is an historic first - you answered a direct question with a direct answer.

We must mark this day for historical purposes.

Even more historic is that you actually recognized and understood an answer.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is an historic first - you answered a direct question with a direct answer.

We must mark this day for historical purposes.

Even more historic is that you actually recognized and understood an answer.

It is only logical that the first time you ever answer a direct question with a direct answer is also the first time anyone ever sees you do it.

 

[laughing dog]

Even more historic is that you actually recognized and understood an answer.

It is only logical that the first time you ever answer a direct question with a direct answer is also the first time anyone ever sees you do it.

No need to use a sine wave to illustrate that obtuseness is your metier because your responses do such a good job.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is only logical that the first time you ever answer a direct question with a direct answer is also the first time anyone ever sees you do it.

No need to use a sine wave to illustrate that obtuseness is your metier because your responses do such a good job.

You don't like it when people notice you don't like answering questions. You go so far as to indulge in name calling to distract from the fact that you broke your streak and actually answered a question.

Don't worry, I'm sure this was just a temporary aberration.

 

[KeepTalking]

Did you at least understand that I was only using the sine wave as a tool to illustrate the difference between a recession and a depression?

For the record, I understood it. Of course, ridicule is always more to the point when one understands that which one is riffing. Do you understand that your sine wave post was comedy gold for me, and I could not pass it up??

 

[funinspace]

Looks like the job market has recovered. Wages are still lagging due to the recent "race to the bottom".
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/03/investing/june-jobs-report/index.html

The U.S. economy added 288,000 jobs in June, marking the fifth straight month where employers added at least 200,000 jobs. The last time that happened was in late 1999, as the dot-com bubble was inflating.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&hl=en&dl=en

Minneapolis is at 3.9, Fargo at 2.4.

Well, FRED says….that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 25 to 54 years has gone from 82.5-83.0 percent from before the financial crisis to just under 81% in April/May of 2014. This data removes the issue of just how fast are Boomers retiring.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=l6Q

FRED also says that the Employed, Usually Work Full Time is still down from the peak of 121,875 thousand at 118,204 thousand. Providing a great boon in part time work, as we know people really want more leisure time.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

From the BLS report itself, we have an incredible 2% growth in earnings over the last year…I’m sure most of that growth came at the bottom end...LOL
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 6 cents to $24.45, following a 6-cent increase in May. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.0 percent.

This article (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/28/3431351/recovery-jobs-low-wage/ ) has a good graphic on the shifting jobs:

Though this is now 2 years old, I doubt the income trend has changed much…wow, I’m sure the 99% are ecstatic about their 0.4% income growth.
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

From 2009 to 2012, average real income per family grew modestly by 6.0% (Table 1). Most of the gains happened in the last year when average
incomes grew by 4.6% from 2011 to 2012.

However, the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012.
Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery.

But yeah, I'm sure it could have been worse...

 

[fromderinside]

Here's another chart and link:

http://news.investors.com/politics-...wage-workweek-hits-new-low-with-obamacare.htm

Isn't this what happens when when there's a retirement bubble and corpotations try to maximize profits just before the recovery really gets underway?

 

[fromderinside]

It was a very unusual mix though. 799,000 part time jobs added and 523,000 full time jobs lost

A bit more telling for sure. The US is going to need a lot more of these 200k+ months and flip the blue/red bars to affect any real positive change in the economy. Part time jobs do not translate into home purchases especially now that we actually have lending standards.
All cash home purchases are up. Good source of rental income from the working poor for the very wealthy.
The best way out of this is continued pressure on the labor market to push incomes up and preventing the mega wealthy from creating another bubble to beat the poor back down.
Eight years of Elizabeth Warren oughta do it.

Its a survey ferchrissake. We all know just what wonderful accuracy these things have. Oh, wait. Its graduation time. Teachers go on summer leave. Shit!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, FRED says….that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 25 to 54 years has gone from 82.5-83.0 percent from before the financial crisis to just under 81% in April/May of 2014. This data removes the issue of just how fast are Boomers retiring.

I know it isn't being tracked, but many people are also bowing out of the labor force because of Obamacare. I know a few that are striking out on their own, starting businesses, or simply living off part time wages since they no longer need to have full-time jobs for medical care. I'm not sure if this affects these stats, but it would be interesting to find out if this is more common that just my friends.

 

[fromderinside]

Well, FRED says….that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 25 to 54 years has gone from 82.5-83.0 percent from before the financial crisis to just under 81% in April/May of 2014. This data removes the issue of just how fast are Boomers retiring.

I know it isn't being tracked, but many people are also bowing out of the labor force because of Obamacare. I know a few that are striking out on their own, starting businesses, or simply living off part time wages since they no longer need to have full-time jobs for medical care. I'm not sure if this affects these stats, but it would be interesting to find out if this is more common that just my friends.

Its ...........summertime, summertime, summertime summertime, sum...sum.....summerti-iii-me

 

[funinspace]

Well, FRED says….that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 25 to 54 years has gone from 82.5-83.0 percent from before the financial crisis to just under 81% in April/May of 2014. This data removes the issue of just how fast are Boomers retiring.

I know it isn't being tracked, but many people are also bowing out of the labor force because of Obamacare. I know a few that are striking out on their own, starting businesses, or simply living off part time wages since they no longer need to have full-time jobs for medical care. I'm not sure if this affects these stats, but it would be interesting to find out if this is more common that just my friends.

Yeah, I 'm sure there is some of that. I wouldn't be surprised if one sees more people venturing out on their own in places where the unemployment levels are lower. FWIW, my perception is that we might be seeing a little bit of pressure on lower end wages (thinking IKEA, The Gap, among others) as maybe the flood of people looking for any work has possibly receded enough. I don't really think these companies are raising wages for altruistic reasons.

However, we will know there is a healthier economy when the involuntary part time stats from the BLS decline faster, or when lower and middle wages start showing some real increases. The last data set has the seasonally adjusted Involuntary Part-Time Work (or Part-Time for economic reasons) up 275,000 from Table A-9. This datum hasn't really improved at all this year either.

And yeah, its summer along with the BLS performing seasonal adjustments...

 

[tupac chopra]

It was a very unusual mix though. 799,000 part time jobs added and 523,000 full time jobs lost

A bit more telling for sure. The US is going to need a lot more of these 200k+ months and flip the blue/red bars to affect any real positive change in the economy. Part time jobs do not translate into home purchases especially now that we actually have lending standards.
.

At least some of those stats are probably related to Obamacare, with employers wanting less full time workers so that they are not responsible for health care

 

[bilby]

http://theconstructor.org/concrete/concrete-compressive-strength-variation-with-time/5933/
I have a graph.

There is no place for concrete examples in economic discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did you at least understand that I was only using the sine wave as a tool to illustrate the difference between a recession and a depression?

For the record, I understood it. Of course, ridicule is always more to the point when one understands that which one is riffing. Do you understand that your sine wave post was comedy gold for me, and I could not pass it up??

I understand that you understand it now that it has been pointed out so thoroughly that even laughingdog understands it.

 

[KeepTalking]

For the record, I understood it. Of course, ridicule is always more to the point when one understands that which one is riffing. Do you understand that your sine wave post was comedy gold for me, and I could not pass it up??

I understand that you understand it now that it has been pointed out so thoroughly that even laughingdog understands it.

Another thing that I understand is the only reason one would post a sine wave in lieu of an actual graph related to the economy would be because the real economic graph does not show that which you are contending (that we are actually in the midst of The Great Depression II). Such a tactic is worthy of derision, and my preferred method of delivering that derision is through humor.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I understand that you understand it now that it has been pointed out so thoroughly that even laughingdog understands it.

Another thing that I understand is the only reason one would post a sine wave in lieu of an actual graph related to the economy would be because the real economic graph does not show that which you are contending (that we are actually in the midst of The Great Depression II). Such a tactic is worthy of derision, and my preferred method of delivering that derision is through humor.

While you are using "derision through humor" to cover that you only recently realized that it was used as an illustration, you still haven't found the point of the illustration.

There are plenty of people on this site that seem unable to differentiate between recession and depression. This particular bit of economic illiteracy was what I was trying to combat. There are people who are economically illiterate enough to protest that we can't be in a depression because the recession is over. I hope that my illustration finally educated you on the error of saying "we can't be in a depression because the recession is over".

Perhaps it is your embarrassment over this very simple error that causes you to put of the facade of "derision through humor."

 

[laughing dog]

While you are using "derision through humor" to cover that you only recently realized that it was used as an illustration, you still haven't found the point of the illustration.

There are plenty of people on this site that seem unable to differentiate between recession and depression.

That club has a larger membership than you think.

This particular bit of economic illiteracy was what I was trying to combat. There are people who are economically illiterate enough to protest that we can't be in a depression because the recession is over. I hope that my illustration finally educated you on the error of saying "we can't be in a depression because the recession is over".

Technically, you are correct because a depression can follow a recession. Cunrrently, the economic pace is picking up which means that the recession is over and that we are not in a depression. If that is what those people meant, then they are correct.

 

[KeepTalking]

Another thing that I understand is the only reason one would post a sine wave in lieu of an actual graph related to the economy would be because the real economic graph does not show that which you are contending (that we are actually in the midst of The Great Depression II). Such a tactic is worthy of derision, and my preferred method of delivering that derision is through humor.

While you are using "derision through humor" to cover that you only recently realized that it was used as an illustration, you still haven't found the point of the illustration.

Keep deluding yourself if it makes you feel better.

There are plenty of people on this site that seem unable to differentiate between recession and depression. This particular bit of economic illiteracy was what I was trying to combat. There are people who are economically illiterate enough to protest that we can't be in a depression because the recession is over. I hope that my illustration finally educated you on the error of saying "we can't be in a depression because the recession is over".

I challenge you to present an actual quote from a post I made stating anything of the sort. The best way to show that we are in a depression, however, is to present economic data showing that we are in a depression. A sine wave does not do that, it merely represents a smooth, repetitive oscillation, something the economy can never be described as.

Perhaps it is your embarrassment over this very simple error that causes you to put of the facade of "derision through humor."

Perhaps it is your embarrassment over being ridiculed that causes you to put on the facade of a sine wave in any way bearing any relation to economic reality.

 

[laughing dog]

I challenge you to present an actual quote from a post I made stating anything of the sort. The best way to show that we are in a depression, however, is to present economic data showing that we are in a depression. A sine wave does not do that, it merely represents a smooth, repetitive oscillation, something the economy can never be described as.

Even if the economic business cycle could be accurately depicted as a sine wave, the trough would only necessarily represent a depression if that is how a depression was defined. It is possible that the trough might represent a reduction in GDP by only 3% or a 5% rate of unemployment instead of a 15 to 20% reduction in GDP or a 20% rate of unemployment.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I challenge you to present an actual quote from a post I made stating anything of the sort. The best way to show that we are in a depression, however, is to present economic data showing that we are in a depression. A sine wave does not do that, it merely represents a smooth, repetitive oscillation, something the economy can never be described as.

Now that you finally understand that the sine wave was to illustrate one particular point alone, and no other points beyond that point, I challenge you to find any quote from me where I describe the economy as a smooth, repetitive oscillation.

If you're not too embarrassed over thinking that my sine wave was to illustrate additional points, and not too embarrassed over thinking that I did actually say the economy was like a sine wave. I'm glad that you FINALLY understand the point I was making, perhaps you might wish to finally own up to your own error of not understanding it in the first place and thinking I was saying more than I actually was. You are the one who made the mistake of thinking that I said the economy was like a sine wave, even though you know better now. That's a mistake of yours that you need to confront.