|
There's nothing wrong with using a different calculation for the unemployment rate, but please also backdate your numbers so we can see what the unemployment rate would have been under your metrics the last time things were "good".
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:U3 is a decent number when there hasnt been a massive downturn that has lead to significant numbers leaving the labor force or becoming underemployed. In the wake of a major recession its more an indicator of who has given up on the economy. Using full U6 overstates unemployment sure, but come on, using U3 after the Great Recession is just a *little* disingenuous. At 5% we'd be close to full employment and should begin to see wages creep up as labor markets tighten. Does this country look like its close to full employment to you? The last time we were at 5% U3 (Jul 2005), U6 was 8.8%. The next time we hit 5.0% (Oct 2015), U6 was 9.8%. This isn't good, but hardly apocalyptic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:Huh. I seem to remember strong real wage gains for the middle class and lower classes in the 1990s. Guess I must have been taking too much peyote instead of closely following politics then. Middle class wage growth hasn't existed since the 1970s
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:Your own graph shows that the only wage gains since the 1970s occurred in the mid-1990s to the early 2000s; the only time wage gains match productivity growth. Are we talking about the same line? The one that barely noses up while the productivity line keeps soaring? From the lens of the late 90s, especially if you were doing active research, I'm sure the economy looked significantly improved from the period immediately prior. But as part of a broader data set, it's barely a blip in a larger trend.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Somehow he looks even more like Fat Bastard than normal in that shot. He's lost a bunch of weight since that picture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Any idea when we will see clear winners from the primary? We probably know as much as we'll know tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I also can't figure out why people who are in college are gung ho about free tuition. Does he want to make it retroactive? What about the people who are still dealing with tens of thousands of dollars in debt that graduated already? At least shilldawg has mentioned some things about continuing Obamas loan reforms. Heavily subsidized post-secondary education would more than pay for itself even if I don't get it. People with college degrees are more likely to have a good job and pay more taxes, and less likely to require public assistance. They are more productive and are more likely to generate innovations that benefit everyone. And then there's just the intangible benefit of a better informed and educated population and the impact on public discourse, etc. It's an investment, not an entitlement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
For someone who's awfully proud of being a socialist, Bernie sure doesn't want to nationalize much of the economy. Sure, he's got healthcare covered, but what about all those other industries that are already heavily subsidized and would be better just run by the government like energy or consumer banking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
fishmech posted:this is a terrible idea so long as the usps is expected to operate with minimal tax funding, to be honest. it's quite high risk, and should only be done in conjunction with ending the pseudo-seperate operation it's been under since nixon Retail banking is a high risk industry? What are you smoking?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 17:06
|
|