Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Jobless claims jumped to a two year high.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/economy/unemployment-benefits-jobless-claims/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Almost half of American workers are in low wage jobs that pay a median of $18000 salary.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/?fbclid=IwAR1MVd-bllvEzNzKCRlMW-kdaTpjvHjSyWqAgUCObZc0Wljjp7GDH3m29o0

and dems want us to import MORE low skilled workers.

in the land of dems, economic laws of supply and demand do not apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost half of American workers are in low wage jobs that pay a median of $18000 salary.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/?fbclid=IwAR1MVd-bllvEzNzKCRlMW-kdaTpjvHjSyWqAgUCObZc0Wljjp7GDH3m29o0

and dems want us to import MORE low skilled workers.

in the land of dems, economic laws of supply and demand do not apply.

Hon, that’s Rumpus who want to import them so they can work at his properties. Please keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jobless claims jumped to a two year high.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/economy/unemployment-benefits-jobless-claims/index.html

From your link:

"Even though the pop in claims was notable, just one data point doesn't make a trend. Last week's data could be an outlier due to seasonal noise, given the timing around the Thanksgiving holiday on November 28.

The four-week average, which smooths out the Thanksgiving holiday week, was at 224,000.

"December and January are the biggest months for labor market turnover for the year so consequently there is excessive volatility in the claims," Thomas Simons, senior money market economist at Jefferies, wrote in a note to clients.

"We should not read too far into this jump in claims," he added.

The US labor market is still very strong, with the unemployment rate recently matching a 50-year low. That said, investors are keeping a close eye on erratic patterns in jobless claims."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are besides themselves because the economy is firing on all cylinders.

And they know that when it comes to the presidential election, what matters is the economy. All the impeachment b-s will not gain traction given how well the economy is doing. Everyone, except the most partisan Democrats, acknowledge that the economy is doing incredibly well. Americans don't want some harebrained schemes by Democrats that will jeopardize the economic recovery.

The fabulous economy is because of lowered tax rates and deregulation ........ and Democrats want to increase taxes and offer more regulations. Is there a limit to the insanity of the Democrats? If I did not know better, I would think that they actually want Trump to win again.

Kudos to Trump and his economic team!

“One of the great enduring stupidities of the American presidential cult is the belief, rooted in invincible ignorance, that the state of the U.S. economy at any given moment is a reflection of the intelligence and wisdom of the chief executive of the federal government and a result of the excellence or insufficiency of his administration. “Sure, Bill Clinton may have been an intern-diddling hillbilly and maybe even a violent rapist, but, man, my IRA kicked ass in the 1990s!”

It’s dumb, but it rules politics.

...

Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all. But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff.

Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis.“

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are besides themselves because the economy is firing on all cylinders.

And they know that when it comes to the presidential election, what matters is the economy. All the impeachment b-s will not gain traction given how well the economy is doing. Everyone, except the most partisan Democrats, acknowledge that the economy is doing incredibly well. Americans don't want some harebrained schemes by Democrats that will jeopardize the economic recovery.

The fabulous economy is because of lowered tax rates and deregulation ........ and Democrats want to increase taxes and offer more regulations. Is there a limit to the insanity of the Democrats? If I did not know better, I would think that they actually want Trump to win again.

Kudos to Trump and his economic team!

“One of the great enduring stupidities of the American presidential cult is the belief, rooted in invincible ignorance, that the state of the U.S. economy at any given moment is a reflection of the intelligence and wisdom of the chief executive of the federal government and a result of the excellence or insufficiency of his administration. “Sure, Bill Clinton may have been an intern-diddling hillbilly and maybe even a violent rapist, but, man, my IRA kicked ass in the 1990s!”

It’s dumb, but it rules politics.

...

Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all. But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff.

Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis.“

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

In case you don't understand what I'm saying with the excerpts above is -- you're an idiot. But, yes, many think like you do -- in both parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
“One of the great enduring stupidities of the American presidential cult is the belief, rooted in invincible ignorance, that the state of the U.S. economy at any given moment is a reflection of the intelligence and wisdom of the chief executive of the federal government and a result of the excellence or insufficiency of his administration. “Sure, Bill Clinton may have been an intern-diddling hillbilly and maybe even a violent rapist, but, man, my IRA kicked ass in the 1990s!”

It’s dumb, but it rules politics.

...

Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all. But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff.

Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis.“

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

An article from November 2017 which has proven to be invalid on several issues.

About the only thing I agree with is that presidents have limited ability to influence the economy but like it or not, they get the credit when the economy is going well and the blame when it is not. So Carter got blamed and lost reelection and Reagan is viewed as an almost mythical figure by conservatives for his economic policies and the fall of the Soviet empire.

Sorry, nothing profound about the article you cited.

Maybe you should quote Paul Krugman!

[Anonymous]

Why is Congress once again giving big tech companies a sweetheart deal to import cheap foreign workers?

The economy is roaring; unemployment is low; there are over 20 million students attending college; at least 45% of college freshmen plan to major in a Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) field of study; the 2018 Median Pay just for Computer and Information Research Scientists is $118,370; and even though American taxpayers subsidize public, post-secondary education, student debt will likely eclipse $1.5 TRILLION by the end of 2019.

Because of bills like the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act and other insider interests, it is no wonder we have a student debt crisis in America. Students who have received years of publicly subsidized education cannot get hired for the high-paying jobs they are qualified to do, especially when they are competing with a pool of candidates from China, India, and elsewhere who will do the job at a fraction of the cost.

American students should have a level playing field when applying for the jobs that they are educated and qualified to do before they are crushed under the weight of their student debt.

It is curious that such a wide-ranging swath of Washington DC’s politicians, Silicon Valley institutions, and “Big Business” interests are not looking to the rest of our nation for talent in the best jobs in America before they look to rig the political system, deflate the job market, and unfairly benefit mega-corporations with more foreign visas when American workers can easily fill the jobs that are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“One of the great enduring stupidities of the American presidential cult is the belief, rooted in invincible ignorance, that the state of the U.S. economy at any given moment is a reflection of the intelligence and wisdom of the chief executive of the federal government and a result of the excellence or insufficiency of his administration. “Sure, Bill Clinton may have been an intern-diddling hillbilly and maybe even a violent rapist, but, man, my IRA kicked ass in the 1990s!”

It’s dumb, but it rules politics.

...

Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all. But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer.

Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff.

Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis.“

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

An article from November 2017 which has proven to be invalid on several issues.

About the only thing I agree with is that presidents have limited ability to influence the economy but like it or not, they get the credit when the economy is going well and the blame when it is not. So Carter got blamed and lost reelection and Reagan is viewed as an almost mythical figure by conservatives for his economic policies and the fall of the Soviet empire.

Sorry, nothing profound about the article you cited.

Maybe you should quote Paul Krugman!

Regulatory reform takes time to pay off. Presidents often get credit or blame they don’t deserve regarding the economy. Those were my two points — and PP was an idiot for giving Cheetoh credit he does not deserve. Should’ve been self evident from the excerpts I provided. Not sure how you missed that.

[Anonymous]

In the last decade the wealthiest have gotten wealthier but the retirement savings for middle class and poor have remained flat or fallen.

Note that Republicans stymied Obama's plan to get more people into retirement accounts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/business/retirement-social-security-recession.html?searchResultPosition=1

Despite the gains made in employment, wage growth has only recently begun to recover — and remained flat for older workers. Retirement wealth has accumulated almost exclusively among higher-income households, while middle- and lower-income households have only held steady or lost ground, Federal Reserve data shows.

Trends in Social Security and Medicare also are troubling. The value of Social Security benefits — measured by the share of pre-retirement income they replace — is falling, and the cost of Medicare is rising.

The model shows that the highest-income households have seen their odds of a successful retirement improve sharply during this decade, and have very high odds of success. Middle-income households, meanwhile, have seen some gains, but still have only 50-50 odds of success. And the lowest-income households have seen their retirement prospects diminish sharply — among these boomers approaching retirement, their odds of success have fallen during the decade from 26 percent to 11 percent.

But the recovery has seen retirement wealth accumulate almost exclusively among affluent households that had access to workplace retirement plans and the means to make contributions. For example, Vanguard reports that the average balance for plan participants with incomes over $150,000 in 2018 was $193,130, compared with just $22,679 for workers with income of $30,000 to $50,000.

Just 52 percent of American households owned retirement accounts in 2016, according to Federal Reserve data, not much changed from 2010, when that figure stood at 50 percent. Racial gaps in account ownership are especially pronounced — 58 percent of white households owned retirement accounts in 2016, compared with just 33.6 percent of black households and 27.8 percent of Latino households.

Federal efforts to expand the availability of retirement accounts foundered during the decade. During the Obama administration, Congress refused to enact a system of mandatory auto-enroll I.R.A.s that President Barack Obama had proposed for workers lacking access to workplace plans; since then, 10 states have enacted similar plans of their own and several have launched.

[Anonymous]

At present the biggest failing of the Dems is their failure to poke holes in the GOP's incredibly thin narrative that the economy is benefitting the whole country.

[Anonymous]

The results of Trumponomics:

-- The largest trade deficit in history
-- A growing federal deficit and debt
-- Stagnant wages
-- Corporations pouring billions into buybacks
-- Middle-class families losing billions in refunds
-- Huge executive bonuses

[Anonymous]

This editorial sums it up

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/opinion/gdp-america.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This editorial sums it up

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/opinion/gdp-america.html

Thanks for posting. PA, WI, and MI are the Dems' to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the last decade the wealthiest have gotten wealthier but the retirement savings for middle class and poor have remained flat or fallen.

Note that Republicans stymied Obama's plan to get more people into retirement accounts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/business/retirement-social-security-recession.html?searchResultPosition=1

Despite the gains made in employment, wage growth has only recently begun to recover — and remained flat for older workers. Retirement wealth has accumulated almost exclusively among higher-income households, while middle- and lower-income households have only held steady or lost ground, Federal Reserve data shows.

Trends in Social Security and Medicare also are troubling. The value of Social Security benefits — measured by the share of pre-retirement income they replace — is falling, and the cost of Medicare is rising.

The model shows that the highest-income households have seen their odds of a successful retirement improve sharply during this decade, and have very high odds of success. Middle-income households, meanwhile, have seen some gains, but still have only 50-50 odds of success. And the lowest-income households have seen their retirement prospects diminish sharply — among these boomers approaching retirement, their odds of success have fallen during the decade from 26 percent to 11 percent.

But the recovery has seen retirement wealth accumulate almost exclusively among affluent households that had access to workplace retirement plans and the means to make contributions. For example, Vanguard reports that the average balance for plan participants with incomes over $150,000 in 2018 was $193,130, compared with just $22,679 for workers with income of $30,000 to $50,000.

Just 52 percent of American households owned retirement accounts in 2016, according to Federal Reserve data, not much changed from 2010, when that figure stood at 50 percent. Racial gaps in account ownership are especially pronounced — 58 percent of white households owned retirement accounts in 2016, compared with just 33.6 percent of black households and 27.8 percent of Latino households.

Federal efforts to expand the availability of retirement accounts foundered during the decade. During the Obama administration, Congress refused to enact a system of mandatory auto-enroll I.R.A.s that President Barack Obama had proposed for workers lacking access to workplace plans; since then, 10 states have enacted similar plans of their own and several have launched.

The gubmint can't fill potholes, but we should have them setting up retirement accounts while social security, Medicare and government pensions are about to tip over. They can't set up a secure health insurance website with 600 Million dollars and three years head start and the idiotic HHS budget is skyrocketing YOY.

No, keep the gubmint as far away from us as possible. A random number generator would have better outcomes than Washington DC.

"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan" - Ronald Reagan (who was a Democratt before switching to be Republican because as he stated, the democrat party left me)