Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

19192939496

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Jobs: +115k, 8.1%. Things are... not getting worse!

    Depends what number you look at, really. Unemployment went down, but then there's this.
    Participation-Rate.jpg

    So you're saying that we're finally back to Reagan levels?

    All the various unemployment numbers are confusing in their own way, this one confuses based on the fact that we do have an aging population. The two real economic numbers to consider are.

    GDP
    Fraction of wealth concentrated in top 1 and 0.1%

    Maximize the first, minimize the latter and you are out of a recession.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Jobs: +115k, 8.1%. Things are... not getting worse!

    Depends what number you look at, really. Unemployment went down, but then there's this.
    Participation-Rate.jpg

    Old people.

    Lmao....its Definetly old people!
    Quite the opposite, actually
    Old people are working more than ever, young people are falling out of the labor force. The younger you are, the worse the damage is. We're at 80's level employment rates, despite the fact that back then it was still considered normal for most women to not work.

    Pi-r8 on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.

    ? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • centraldogmacentraldogma Registered User regular
    You have to understand, when these financial reports come out, they’re giving discrete measurements. Trying to divine any long term trends or meanings in those numbers is like trying to read tea leaves. If you are able to do so, I would suggest you invest in the stock market and make yourself very wealthy.

    That being said, the market is very finicky right now. There’s one of these figures released about once a day, and the market will react pretty decisively to them. It’ll be as likely to jump 200 points as it is to drop 200 the next day. This is good news for day traders.

    signaturecreation.gif
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.

    ? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.

    I'm pretty sure this was more of a wealth-redistribution sentiment. Or probably more accurate, to say that the amount of money that the top 0.1% have should be the amount of money that the top 80% has. Advocating less of a wealth gap, basically.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?)150k a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    Edit: Updated with the correct number.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    And is Jesus rocking the White Tree of Gondor?

    To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be the Tree of Life. He's still, you know, crazy, but you can't fault him for moderately imaginative religious imagery, I guess.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    150k. So far, on track, on average. Current estimates for the last six months or so (the 150k figure was presented early February around when the January report came out and looked back 3 months, so...):

    April: 115k
    March: 154k
    Feb: 259k
    Jan: 275k
    Dec: 223k
    Nov: 157k

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    I think the 280k a month number is for a robust recovery, so 115k would be considered a weak recovery. Still a recovery, but not as good as we want it to be. The real question is, what is the Republican plan for doing better? Cutting taxes on the rich and slashing spending? They should look at other countries that are already doing this and see if that's really what they want to do.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    @Tenek do you happen to have a link? My google-fu is not strong today.

    Derp. I found it: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamas-magic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    I think the 280k a month number is for a robust recovery, so 115k would be considered a weak recovery. Still a recovery, but not as good as we want it to be. The real question is, what is the Republican plan for doing better? Cutting taxes on the rich and slashing spending? They should look at other countries that are already doing this and see if that's really what they want to do.

    But, see, we'll cut even more taxes and slash even more spending.

    It'll totes work.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think we have to hit 100k a month to keep lowering unemployment, but 150k to be doing it well.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.

    ? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.

    I'm pretty sure this was more of a wealth-redistribution sentiment. Or probably more accurate, to say that the amount of money that the top 0.1% have should be the amount of money that the top 80% has. Advocating less of a wealth gap, basically.

    Yes, thought this was fairly obviously what I meant.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    This is a realistic and noble goal.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Also,

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/478368/478368/
    As of April, there are now more private sector jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when President Obama took office. You read that right. We have now replaced all of the private sector jobs lost while Obama has been president. And that was no mean feat, given that over the course of 2009, the private sector shed about 4.2 million jobs.

    Spoiler'd For Big Chart
    Spoiler:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Also,

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/478368/478368/
    As of April, there are now more private sector jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when President Obama took office. You read that right. We have now replaced all of the private sector jobs lost while Obama has been president. And that was no mean feat, given that over the course of 2009, the private sector shed about 4.2 million jobs.

    Spoiler'd For Big Chart
    Spoiler:

    :shock: Holy shit, that's a pretty big milestone. If that doesn't become a major talking point, we deserve to be subjugated to our new free market overlords.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I've twitted and facebook'd it and will be shoving it in people's faces when they rant about how we need austerity.

    DO YOUR DUTY!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    maybe I'm missing something, but isn't job "replacement" kind of a silly way to think about increases or decreases in employment?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    It is and it isn't. It's a big symbolic thing but it doesn't mean much in Real Terms.

    But this is politics, baby, image image image.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    Might as well say, "Romney's Economic Recovery Plan: More People With Jobs Making Money, Details TBA."

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Guys, don't know you know that this is the slowest recovery for jobs in 20 years except for the other two recessions in that time period?
    0503_econ_jobs_630x420.jpg

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    I was under the impression that all the recent recessions have had "jobless" recoveries. Not sure why anybody thought this one would be different.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well it would be if it wasn't for OBAMA'S FAILED POLICIES

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I mean sure, all the Republican policies have failed over and over and over again, but we need to try them harder, damn it!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Somewhat because it ignores increases or decreases in the potential labor force over that time span. Also that chart is ignoring all the jobs we lost from the beginning of the recession.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Guys, don't know you know that this is the slowest recovery for jobs in 20 years except for the other two recessions in that time period?
    0503_econ_jobs_630x420.jpg

    OK, whoever made that graph has some issues with the word "trough". You don't get to go below zero after the worst point.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    it just seems like bad messaging. "We've replaced every job lost since Obama took office" is the same as saying "private employment hasn't grown at all since Obama took office."

    much better to just talk about month to month gains

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Guys, don't know you know that this is the slowest recovery for jobs in 20 years except for the other two recessions in that time period?
    0503_econ_jobs_630x420.jpg

    OK, whoever made that graph has some issues with the word "trough". You don't get to go below zero after the worst point.

    Is that not just tracking how many jobs are created month to month?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Guys, don't know you know that this is the slowest recovery for jobs in 20 years except for the other two recessions in that time period?
    0503_econ_jobs_630x420.jpg

    OK, whoever made that graph has some issues with the word "trough". You don't get to go below zero after the worst point.

    The trough in question isn't related to jobs but GDP growth.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.

    LET THE FREE MARKET LOOSE

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.

    It's happened a grand total of five times in 50 years. That's the point. He is expecting, demanding, and promising something completely unrealistic.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Alright, we're bringing this baby into port.

    Shut it down.


    jack_donaghy.jpg

    Atomika on
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    it's only page 97, there's still a good few hours left in this thread

    camo_sig2.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
    So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?

    It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.

    If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.

    His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o

    Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.

    It's happened a grand total of five times in 50 years. That's the point. He is expecting, demanding, and promising something completely unrealistic.
    It's happened before after a sharp recession. It's not an unrealistic goal. If the government took strong action (of fiscal stimulus) they could add 500,000 jobs each month and bring us back to full employment within a year.

    Of course Romney's proposed solution of "continue laying off government employees" would only make it worse. But I don't like it when democrats act as though the current course of action is perfectly fine.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The current course of action isn't fine, but Romney's being an idiot here.

    The things Romney wants to do would not bring any of his stated goals.

    Also, the current course of action is basically hamstrung by Republican douchebaggery. They refuse to do the things we need to do.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    Here's something crazy: why are liberals in government afraid of the wealth redistribution label?

    Yes I do fucking want it redistributed downward, it's the only sensible thing to do given where this is heading.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
This discussion has been closed.