[US Economy]-Covid-19 Depression? Edition, though not about Covid itself

KarozKaroz Registered User regular
i82eq6onhf59.jpg
STOP AND THINK: If your post isn't even tangentially related to the US Economy, don't post it.

OP stolen and edited from the previous thread by silence1186
silence1186's synopsis on the original reason for this thread
So tangential to many discussions I've been following in D&D (taxes, the budget, the Russia investigation) have been posts about the state of the economy, and the potential for an economic downturn in the very near future. Rather than have off-topic discussions in those threads, I feel like there's enough meat for a discussion about the current US economy, the signs of a potential recession, how such a recession could affect the world economy, and what the political ramifications such a downturn might cause.

I wrote those words almost a year ago, and honestly, I figured we'd have had some kind of economic crisis that would precipitate a sudden and painful downturn in the economy. Look at who's at the helm, after all. There are still worrying signs, but I feel like we've been waiting for the shoe to drop for quite some time.
The present and future outlook (May 2020)
So we're in a...depression? of the economy due to the closing of most business via government orders to halt the spread of Covid-19 resulting in a unemployment rate of 14.7 for April 2020. There has been one pass of stimulus funding in the US but the current trend is to reopen business as local and state governments struggle with budget shortfalls despite the virus very much not contained in the United States. It's hard to say what the future will hold as the virus's containment and opening procedures of various states progress in the coming month. Global tensions and tarriffs between powers such as China and the US continue, partially exacerbated by the spread of Covid-19 and do not seem to be discontinued any time soon. But this is an election year so it's hard to see how the future will progress in the coming months.
A snap shot from the previous thread thoughts
The last economic crisis was ~10 years ago, and conventional wisdom says the boom and bust cycle is also ~10 years, so in that sense we're "due" for one. Conventional wisdom doesn't always hold. For example, unemployment is historically low (cite), but there's no upward pressure on wage growth (cite). AresProphet had an effort post about it.

In the last year Mr. Trump decided since Trade Wars are the easiest thing in the world to win, he would go ahead and start them with basically the entire world. This has led to a tit for tat escalation with China, with no signs of either side backing down. For the last few quarters, companies have been stockpiling materials in anticipation of increased costs (leading to deceptively high economic growth), but this could have catastrophic long term consequences for the US. For example, Chinese buyers are shifting away from US soybeans, and even if a future president ends the tariffs, there's no guarantee they'll ever come back to US markets.

Also worrying is the impending no-deal Brexit. Although the finer points can be discussed in the relevant thread, if it goes forward as is it promises to be a disastrous exogenous shock to the global economy.
Useful US Economy Info Links
US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed

Investopedia -- for those crazy economic terms and subjects you need to deep dive on

There's lots going on, and plenty of in depth, high level discussion to be had, so be excellent to each other, and let's watch and see what happens to the economy this year.

Again, this is the US economy thread. Keep it about the US economy.

Previous threads links (OP dates)

Commander ZoomForarXaquinL Ron HowardToxTrajan45RingoFencingsaxShadowfiresilence1186JaysonFourHefflingCommunistCow
«13456734

Posts

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    As a reminder, the top tax bracket was over 90% back in the 50s.

    Dumb question; wouldn't the counter to this be that if we raised this back up, businesses would flock to other countries? Given that there are way more 1st/2nd world countries now vs the 50's + Internet?

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    As a reminder, the top tax bracket was over 90% back in the 50s.

    Dumb question; wouldn't the counter to this be that if we raised this back up, businesses would flock to other countries? Given that there are way more 1st/2nd world countries now vs the 50's + Internet?

    This was on individuals.

    Business taxes are a bit of a different beast. There were built in breaks for reinvestment and such. But not say for buying back your own stock. A lot of things legal now were not then. It is hard to do a 1 to 1 comparison.

    03x29di.png
    monikerIncenjucarQuidMayabirdFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthLord_AsmodeusBlackDragon480OghulkShadowfireL Ron HowardSkeithGiantGeek2020DoodmannJaysonFouroverride367Gnome-InterruptusElldren
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    As a reminder, the top tax bracket was over 90% back in the 50s.

    Dumb question; wouldn't the counter to this be that if we raised this back up, businesses would flock to other countries? Given that there are way more 1st/2nd world countries now vs the 50's + Internet?

    They can't do much with domestic revenues. But even then... a great deal of the issue here is definitely a lack of international cooperation - it's just too easy to the wealthy to move around, to extort tax breaks (look at fucking sports stadiums in the US, how cities will bend over backwards to get Amazon to open an office, etc)...

    Although, the thought of revenues as what you tax makes me wonder if that's how you go after the rich too. Tax any net outflow of cash from the country above a certain amount. Then you can figure out a lower wealth tax rate, tuning it so that it's unappealing for companies to move the money out of the country, but it discourages sitting on excessive assets? You could make the tax a function of revenue and assets, so that it's based on what % of annual cashflow or something?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    I have a more general economy question that came up for me when reading some articles about Coid's effect on the economy globally and in paerticular the US and Germany.

    Before the pandemy the US had more ore less full employment, right? Unemployment in Germany was almost twice as high as in the US.

    On the other hand participation the the workforce has been on the decline in the Us for years and been down to 67% or so in 2019. In Germany the participation rate as been rising and over 80%. (I'm not sure the percentages are measured with the same criteria for a start, but still one is declining the other rsising)

    Can someone explanin to me how these numbers might correlate and what the difference might mean? I'm an economics dummy.

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
    KarozhonovereHappylilElf
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    In this economy?

    Hacksaw
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    As a reminder, the top tax bracket was over 90% back in the 50s.

    Dumb question; wouldn't the counter to this be that if we raised this back up, businesses would flock to other countries? Given that there are way more 1st/2nd world countries now vs the 50's + Internet?

    This was on individuals.

    Business taxes are a bit of a different beast. There were built in breaks for reinvestment and such. But not say for buying back your own stock. A lot of things legal now were not then. It is hard to do a 1 to 1 comparison.

    The other problem is that we live in a completely different macroeconomic regulatory state. There is no Bretton Woods anymore which, for all its flaws, made things much simpler from an analytical standpoint.

    MazzyxshrykeSleepBlackDragon480monikerFencingsaxElldrenDoodmannJaysonFour
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Calling U6 a more complete figure is a bit misleading. It's just measuring a different thing. There's been a ton of conspiracy theory and social media garbage for years (especially during the Obama years "strangely") about how the government is hiding the real unemployment figures and blah blah blah. It's important to understand that they are just different metrics. Sort of like how CPI can exclude food and energy prices.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Source please. This is news to me and is the sort of thing I should really know.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Source please. This is news to me and is the sort of thing I should really know.

    U6 was introduced in 1994, which is why the data doesn't go back further than that.

    U3 is still the 'headline' rate, but it's a less encompassing measure and U6 is much more helpful to get a better view of the labor market as a whole. It would be nice if the media were to switch to U6 going forward, since it is a better measure and pandemic unemployment is already massive enough and a unique enough circumstance that people won't really notice.

    Brainleech
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited May 25
    moniker wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Source please. This is news to me and is the sort of thing I should really know.

    U6 was introduced in 1994, which is why the data doesn't go back further than that.

    U3 is still the 'headline' rate, but it's a less encompassing measure and U6 is much more helpful to get a better view of the labor market as a whole. It would be nice if the media were to switch to U6 going forward, since it is a better measure and pandemic unemployment is already massive enough and a unique enough circumstance that people won't really notice.

    Depends on what you want to know though. Like if the question is how much could the economy recover if everything is reopened (safely, like with a vaccine), U6 would be misleading. Because a lot of those people wouldn't go back to work even if everything was safe.

    If you're asking how many people are living off of no income right now than U6 is a better number. Or like how many people need help to get back on their feet.

    It just depends on what you are trying to determine really. Which is probably why they record both numbers.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    shrykeBlackDragon480CommunistCow
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Source please. This is news to me and is the sort of thing I should really know.

    U6 was introduced in 1994, which is why the data doesn't go back further than that.

    U3 is still the 'headline' rate, but it's a less encompassing measure and U6 is much more helpful to get a better view of the labor market as a whole. It would be nice if the media were to switch to U6 going forward, since it is a better measure and pandemic unemployment is already massive enough and a unique enough circumstance that people won't really notice.

    Depends on what you want to know though. Like if the question is how much could the economy recover if everything is reopened (safely, like with a vaccine), U6 would be misleading. Because a lot of those people wouldn't go back to work even if everything was safe.

    If you're asking how many people are living off of no income right now than U6 is a better number. Or like how many people need help to get back on their feet.

    It just depends on what you are trying to determine really. Which is probably why they record both numbers.

    If they wouldn't go back to work at all then they wouldn't be considered unemployed/ marginally attached, even on U6 and eventually slide off. They'd just be out of the labor market, which labor force participation measures. U6 includes part time employees who want to be full time employees but can't find a full time job to employ them because the economy isn't hiring sufficiently.
    From the BLS-
    U-6: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.

    NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Unemployment numbers are a complicated matter.

    The most reported figure is known as U3. It is the amount of people that currently work 0 hours, but are actively working to find some kind of job.
    A more complete figure is the U6. This is the "old" standard, the switch happened in the '90s. U6 includes people who are so discouraged they are not seeking actively, people who are working fewer hours than they'd like.

    U3 & U6 are USA metrics but the EU uses an analog.

    When people talk about workforce participation, it's again important to look at the underlying statistics. I know the Netherlands uses this as a percentage of the total of 15-75 year olds, which I've always found strange, since so many are expected to be in school at the lower end, and so few people work beyond 67y here. This is becoming ever sillier, as just like Germany our population is aging, so the 65+ cohort is increasing in size.
    It should be noted that the Netherlands did institute a slew of changes to increase participation in the 55-65 bracket in the last 20 years, which was needed.

    Comparing unemployment numbers between countries is usually not very useful unless you are very aware of the specifics of the country.

    Source please. This is news to me and is the sort of thing I should really know.

    U6 was introduced in 1994, which is why the data doesn't go back further than that.

    U3 is still the 'headline' rate, but it's a less encompassing measure and U6 is much more helpful to get a better view of the labor market as a whole. It would be nice if the media were to switch to U6 going forward, since it is a better measure and pandemic unemployment is already massive enough and a unique enough circumstance that people won't really notice.

    @SanderJK was claiming that U6 was the "old standard" for the unemployment rate prior to the 90s.

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    I thought that was the case, but a quick search could find no truth to that, both u3 and u6 have been recorded for a long time and u3 has always been the reported one.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
    enc0re
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    I thought that was the case, but a quick search could find no truth to that, both u3 and u6 have been recorded for a long time and u3 has always been the reported one.

    U3 is the same methodology as the UNRATE, and goes back to 1948 in FRED. I think there was a methodology change then compared to the Depression, or maybe just frequency. Not 100% sure and didn't bother to look. It is a more useful metric in order to compare things over time, since it has such a longer timescale, but that's about the only benefit it has going for it. And today isn't really that comparable to the Korean War.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited May 25
    moniker wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    I thought that was the case, but a quick search could find no truth to that, both u3 and u6 have been recorded for a long time and u3 has always been the reported one.

    U3 is the same methodology as the UNRATE, and goes back to 1948 in FRED. I think there was a methodology change then compared to the Depression, or maybe just frequency. Not 100% sure and didn't bother to look. It is a more useful metric in order to compare things over time, since it has such a longer timescale, but that's about the only benefit it has going for it. And today isn't really that comparable to the Korean War.

    I don’t know much about either so you could be totally right, but I’d be interested in seeing how they each respond after certain events. Like during the Great Recession did one crash faster? Did one recover faster? Etc.

    It seems like there are some fundamental differences on how people would respond between the two groups. But I guess I don’t really know.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Can someone update me on the latest Stimulus checks? I just got an EIP card in the mail but last I checked, I didn't qualify for any stimulus. Googling it seems there another round of $1200 going out? Are there less restrictions on it than before?

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Nothing has passed since the initial checks except some more business loans. I'd check if your state is doing anything

    monikerTrajan45
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    The additional 1200 is what has been proposed and passed by the House, among other things, but stands little chance at passing the Senate

    monikerFencingsaxJebus314shrykeMoridin889Toxa5ehrenLord_AsmodeusMatevoverride367Nobeardtyrannusnever die
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Nothing has passed since the initial checks except some more business loans. I'd check if your state is doing anything

    I don't think there are any states offering a stimulus. Most are having to borrow heavily/layoff state employees/cut services/OPEN EVERYTHING! to cover unemployment costs, since the federal government won't step in and help.

    davidsdurionsGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusElldren
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    I want to say the IRS issued a guideline saying that citizens married to green card holders will get a payment, unlike the original interpretation that they would get nothing. But I can't find it.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Nothing has passed since the initial checks except some more business loans. I'd check if your state is doing anything

    I don't think there are any states offering a stimulus. Most are having to borrow heavily/layoff state employees/cut services/OPEN EVERYTHING! to cover unemployment costs, since the federal government won't step in and help.

    States really can't do counter-cyclical spending since with the exception of Vermont they are more or less* required to run a balanced budget. That's something that I think some of the more competent states should probably take a look at.

    * Specific details vary on a state by state basis, since each one wrote that stupidity into their constitution/laws in their own uniquely stupid way. Though states are able to go into debt, what with issuing bonds for various big infrastructure projects.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    monikershrykeCauldGnome-Interruptus
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Nothing has passed since the initial checks except some more business loans. I'd check if your state is doing anything

    I don't think there are any states offering a stimulus. Most are having to borrow heavily/layoff state employees/cut services/OPEN EVERYTHING! to cover unemployment costs, since the federal government won't step in and help.

    States really can't do counter-cyclical spending since with the exception of Vermont they are more or less* required to run a balanced budget. That's something that I think some of the more competent states should probably take a look at.

    * Specific details vary on a state by state basis, since each one wrote that stupidity into their constitution/laws in their own uniquely stupid way. Though states are able to go into debt, what with issuing bonds for various big infrastructure projects.

    Agree that in general states can't do deficit funding, but some states do have 'rainy day funds', which are counter cyclical.

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    The unluckiest generation in U.S. history
    Millennials have faced the worst economic odds, and many will never recover


    This article is depressing how behind Millenials are across the board. More heavily affected by the recessions. Never really recovered from 2008. I mean most of us are living it so we know but man we are a fully lost generation in the US.

    Some of the graphs:

    ljetfccfakt4.png

    pm3wlwemuese.png

    03x29di.png
    shrykeBlackDragon480Giggles_FunsworthElldrenPolaritieLord_AsmodeusMayabirdMeeqeFencingsaxMatevVeagleemp123jkylefulton
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Now hold on we may not be the unluckiest.

    Give zoomers a chance.

    HobnailGiggles_FunsworthOrcaschussShadowfiremonikerkimeSkeithCaptain InertiaMayabirdIncenjucarBurnageKarozHacksawMeeqeFencingsaxMrMonroeGiantGeek2020GimZonugalMatevDark Raven XMoridin889VishNubMillLucedesEinzelDuke 2.0Kayne Red RobeAbsalonL Ron HowardmanwiththemachinegunthatassemblyguyHefflingCommunistCowemp123JaysonFourjkylefultonStabbity StylepainfulPleasancenever dieTrajan45ElldrenSanguinius666264Solar
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Now hold on we may not be the unluckiest.

    Give zoomers a chance.

    Also, I'll take the ~couple % slower GDP growth compared to the lives the actual Lost Generation had. If I were born a century prior (and didn't die in childbirth, which I likely would have) you've got the First World War, Spanish Flu, Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and World War Two before retirement. We've had it rough, but we haven't reprised all of those yet.

    DoodmannCauld
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Now hold on we may not be the unluckiest.

    Give zoomers a chance.

    Also, I'll take the ~couple % slower GDP growth compared to the lives the actual Lost Generation had. If I were born a century prior (and didn't die in childbirth, which I likely would have) you've got the First World War, Spanish Flu, Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and World War Two before retirement. We've had it rough, but we haven't reprised all of those yet.

    Climate change...

    kimeCaptain InertiaMayabirdIncenjucarHacksawMeeqeShadowfireGiantGeek2020Dark Raven XMoridin889Kayne Red RobeL Ron Howardthatassemblyguyemp123JaysonFourpainfulPleasancenever dieElldrenSolarMild Confusion
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Now hold on we may not be the unluckiest.

    Give zoomers a chance.

    Also, I'll take the ~couple % slower GDP growth compared to the lives the actual Lost Generation had. If I were born a century prior (and didn't die in childbirth, which I likely would have) you've got the First World War, Spanish Flu, Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and World War Two before retirement. We've had it rough, but we haven't reprised all of those yet.

    Climate change...
    moniker wrote: »
    we haven't reprised all of those yet.

    Captain InertiaGiantGeek2020shrykethatassemblyguyStabbity Stylenever dieRingoMild Confusion
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    So here’s the thing, I think it’s this:
    bfg9h6aayf06.jpeg
    (The blue employment line)

    This fucked up a ton of reliable voters and helped usher in the fascists

    Not just in the US, it’s a global thing

    Gnome-InterruptuspainfulPleasance
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited May 28
    A net 2.5% reduction in employment when they were nearly hitting retirement age already ushered in the fascists?

    edit: in fact I'd be willing to bet that income recovery that doesn't correspond to a rise in employment probably reflects a mix of folks getting paid more and folks starting up their SS payments.

    MrMonroe on
    thatassemblyguy
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    A net 2.5% reduction in employment when they were nearly hitting retirement age already ushered in the fascists?

    edit: in fact I'd be willing to bet that income recovery that doesn't correspond to a rise in employment probably reflects a mix of folks getting paid more and folks starting up their SS payments.

    Losing your job after age 55 has some of the harshest economic impacts. The only thing worse is when you are entering the labor force. Finding a new job is harder as places are less likely to hire someone older, the pay cuts are more substantial and without any time left to narrow the gap before retirement, and that also generally coincides with rather large new enduring medical expenses. It's not like most people can bridge the better part of a decade out of pocket to make it to retirement, and it's not like they can make much more additional income while retired.

    DoodmannGnome-InterruptusMazzyxenc0reshrykenever dieNobeardTrajan45Elldren
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited May 28
    So here’s the thing, I think it’s this:
    bfg9h6aayf06.jpeg
    (The blue employment line)

    This fucked up a ton of reliable voters and helped usher in the fascists

    Not just in the US, it’s a global thing

    I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make when it relies on some interpretation of one of the most useless graphs I've ever seen. It could just be a picture of what someone's kid scribbled on a wall

    EDIT: OK my bad there, I didn't realize it was cut from a graph up the page.

    Fuck me for browsing on a phone where you're lucky if one post fits on the screen.

    The Dude With Herpes on
    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Colorful Extrovert Registered User regular


    Washington Post reporter.

    Yeah, I'd imagine he wouldn't want people seeing those before the election.

    Gnome-InterruptusDoodmannL Ron HowardSleepmonikerKraintMatevshrykeDuke 2.0BullheadthatassemblyguykimeFencingsaxMillToxLord_Asmodeusemp123Commander ZoomBlackDragon480honovereStabbity StylepainfulPleasancenever dieNobeardTrajan45ElldrenHacksawMild Confusion
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    Yeah, I'd imagine he wouldn't want people seeing those before the election.

    Doesn't the bond market kind of need those to operate?

    Captain InertiaL Ron HowardmonikershrykepainfulPleasanceElldren
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Re: the boomer screen snip

    That was sloppy editing on my part, my bad

    I was just pointing out that while income for boomers came closest of all generations to recovering, that employment didn’t recover has been cited as a cause for further boomer brain worms and them taking comfort in the fascists’ propaganda giving them an excuse of “the other” that’s keeping them from getting jobs

    I think what the full graph may represent is rich boomers taking a larger slice of the economic pie by replacing higher paid peers with lower paid youngins

    painfulPleasance
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited May 28
    Re: the boomer screen snip

    That was sloppy editing on my part, my bad

    I was just pointing out that while income for boomers came closest of all generations to recovering, that employment didn’t recover has been cited as a cause for further boomer brain worms and them taking comfort in the fascists’ propaganda giving them an excuse of “the other” that’s keeping them from getting jobs

    I think what the full graph may represent is rich boomers taking a larger slice of the economic pie by replacing higher paid peers with lower paid youngins

    I mean, the same thing happened in Nazi Germany. It wasn't the workers who suffered the worst effects of the post-WWI economy and Depression that supported the facists. They were predominantly either mainstream voters or Communists.

    It was the small business owners, bankers, and other middle class folks who were doing relatively well financially who flocked to the Nazis. That because the dynamic with fascism isn't "Everyone who became poor becomes fascists."

    It's that people lose faith in the systems, the assholes band together because they think "Only we can solve this!", and no one tries that hard to stop them because they are disillusioned. Eventually, it turns out the assholes' solution is "Murder everyone who disagrees with us", and it's downhill from there.

    Repeat and rinse, and that's the story of the rise of fascism wherever it happens. The Powers That Be fuck up, the nation's asshole bosses and generals get together to fix things, and it all goes to hell.

    Phillishere on
    OrcamonikershrykemrondeauBlackDragon480David WalgasElldren
  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    Yeah, I'd imagine he wouldn't want people seeing those before the election.

    Doesn't the bond market kind of need those to operate?

    You're thinking beyond what makes Trump feel good in today's news cycle, so you've already exceeded his foresight.

    Imagine if he hadn't based his entire presidency on juicing the Dow Jones industrial average and had taken the virus seriously from the get go. He would get to be the president that fought the virus to keep you safe, and could also blame the bad economy on the virus as well.

    But that would require more work than playing golf and watching Fox and friends, so instead it's time for his version of "the fundamentals of our economy are very strong" bullshit for the next 5+ months, surely no one will check the numbers? Oh they will? Well we'll just refuse to release them, what could possibly go wrong?

    monikerGnome-InterruptusshrykeFencingsaxMillLord_Asmodeusemp123Commander ZoomForarNobeardElldren
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    edited May 28
    Re: the boomer screen snip

    That was sloppy editing on my part, my bad

    I was just pointing out that while income for boomers came closest of all generations to recovering, that employment didn’t recover has been cited as a cause for further boomer brain worms and them taking comfort in the fascists’ propaganda giving them an excuse of “the other” that’s keeping them from getting jobs

    I think what the full graph may represent is rich boomers taking a larger slice of the economic pie by replacing higher paid peers with lower paid youngins

    I mean, the same thing happened in Nazi Germany. It wasn't the workers who suffered the worst effects of the post-WWI economy and Depression that supported the facists. They were predominantly either mainstream voters or Communists.

    It was the small business owners, bankers, and other middle class folks who were doing relatively well financially who flocked to the Nazis. That because the dynamic with fascism isn't "Everyone who became poor becomes fascists."

    It's that people lose faith in the systems, the assholes band together because they think "Only we can solve this!", and no one tries that hard to stop them because they are disillusioned. Eventually, it turns out the assholes' solution is "Murder everyone who disagrees with us", and it's downhill from there.

    Repeat and rinse, and that's the story of the rise of fascism wherever it happens. The Powers That Be fuck up, the nation's asshole bosses and generals get together to fix things, and it all goes to hell.

    This all starts with a simmering racial resentment that makes for an "other" to pin all the problems on. Eventually, solving those problems gets connecting with getting rid of those "others", which logically then leads to "let's open up some death camps".

    Fascism is rooted in racism and loathing of the other, for whatever definition of other is convenient at the time.

    To tie this back to the economy, racism means it's easy to blame globalism (the other), globalists (AKA the Jewish, always a convenient other), and immigrants (ditto) for why it's so hard to get ahead in today's economy, instead of the home-grown assholes who have systematically stacked the deck legislatively to favor concentration of wealth over the last 50 years. Capital attracts capital, and absent a moderating force like the government, we have shown it will cheerfully lead us back to a feudal society...but with Twitter.

    Orca on
    TicaldfjamCommander ZoompainfulPleasance
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Re: the boomer screen snip

    That was sloppy editing on my part, my bad

    I was just pointing out that while income for boomers came closest of all generations to recovering, that employment didn’t recover has been cited as a cause for further boomer brain worms and them taking comfort in the fascists’ propaganda giving them an excuse of “the other” that’s keeping them from getting jobs

    I think what the full graph may represent is rich boomers taking a larger slice of the economic pie by replacing higher paid peers with lower paid youngins

    I mean, the same thing happened in Nazi Germany. It wasn't the workers who suffered the worst effects of the post-WWI economy and Depression that supported the facists. They were predominantly either mainstream voters or Communists.

    It was the small business owners, bankers, and other middle class folks who were doing relatively well financially who flocked to the Nazis. That because the dynamic with fascism isn't "Everyone who became poor becomes fascists."

    It's that people lose faith in the systems, the assholes band together because they think "Only we can solve this!", and no one tries that hard to stop them because they are disillusioned. Eventually, it turns out the assholes' solution is "Murder everyone who disagrees with us", and it's downhill from there.

    Repeat and rinse, and that's the story of the rise of fascism wherever it happens. The Powers That Be fuck up, the nation's asshole bosses and generals get together to fix things, and it all goes to hell.

    This all starts with a simmering racial resentment that makes for an "other" to pin all the problems on. Eventually, solving those problems gets connecting with getting rid of those "others", which logically then leads to "let's open up some death camps".

    Fascism is rooted in racism and loathing of the other, for whatever definition of other is convenient at the time.

    To tie this back to the economy, racism means it's easy to blame globalism (the other), globalists (AKA the Jewish, always a convenient other), and immigrants (ditto) for why it's so hard to get ahead in today's economy, instead of the home-grown assholes who have systematically stacked the deck legislatively to favor concentration of wealth over the last 50 years. Capital attracts capital, and absent a moderating force like the government, we have shown it will cheerfully lead us back to a feudal society...but with Twitter.

    And as the "First they came for..." poem shows, the racism is just the opening salvo. Left without opposition, fascists will target an endless list of internal enemies and each other as they devour the nation seeking others to blame for their failures.

    Phoenix-DTicaldfjamDee KaeElldrenMild Confusion
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    Yeah, I'd imagine he wouldn't want people seeing those before the election.

    So next Friday, when they should have released the new unemployment numbers showing 25%+ unemployment, we'll instead just get silence?

    Trump sees the writing on the wall and is trying to whitewash it away.

    Also new unemployment claims rose by ~2 million last week, bringing the total new claims over 40 million in the last 10 weeks.

    Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/weekly-jobless-claims.html

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

Sign In or Register to comment.