The U.S. economy grew even faster in the third quarter than initially thought, posting the strongest six months of growth in more than a decade and pulling further ahead of other big economies of the world.
The gross domestic product, the country's total output of goods and services, expanded at a healthy 3.9 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. That's a notable jump from its first estimate of 3.5 percent. The revision was propelled higher by more robust consumer and business spending.
Together with a 4.6 percent surge in the spring, the country has recorded its biggest back-to-back quarterly performance since 2003.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY_GDP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-25-15-18-50
The deficit is down over 30%
The stockmarket / corporate profits are at record highs
New home sales are rising
The unemployment rate is falling
Consumer confidence is at a six year high
Is President Obama destroying America OR HAVE REPUBLICANS BEEN LYING......
What's the beef with oil companies? Ok, so they have a high nominal figure for profits. But what actually defines how profitable a company is? Total profits, or profit margins? Just to give you an idea, in 2013 Exxon Mobile's overall profit margin was only 8.3%. So for every dollar in revenue, after all expenses they only kept 8 cents. On the flip side, Apple - one of those big corporations that liberals absolutely love (disclaimer - I don't hate Apple. They run a damn good business) - posted profit margins of 25% that same year. TRIPLE that of Exxon.
Why no outrage against Apple and their "obscene profits"?
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 10:25:33 AM
What's the beef with oil companies? Ok, so they have a high nominal figure for profits. But what actually defines how profitable a company is? Total profits, or profit margins? Just to give you an idea, in 2013 Exxon Mobile's overall profit margin was only 8.3%. So for every dollar in revenue, after all expenses they only kept 8 cents. On the flip side, Apple - one of those big corporations that liberals absolutely love (disclaimer - I don't hate Apple. They run a damn good business) - posted profit margins of 25% that same year. TRIPLE that of Exxon.
Why no outrage against Apple and their "obscene profits"?
Perhaps because no one has bombed a building or gone to war for an iPhone?
No one's grandparents got killed by a drone, no one's son has been beheaded for a Macbook?
I dunno. Are you always this unironic?
Now that we know there were WMD's, apparently Bush didn't bomb anyone for oil either, but it makes for a typically slippery argument for those without substantive intelligence.
The drone killings have only ramped up by Obama... Probably from his I-Phone.
The beheadings are taking place because 'DEAR LEADER' sacked the military, turned tail and ran away from a hot war zone to appease his liberal nut-base. Without something in place that his 'terrorist friends' (you know, like our old friends in Iran and Syria) understand, IE: bombs, the threat has only grown. 'DEAR LEADERS' military genius is going to be historic, but then; "What difference does it make?"
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 10:25:33 AM
What's the beef with oil companies? Ok, so they have a high nominal figure for profits. But what actually defines how profitable a company is? Total profits, or profit margins? Just to give you an idea, in 2013 Exxon Mobile's overall profit margin was only 8.3%. So for every dollar in revenue, after all expenses they only kept 8 cents. On the flip side, Apple - one of those big corporations that liberals absolutely love (disclaimer - I don't hate Apple. They run a damn good business) - posted profit margins of 25% that same year. TRIPLE that of Exxon.
Why no outrage against Apple and their "obscene profits"?
Perhaps because no one has bombed a building or gone to war for an iPhone?
No one's grandparents got killed by a drone, no one's son has been beheaded for a Macbook?
I dunno. Are you always this unironic?
Oh yeah! I forgot! Commodities are evil and so any company associated with a commodity has got blood on their hands. Those evil people at Exxon, don't they know any better? Perhaps they should just be more like their cousin company's like Zephyrhills and Tyson. Because nobody's ever been killed over resources like food and water.
Stephen, just have someone snap a picture of you when I finally drive you to plunge your head into the Veg-o-Matic!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 26, 2014, 11:20:26 AM
Stephen, just have someone snap a picture of you when I finally drive you to plunge your head into the Veg-o-Matic!
Do you think he'd be screaming "This is all Bush's fault!!!!" when he finally takes the said plunge?
I'm old enough to know that we're not fighting in the Middle East for oil. If we were, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have been attacked. And in Iraq, they still control their own oil fields and refineries, at least the ones Isis hasn't taken over yet. So how many oil fields and refineries has the US staked claim to since going to the Middle East in 2001?
I'll take the question with a grain of salt, as I've disclosed it multiple times on other threads. But yes, upper 20s.
To each their own. Some start liberal young then switch conservative as they get older - as many of my parents friends have shared with me, and others have done the same you did.
Yes, I'm a conservative. And yes, I currently can't stand the Republican party - they are the epitome of say one thing and do another. Which is why if someone asks me are you a R or D, I say neither.
And actually, oddly enough, I've tried to get involved with the Young Republicans of Jacksonville. They seem about as disorganized as the Republicans in Congress.
Interesting that none of our right-winger buddies want to address the premise of this post.
If Obama is a "Socialist" and is hell-bent on destroying capitalism as we know it, how is it that housing permits and corporate profits have both made new highs, real residential investment and real retail sales per capita are within a hairsbreadth of new highs, and we're having the best year for jobs added in over a decade.
I know one poster has admitted in previous posts that evidence means nothing to him, but surely some of you other guys can address this discrepancy between what the right has so confidently predicted and what has actually transpired.
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 12:25:58 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:22:57 PM
hmm. I don't think you know me well enough to make assumptions about 'the same thing i did', to be honest.
Only using general terms there as in, started conservative before leaning liberal.
Quote from: finehoe on November 26, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
Interesting that none of our right-winger buddies want to address the premise of this post.
If Obama is a "Socialist" and is hell-bent on destroying capitalism as we know it, how is it that housing permits and corporate profits have both made new highs, real residential investment and real retail sales per capita are within a hairsbreadth of new highs, and we're having the best year for jobs added in over a decade.
I know one poster has admitted in previous posts that evidence means nothing to him, but surely some of you other guys can address this discrepancy between what the right has so confidently predicted and what has actually transpired.
Are housing permits going up because of true organic, economic demand going up, or because of new incentive programs being introduced at the federal level to artificially create demand? That's not new to Obama though, because home ownership has been pushed heavily through policies since the 70s. The irony though, the same banks which were chastised for doing what the government told them to do - make loans to people with bad credit - are being told to do it YET AGAIN. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
Yes, corporate profits are definitely high right now. But what's the most expensive liability for companies? Generally, it's wages. Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap". So if costs are being cut, you give your chance to earn a higher profit. Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
My industry - Finance - is doing ok, but we're seeing lots of potentially ugly scenarios approaching. Dodd-Frank and other similar boa-constrictors are absolutely crushing the small to mid size banking industry. The cost of compliance is too much to bear, and larger banks like Wells Fargo and BOA are acquiring them in bunches. This is crowding out the banks who used to lend to small businesses. Businesses that are privately owned are generally now having to look to Private Equity funds in order to obtain financing as larger banks will not lend to them. Similar situation with Health Care as the smaller companies simply can't survive the costs of compliance with the ACA.
So, that's what I'm seeing out of all the fog.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: finehoe on November 26, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
Yes, corporate profits are definitely high right now. But what's the most expensive liability for companies? Generally, it's wages. Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap". So if costs are being cut, you give your chance to earn a higher profit. Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
Sorry. Got those sentences turned around a bit. Should have read:
Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap" Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:55:35 PM
Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap" Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
Wages have been stagnant since the turn of the Millennium, and even as far back as since the 1970s, especially where so much income and wealth has been funneled to the very topmost segment of society. Also, the Obama Administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush Administration.
But my question remains unaddressed. How is it that we've heard for the last six years that the policies of the current administration are anti-capitalist, yet American capitalism is doing better than almost any place in the world?
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:16:27 PM
I'm old enough to know that we're not fighting in the Middle East for oil. If we were, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have been attacked
Check this page for a comparison between Iran and Iraq and try to see if you can spot a few differences between the two that may be a reason why a war with Iran may not be such a good idea (hint: terrain, population).
http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/iran.iraq (http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/iran.iraq)
As for Saudi Arabia - the consequences of attacking the country that holds the holiest of all muslim sites....
Plus, they are good buddies.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:16:27 PM
And in Iraq, they still control their own oil fields and refineries, at least the ones Isis hasn't taken over yet. So how many oil fields and refineries has the US staked claim to since going to the Middle East in 2001?
Well, sometimes things do not turn out a expected / desired. Still, many private contractors made a killing
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 26, 2014, 11:20:26 AM
Stephen, just have someone snap a picture of you when I finally drive you to plunge your head into the Veg-o-Matic!
actually (as you know) i love chatting with you Ock. I love your sense of irony, and playful polemic. a lot of discussion doesn't really require any thought at all to respond to. This can never be said about any discussion with you. It always requires keeping on your toes, and to date you are the only person on the forum that has handed me my ass in ignonimous defeat on a golden platter.
So, once bitten, twice respectful. ;)
Sorry dude, I had to go to Publix and was caught in a stampede of rapid pigmy armadillos in tights! Thanks for the kudos! Y'all smile, life is too short to spend it frowning.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:55:35 PM
Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap" Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
Wages have been stagnant since the turn of the Millennium, and even as far back as since the 1970s, especially where so much income and wealth has been funneled to the very topmost segment of society. Also, the Obama Administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush Administration.
But my question remains unaddressed. How is it that we've heard for the last six years that the policies of the current administration are anti-capitalist, yet American capitalism is doing better than almost any place in the world?
Quote from: finehoe on November 26, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 12:55:35 PM
Wage growth is as low now as it was since back in the 60s - which is another reason why you hear so much about the "wealth gap" Also, continuing to import millions of low skilled immigrants won't help that fact.
Wages have been stagnant since the turn of the Millennium, and even as far back as since the 1970s, especially where so much income and wealth has been funneled to the very topmost segment of society. Also, the Obama Administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush Administration.
But my question remains unaddressed. How is it that we've heard for the last six years that the policies of the current administration are anti-capitalist, yet American capitalism is doing better than almost any place in the world?
We aren't experiencing capitalism. A Federal Reserve running fiat monetary policy based on Keynesian principles to reach an arbitrary unemployment goal is not Capitalism. When 2 of your biggest industries - Banking and Insurance - are now even more quasi government/private enterprises due to Dodd-Frank and the ACA, that isn't capitalism. And as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing so many small to mid size companies in those industries go belly up or sell to bigger companies because of the cost of compliance. Margins are continuing to get squeezed and employers are being forced to make up the difference.
Another note, the real unemployment rate- the number that actually includes people who have given up looking for work - is at @ 13% - lower than it was a few years ago, but still higher than 50 years prior to '10.
So to compare us against the world? The Eurozone is an absolute mess because of the amount of debt they've accrued and can't figure out how to make whole. Japan has been continuing its same track of government bond purchasing for the last few decades which continues to produce nothing. Argentina, Brazil, Australia, China.. not a ton of good news economically speaking out there. So I challenge the question as "our capitalism vs their capitalism" because there isn't any country actually practicing true capitalism.
Sure, we may seem to be in decent shape right now. And yes, things are better than they were in 2009 overall. But when you look at the massive increase in asset prices since QE1 began in 2009 to today - with not near enough raw growth to correlate - something will give eventually. The average bull market lasts just under 4 years. The Fed has been pumping for 5 years running to promote higher asset prices. Just as a sugar high seems awesome for a quick minute, the crash is quick and deep.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 03:19:26 PM
So I challenge the question as "our capitalism vs their capitalism" because there isn't any country actually practicing true capitalism.
Who cares? The goal isn't to have some kind of laissez-faire Austrian ideal, but to have a decent standard of living for as many people as possible. And by that metric we're currently doing better than most anyone else, despite what the right-wing rhetoric would have you believe.
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 03:34:48 PM
WarDamJagFan, where on earth do you get these ideas about 'fiat currency'?
You know that that is all bunkum, right?
A fiat currency is a currency that does not have a commodity backing its value. The US Dollar does not have anything physical backing its value. That is not a debatable fact.
Quote from: finehoe on November 26, 2014, 03:35:26 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 03:19:26 PM
So I challenge the question as "our capitalism vs their capitalism" because there isn't any country actually practicing true capitalism.
Who cares? The goal isn't to have some kind of laissez-faire Austrian ideal, but to have a decent standard of living for as many people as possible. And by that metric we're currently doing better than most anyone else, despite what the right-wing rhetoric would have you believe.
We've been doing better than anyone else for a very long time.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
We've been doing better than anyone else for a very long time.
And Republicans and the right-wing have been saying for the last six years that Obama's economic policies would destroy the economy, yet the economy has performed better than virtually anywhere else. How can that be?
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2014, 03:34:48 PM
WarDamJagFan, where on earth do you get these ideas about 'fiat currency'?
You know that that is all bunkum, right?
A fiat currency is a currency that does not have a commodity backing its value. The US Dollar does not have anything physical backing its value. That is not a debatable fact.
Actually it isn't a fact. The United States currency is based on the total worth of the assets and value of the US economy and government. That and petrodollars, which is the largest commodity on the face of the earth, transactable only in US Dollars. Surprised you didn't know that.
But that isn't the only problem with this fairly ridiculous idea about fiat currency. How is anything valued?
What, for example, is the value of gold based on?
And you do realize that there are a number of different currency notes in the us, right? The Federal Reserve note isn't the only legal currency.
Well you proved my point in your own words about the Dollar being a fiat currency. It is not tied to an asset value. The value of GDP is not at all considered to be a tangible asset. Petrodollars have nothing to do with this. When the Federal Reserve prints money, they don't print petrodollars. They inject actual dollars by purchasing debt issued by the Treasury.
If the value of the dollar was actually backed by oil as you stated, then you would expect similar correlations in price movements. The Dollar Index, since the beginning of the year, has gone up from 71 to 88 - a 24% increase in value. Meanwhile, Crude Oil has gone from $103/barrel to $78/barrell - a 24% decrease in value. So, there goes that argument.
And in regards to the value of gold now-a-days. Well it's heavily traded in the world of Futures - where I spent a few years. Hedge Funds and CTA's that trade Gold Futures, for the most part, have zero interest in actually taking delivery of Gold once the contracts expire. They close their positions before expiration date but the value of Gold in today's world is heavily dependent on the sentiment of futures traders.
There are no more major currencies tied to the gold standard. They are all fiat. Central Banks are at liberty to manipulate the values of their currencies because there is no asset backing it to hold the value accountable. Why do you think so many central banks around the globe are keeping rates as low as they are? Because shortly after their rates go up while everyone else's stay low, they will experience an economic contraction and will have to cut rates again. Schwab has an excellent review of who's done this in the recent past, and what their results were.
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/What-Central-Banks-Have-Learned-About-Interest-Rate-Hikes
Haha. Ok Rob. You've obviously done your homework.
So four pages with deflections about global warming, fiat currency, and trips to Publix. Still no one has explained how not only did the implementation of socialism fail to happen, we ended up with the strongest economy in the developed world.
Curious.
Quote from: Apache on November 26, 2014, 05:29:35 PM
Quote from: finehoe on November 26, 2014, 03:58:46 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on November 26, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
We've been doing better than anyone else for a very long time.
And Republicans and the right-wing have been saying for the last six years that Obama's economic policies would destroy the economy, yet the economy has performed better than virtually anywhere else. How can that be?
Yes but only the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poor and the poor are in abject poverty. Isn't that what we read here on MJ.
But yes, kudos, I guess, President Obama is rocking the economy. All by himself, for the last six years. One more term!
It will be the R's fault soon enough. Barry just needs 40 more years and this may work. See Hungary/Russia/Cuba.
So far this year, the United States has added some 2.65 million jobs — an average of about 241,000 a month. November marked the best single month for job growth since January 2012 and well exceeded the projection of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, who predicted that the economy had added about 223,000 jobs for the month. For 10 straight months now, the economy has added at least 200,000 jobs. That hasn't happened since 1994.
It's a record: The U.S. economy has never before delivered 50 straight months of payrolls growth. (Previous record: 48, ending in mid-1990.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/05/u-s-economy-added-321000-jobs-in-november-unemployment-rate-holds-at-5-8/
Quote from: finehoe on December 06, 2014, 11:15:25 AM
So far this year, the United States has added some 2.65 million jobs — an average of about 241,000 a month. November marked the best single month for job growth since January 2012 and well exceeded the projection of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, who predicted that the economy had added about 223,000 jobs for the month. For 10 straight months now, the economy has added at least 200,000 jobs. That hasn't happened since 1994.
It's a record: The U.S. economy has never before delivered 50 straight months of payrolls growth. (Previous record: 48, ending in mid-1990.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/05/u-s-economy-added-321000-jobs-in-november-unemployment-rate-holds-at-5-8/
Yeah. Creating more food stamp recipients than jobs. Zero income growth and fewest people working since early 80's.
Bill, if your going to throw stats and dates out there, how about sourcing it too.
Quote from: Demosthenes on December 06, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
Bill, if your going to throw stats and dates out there, how about sourcing it too.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Here is the first one but thought them common knowledge/sense.
or there is this
www.google.com
Bill, compared to what "W" did to the economy, Obama is looking like a genius. Of course to arrive at that conclusion all you need to do is employ commonsense.
Or you could go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA
and let W 'splain it to you.
It looks like we have hit the tipping point , Bill's fantasies aside, broad sector growth, wage growth and serious business investment means unless some self inflected problem like a threat of a government shutdown or a move towards austerity happens 2015 will be a good year.
The last shutdown had a .06% impact to US GDP.
The largest direct financial impact was mostly limited to the DC area where hotels saw dramatic loss of bookings. (Which recovered after it was over)
However bars and liquor stores saw a marked increase during the same timeframe.
Quote from: MusicMan on December 06, 2014, 03:05:51 PM
Bill, compared to what "W" did to the economy, Obama is looking like a genius. Of course to arrive at that conclusion all you need to do is employ commonsense.
Or you could go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA
and let W 'splain it to you.
I deal in facts not hyperbole or videos. The poor are poorer the rich are richer. More people on food stamps. Less people working since the Carter debacle. By what barometer is this positive? Of course outside of creating more government dependents I.E. democrats
Quote from: bill on December 07, 2014, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: MusicMan on December 06, 2014, 03:05:51 PM
Bill, compared to what "W" did to the economy, Obama is looking like a genius. Of course to arrive at that conclusion all you need to do is employ commonsense.
Or you could go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA
and let W 'splain it to you.
I deal in facts not hyperbole or videos. The poor are poorer the rich are richer. More people on food stamps. Less people working since the Carter debacle. By what barometer is this positive? Of course outside of creating more government dependents I.E. democrats
You make some good points but draw reasonable but incorrect conclusions. The cause of those problems are the breakdown of protections for the working and middle class since 1980. Reductions of tariffs, non-enforcement of anti trust laws, expansion of corporate influence over government, reduction of top tax rates that kept the investing class pulling money out of owning American businesses and sending it overseas or gambling it on real estate bubbles and hedge-funds.
Quote from: bill on December 06, 2014, 12:33:50 PM
Creating more food stamp recipients than jobs.
Employers who don't pay a living wage are the creators of food stamp recipients.
Quote from: bill on December 06, 2014, 12:33:50 PM
Zero income growth
On the contrary, income growth has started to grow once again.
Quote from: bill on December 06, 2014, 12:33:50 PM
fewest people working since early 80's.
10,000 baby boomers retire
every day. Of course 'fewer people are working'.
Quote from: bill on December 06, 2014, 12:33:50 PM
Carter debacle
There were more private-sector jobs added under Carter than St. Raygun's first term:
Term Private Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter 9,041
Reagan 1 5,360
Reagan 2 9,357
GHW Bush 1,510
Clinton 1 10,885
Clinton 2 10,070
GW Bush 1 -841
GW Bush 2 379
Obama 1 1,998
Obama 2 4,7171
122 months into 2nd term: 10,290 pace.
Quote from: bill on December 06, 2014, 02:30:22 PM
or there is this
www.google.com
Translation: Bill has no idea what he's talking about.
Never let the facts get in the way of what you believe.
US economy grew at fast 5 pct. annual rate in Q3, best in 11 years
The U.S. economy grew at a sizzling 5 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the fastest in more than a decade, on the strength of consumer spending and business investment.
The resurgence in growth last quarter provided the latest evidence that the U.S. economy is steadily strengthening and outshining most others around the world.
The Commerce Department on Tuesday sharply revised up its estimate of third-quarter growth from a previous figure of 3.9 percent. Much of the increase came from consumer spending on health care and business spending on structures and computer software.
It was the fastest quarterly growth since the summer of 2003, and it followed a 4.6 percent annual growth rate in the April-June quarter.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-grew-fast-5-133648403.html
We need to hit the tipping point where the financial gains of this country reach the working class. The rich and investing classes have done well and the middle class is starting to see the light in the distance. A couple of small reforms could really bring this home such as a moderate increase in tariffs, tax consequences to offshoring jobs and HQs, some Glass Steagall type protections for pensions and home values and a broader minimum wage increase.
QuoteMuch of the increase came from consumer spending on health care
thought that was supposed to decline?
Also, thank you Mr. Bernanke.
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2014, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: fsquid on December 23, 2014, 11:26:29 AM
QuoteMuch of the increase came from consumer spending on health care
thought that was supposed to decline?
Also, thank you Mr. Bernanke.
Yeah, thats what happens when you give ten million people access to healthcare. The economy grows.
certainly does for the insurance companies and that is why I bought the ETF a year ago.
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2014, 02:17:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on December 23, 2014, 02:04:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2014, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: fsquid on December 23, 2014, 11:26:29 AM
QuoteMuch of the increase came from consumer spending on health care
thought that was supposed to decline?
Also, thank you Mr. Bernanke.
Yeah, thats what happens when you give ten million people access to healthcare. The economy grows.
certainly does for the insurance companies and that is why I bought the ETF a year ago.
when you were predicting it would kill the economy? Not to mention the health care profession?
What do you expect from conservatives Stephen, really? Bitching about something while profiting off it is par for the course.
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2014, 02:17:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on December 23, 2014, 02:04:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2014, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: fsquid on December 23, 2014, 11:26:29 AM
QuoteMuch of the increase came from consumer spending on health care
thought that was supposed to decline?
Also, thank you Mr. Bernanke.
Yeah, thats what happens when you give ten million people access to healthcare. The economy grows.
certainly does for the insurance companies and that is why I bought the ETF a year ago.
when you were predicting it would kill the economy? Not to mention the health care profession?
yes, just because I think its bad for America, doesn't mean I don't see an opportunity to invest and make 22% this year.
Quote from: fsquid on December 24, 2014, 02:00:56 PM
yes, just because I think its bad for America
What this whole thread demonstrates is that what you "think" is at odds with what reality actually is.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_LZdvvgPrFY/VMqlZm-1HOI/AAAAAAAA89w/sNTr8GFmNAg/s1600/triumphalism.jpg)
Initial jobless claims adjusted for population set a new all-time low
This morning population adjusted initial jobless claims set a new all-time record.
On an unadjusted basis, initial jobless claims set an all-time low of 161,000 on November 30,1968, when the US population was a little over 201 million. But US population is now over 310 million. Here's what initial jobless claims look like (blue) compared with population (red), normed to be equal on November 1968:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yTYOyyMGWhI/VbECtjxHTkI/AAAAAAAACyI/sHhkt6OkbzE/s640/blogger-image--293092101.jpg)
In short, right now is the most secure US workers have been in their jobs for the last 50 years.
cool, how is that workplace participation number?
Quote from: fsquid on July 23, 2015, 05:18:05 PM
cool, how is that workplace participation number?
You mean the one that's going down because 10,000 Baby Boomers retire
every day?
Quote from: finehoe on July 24, 2015, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 23, 2015, 05:18:05 PM
cool, how is that workplace participation number?
You mean the one that's going down because 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day?
If the workplace participation is dropping do to a voluntary removal of workers, then that would drive up the wages due to a lack of workers to fill the position.
Quote from: fsquid on July 24, 2015, 10:03:28 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 24, 2015, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 23, 2015, 05:18:05 PM
cool, how is that workplace participation number?
You mean the one that's going down because 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day?
If the workplace participation is dropping do to a voluntary removal of workers, then that would drive up the wages due to a lack of workers to fill the position.
Yes, all other things being equal, but not if outsourcing and bring in more immigrants (legal or otherwise) occurs too.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 24, 2015, 10:20:28 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 24, 2015, 10:03:28 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 24, 2015, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 23, 2015, 05:18:05 PM
cool, how is that workplace participation number?
You mean the one that's going down because 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day?
If the workplace participation is dropping do to a voluntary removal of workers, then that would drive up the wages due to a lack of workers to fill the position.
Yes, all other things being equal, but not if outsourcing and bring in more immigrants (legal or otherwise) occurs too.
so those baby boomers are being forced out of the workforce?
Quote from: fsquid on July 24, 2015, 10:03:28 AM
If the workplace participation is dropping do to a voluntary removal of workers, then that would drive up the wages due to a lack of workers to fill the position.
Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.
Thats not how it works.
Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.
In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.
This would net a wage increase of 33%.
What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.
Quote from: fsquid on July 24, 2015, 11:41:21 AM
Thats not how it works.
That's exactly how it works. Bush's Labor Dept. predicted the current decline in participation back in 2005:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf
The U.S. ran a budget surplus in January, dropping the annual deficit to its lowest level since August 2008.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-falls-to-lowest-level-since-august-2008-1455130829?mod=e2fb
Initial jobless claims fall to a 43-year low:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-wages.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
This can't be. I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney went on the record shortly after Obama's first inauguration as decrying "the failed economic policies" of BO. This of course was the same guy who wanted to let the entire US automobile manufacturing industry go bankrupt.
How's the stock market doing, by the way?
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx)
Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.
Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.
And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.
I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.
Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.
Don't listen to anyone who says the unemployment rate is a "big lie"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/06/dont-listen-to-anyone-who-says-the-unemployment-rate-is-a-big-lie/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/06/dont-listen-to-anyone-who-says-the-unemployment-rate-is-a-big-lie/)
Gallup CEO Jim Clifton has discovered a shocking secret about unemployment: its definition.
Those Chicago guys didn't even bother to hide this one in plain sight. It's just sitting there in plain sight, right on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' homepage: only people who don't have a job but are actively looking for one count as unemployed. That means someone who wants work but has given up looking for it because things seem so hopeless isn't "unemployed." Neither is someone who works part-time but can't find the full-time job that they want. Or someone who does whatever odd jobs they can find. Add it all up, and our 5.6 percent unemployment rate is a "Big Lie," according to Clifton.
Okay, that's more than a little melodramatic, but he does have a point. You know who else thinks he does? Fed Chair Janet Yellen. She's emphasized that the unemployment rate doesn't show us all the slack in the labor market right now. The Great Recession put us in such a big hole that you have also have to look at the long-term unemployed, involuntary part-time workers, the participation rate, how many people feel confident enough to quit their jobs, and how much people are getting paid to get a better idea of how the economy is really doing. She's actually talked about this a lot, and so has everyone else who writes about these things ... including, you know, me.
That brings us to one last question. If the unemployment rate is so flawed how come we pay so much attention to it? Well, because it's the worst stat about labor market slack except for all the others. The problem is figuring out which people who don't have jobs are really jobless. Take discouraged workers. The unemployment understates how bad things are by ignoring them, but we wouldn't want to count everyone who's not working and not looking for a job as unemployed, would we? If we did, then we'd be saying that college students and stay-at-home parents and even retirees are just as unemployed as someone who's sending out resumés everyday. But even that's not clear cut since some people go to school because they can't find a job, and some people stay at home since child care would cost more than they'd make, and some people are forced into retirement. That's why we look, for example, at the so-called prime-age participation rate—the percent of people between 25 and 54 years old who have or are looking for a job—to figure out far away we are from a real recovery. And by that measure, we still have a ways to go.
But even that's imperfect because it doesn't tell us why people aren't looking for work. It could be that the crisis convinced more people to go to college, regardless of whether they could find a job now. That'd be good. Or it could be that wages have been flat for so long and childcare's gotten so expensive that it's not worth it for people to work now or anytime soon. That'd be bad. Or it could be both. But if either is true, it'd mean that the unemployment rate is more accurate than you might think. In other words, since we can't read people's minds, the best way we can tell what they want is to look at what they've done. That's not entirely right, but it's the least wrong.
So the unemployment rate's not a big lie. But calling it one is.
How does the BLS really count the unemployed?
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)
Unemployment claims fall to lowest levels since 1973
The fewest Americans since 1973 filed for unemployment benefits last week, a sign that the U.S. labor market is getting tighter.
Jobless claims dropped by 19,000 to 235,000 in the week ended Nov. 12, which included the Veterans Day holiday, a Labor Department report showed Thursday in Washington. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey called for an increase to 257,000. Continuing claims fell below 2 million to a 16-year low.
The biggest drop in initial claims since June suggests employers are loath to fire workers as the economy continues its modest expansion and the number of experienced applicants available for hiring remains limited. Filings for unemployment benefits have stayed below 300,000 for 89 straight weeks -- the longest streak since 1970 and a level typical for a healthy labor market.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iuJ5W4OFDTOI/v2/-1x-1.png)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/jobless-claims-in-u-s-decline-to-lowest-level-in-four-decades
That chart is way to "fact based." 8)
The unemployment rate is one barometer of the health of the economy, sort of like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ.
They give you a broad but fairly accurate reflection of what is going on in terms of people hiring and if folks have faith in the quality of a business. Also a reflection of a companies earnings. Under Obama's Presidency both have improved relative to what he inherited from 'W'. A lot. Don't think anyone can dispute that. (With a straight face, although Jeb Bush tried.)
Or ditch the chart, and try the old fashioned way to see how things are going: walk out your door and observe. San Marco Square, Five Points, The Elbow, a St Johns Town Center, the housing market, the new car sales market, restaurants are full, people are spending money, going to movies, buying cars, homes..... builders are building......every contractor I see has a Help Wanted or Now Hiring sign displayed at their business. Not sure where Spuwho lives, maybe Palatka.
The unemployment rate declined to 4.6 percent in November, and total nonfarm payroll
employment increased by 178,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment gains occurred in professional and business services and in health care.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Obama's policies helped lift the economy out of a frightening slump and set it on a path to steady, if unspectacular, growth. In fact, I'd call this his biggest achievement. The scale of the financial panic of 2008 and the extent of the job losses that occurred in the first months of 2009 should never be forgotten. By "a number of macroeconomic measures—including household wealth, employment and trade flows—the first year of the Great Recession in the United States saw declines that were as large or larger than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30," Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, recounted in an exit memo that he posted online this week.
The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Hank Paulson, President Bush's Treasury Secretary, all played key roles in quelling the panic. But the Obama Administration finished the job, continuing the crisis measures that had been introduced, pushing through the rescue of the auto industry that Paulson had set in motion, and carrying out a set of stress tests that restored confidence in the big banks. The new Administration also boosted the over-all level of demand in the economy with an eight-hundred-and-forty-billion-dollar stimulus package, which featured temporary tax cuts and more federal spending. By the second half of 2009, the gross domestic product was growing again. By October, 2009, the unemployment rate had peaked, at ten per cent. If other policy decisions had been made, things could have been very different, and much worse.
At seven and a half years long, the Obama recovery now is one of the longest on record. In terms of annual G.D.P. growth, the rate of expansion has been relatively modest: since 2010, G.D.P. has risen by about 2.1 per cent a year. During the Bill Clinton recovery (1992-2000), G.D.P. growth averaged 3.8 per cent a year, and during the George W. Bush recovery (2002-2007), it averaged 2.7 per cent.
Citing figures like these, Obama's critics claim that this has been the weakest recovery since the Second World War. But that ignores at least a couple of important measures. As the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have pointed out, "Postwar business cycles are not the right comparator for the severe crises that have swept advanced economies in recent years." The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 wasn't a normal recession. It was an old-fashioned financial bust, and it always takes economies a long time to recover fully from those—if they ever do. Japan took two decades to rebound from a financial bust in the early nineteen-nineties. Much of Europe still hasn't recovered from the Great Recession.
In addition, if you look at employment rather than at G.D.P., the Obama recovery looks much stronger. Since the start of 2010, the U.S. economy has created about 2.4 million jobs per year. During the Bush recovery of 2002-2007, annual job growth was just 1.2 million. In terms of jobs, the Obama recovery compares with the Clinton recovery, of the nineteen-nineties, when approximately 2.8 million jobs were created each year.
The difference between Obama's record and Bush's is even starker if you focus on entire Presidential terms, including periods of recession as well as periods of recovery. Between January, 2001, and December, 2008, 2.1 million jobs were created. Between January, 2009, and December, 2016, 11.3 million jobs were created. The economy created nearly five and a half times more jobs under Obama than it did under Bush.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-economic-record-an-assessment
Quote from: finehoe on January 10, 2017, 09:53:22 AM
Since the start of 2010, the U.S. economy has created about 2.4 million jobs per year...
You are correct finehoe, we finally agree! The US economy, not obama created those jobs!
Quote from: coredumped on January 11, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: finehoe on January 10, 2017, 09:53:22 AM
Since the start of 2010, the U.S. economy has created about 2.4 million jobs per year...
You are correct finehoe, we finally agree! The US economy, not obama created those jobs!
Setting aside the reification there, it's worth pointing out that the economy doesn't operate in a bubble - it responds to many factors, including government policy. If it didn't, then no one would care what the government did.
Surely the President isn't the sole reason, but he should be able to share in the credit, as his administration has been in power for 8 years.
Quote from: coredumped on January 11, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: finehoe on January 10, 2017, 09:53:22 AM
Since the start of 2010, the U.S. economy has created about 2.4 million jobs per year...
You are correct finehoe, we finally agree! The US economy, not obama created those jobs!
So... Trump won't be creating any jobs either I take it.
The Captain of the ship gets the credit, even if the crew docks the boat. Just ask "W."
Obama leaving office with highest approval ratings in 30 years. Only Reagan higher since 1970.
Whether or not President Obama is personally responsible is irrelevant. The point is, his critics claimed that by enacting his policies, we were in store for a declining, moribund economy. Obviously, that didn't happen. And before some dimbulb pipes up with "yeah, but such and such isn't as desirable as it should be" no one is saying every single thing is perfect. Again, that isn't the point, which is look how wrong the critics were.
I'll also note that many of the same people who were predicting economic armageddon under Obama are now predicting an unprecedented boom under President Trump. Be forewarned....
That "boom" is the sound of our great Nation imploding.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 12, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
So... Trump won't be creating any jobs either I take it.
Correct.
Quote from: MusicMan on January 12, 2017, 08:37:50 AM
Obama leaving office with highest approval ratings in 30 years. Only Reagan higher since 1970.
Are the people doing these polls the same people who guaranteed a hillary win? Just curious. :D
Trump is in office 3.5days; employers are coming back to America thanks to Trump's leadership, the Dow has set a new record and 8 years after obummer, you guys are still clueless about what it takes to make a dollar - not earn a dollar by clocking in, but actually make a dollar out of thin air.
This is why college professors and community organizers should NEVER be at the wheel of the (now) second largest economy in the world, thank you very much obummer.
here's just the latest example of how people in power with no understanding of business and making money are screwing things up ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/10/minimum-wage-hikes-putting-restaurants-out-of-busi/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/10/minimum-wage-hikes-putting-restaurants-out-of-busi/)
Once again you're full of shit.
QuoteThe forecasts of these critics -- that jobs would be lost and businesses would close -- have, so far, been proven wrong. Although this is interesting, what's most important is why they were wrong. In many cases, they suffer from the sort of systemic bias that is typically observed in the self-destructive tendencies of too many investors. To many of these minimum-wage foes, government can do no right, and any effort to ameliorate some of the defects or inefficiencies in the free market will always and everywhere prove counterproductive.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-07/seattle-s-higher-minimum-wage-hasn-t-hurt-jobs-or-business
Quote from: aldermanparklover on January 26, 2017, 12:21:00 PM
not earn a dollar by clocking in, but actually make a dollar out of thin air.
That's not how money works outside of fraction reserve banking.
Quote from: aldermanparklover on January 26, 2017, 12:21:00 PM
Trump is in office 3.5days; employers are coming back to America thanks to Trump's leadership, the Dow has set a new record and 8 years after obummer, you guys are still clueless about what it takes to make a dollar - not earn a dollar by clocking in, but actually make a dollar out of thin air.
This is why college professors and community organizers should NEVER be at the wheel of the (now) second largest economy in the world, thank you very much obummer.
here's just the latest example of how people in power with no understanding of business and making money are screwing things up ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/10/minimum-wage-hikes-putting-restaurants-out-of-busi/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/10/minimum-wage-hikes-putting-restaurants-out-of-busi/)
This is going great! Good thing our government is just here to make money for investors and not, you know, take care of the health and well-being of the greater populace.
The unspoken truth is that we produce more in this country than ever before. Manufacturing has actually been increasing even over the last 8 years. The problem is, Americans still are not getting those jobs, robots are. Why should a company pay an unskilled worker 30K plus a year to put in a few screws when a 15K purchase plus 5K a year Robot will do it without sick days, without complaining nor asking for a raise. So we end up with a net loss on jobs even if companies stay rather than go elsewhere. And no one also talks about how the proposed higher tariffs will effect trade related jobs. TV's could be made here but the net job effect could be negative and the average American worker may not be able to afford them and the other countries won't buy them. The entire global trade tings is not as easy as some would like it to be and fixing our job issues will not be done over night. Nor by bullying companies into thinks. Frankly, I suspect the entire Trump bring back jobs thing is a scam to increase Corporate profits and will in the end do little to bring back those high paying manufacturing jobs.
Manufacturing goes overseas for two main concerns, labor and environmental. Most everything else makes more sense to keep domestic. Lots (most) of the paper and plastic consumables you use everyday are made here. Factory automation is a big time business.
Quote from: jlmann on January 26, 2017, 01:53:09 PM
QuoteWhy should a company pay an unskilled worker 30K plus a year to put in a few screws
exactly. the rust belt etc needs the same advice as APL. Get your butt to a community college and learn something useful to the world in 2017.
Actually, college is not for everyone. Nor should it be. However, there are skilled trades out there that actually need people and many of those jobs pay as well as those with that college degree...sometimes more. However, I do consider that type of training needed to run and maintain those robots to be trade level and perhaps they are not.
Quote from: strider on January 26, 2017, 05:47:30 PM
Quote from: jlmann on January 26, 2017, 01:53:09 PM
QuoteWhy should a company pay an unskilled worker 30K plus a year to put in a few screws
exactly. the rust belt etc needs the same advice as APL. Get your butt to a community college and learn something useful to the world in 2017.
Actually, college is not for everyone. Nor should it be. However, there are skilled trades out there that actually need people and many of those jobs pay as well as those with that college degree...sometimes more. However, I do consider that type of training needed to run and maintain those robots to be trade level and perhaps they are not.
+1
machinists are in short supply. masons are in short supply. welding has been in such short supply, they been designing welding machines that automatically adjust for metal thickness and type so welders don't have to be as skilled about metallurgy to use them (they just want a warm body with a steady hand anymore) - the list goes on and on.
instead all libs insist you have to do 4 years of college regardless the fact 80% of graduates don't use their degree for the specialty they learned. They're waiting tables or slinging drinks with $60k+ in student loan debt hanging over their heads while contemplating what to go back to college for so they can get finally into field they'll like as a career since the first one didn't work out = notso smart
The colleges aren't complaining tho.
Quote from: aldermanparklover on January 26, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
Quote from: strider on January 26, 2017, 05:47:30 PM
Quote from: jlmann on January 26, 2017, 01:53:09 PM
QuoteWhy should a company pay an unskilled worker 30K plus a year to put in a few screws
exactly. the rust belt etc needs the same advice as APL. Get your butt to a community college and learn something useful to the world in 2017.
Actually, college is not for everyone. Nor should it be. However, there are skilled trades out there that actually need people and many of those jobs pay as well as those with that college degree...sometimes more. However, I do consider that type of training needed to run and maintain those robots to be trade level and perhaps they are not.
+1
machinists are in short supply. masons are in short supply. welding has been in such short supply, they been designing welding machines that automatically adjust for metal thickness and type so welders don't have to be as skilled about metallurgy to use them (they just want a warm body with a steady hand anymore) - the list goes on and on.
instead all libs insist you have to do 4 years of college regardless the fact 80% of graduates don't use their degree for the specialty they learned. They're waiting tables or slinging drinks with $60k+ in student loan debt hanging over their heads while contemplating what to go back to college for so they can get finally into field they'll like as a career since the first one didn't work out = notso smart
The colleges aren't complaining tho.
Nice that you agree with me. I'm a Liberal by the way...just sayin'....
I suspect that the Republican dominated Congress will do their best to ruin the economy. I do wonder how much Trump will fall into line, or pursue his own instincts and legacy.