Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Well crap

MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
in Tug Tavern
This will make the HondoBros and OKBs snatch hurt

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u-s-unemployment-rate-falls-to-50-year-low


· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,070
    MikeDamone said:

    This will make the HondoBros and OKBs snatch hurt

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u-s-unemployment-rate-falls-to-50-year-low


    Shittiest recession ever.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,693 Founders Club
    People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DJDuckDJDuck Member Posts: 5,970
    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    It’s just all smoke and mirrors..........😂😂😂😂

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    DJDuck said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    It’s just all smoke and mirrors..........😂😂😂😂

    Delphic.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    edited November 2019
    RaceBannon said:

    People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them

    Also, we? need to close the boarders to keep out competitors for jobs AND bring back coal and manufacturing jobs.

    MAGA

    It's working.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    Explains your sore vag
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    Explains your sore vag
    I guess when we stop using GDP growth and start using labor shortages as our measures of economic vitality, you and the other gals will really be celebrating.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    Explains your sore vag
    I guess when we stop using GDP growth and start using labor shortages as our measures of economic vitality, you and the other gals will really be celebrating.
    It would be way better if unemployment were at an all time high instead. I’m rooting for that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    Explains your sore vag
    I guess when we stop using GDP growth and start using labor shortages as our measures of economic vitality, you and the other gals will really be celebrating.
    It would be way better if unemployment were at an all time high instead. I’m rooting for that.
    And there's the white flag.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,182 Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Must be why you can't understand what a participation rate means.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/05/a-full-employment-recession-post-wwii-growth-model-flawed/#2b5129e06728

    While the report looks quite robust, its strength is really less than meets the eye because it is viewed in the context of the post-WWII economic growth model. There is a seeming contradiction between slowing growth and contracting business, and a low level of unemployment. The answer lies in the demographics.
     
    A key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the realization that the unemployment rate is simply a ratio, a percentage. It says nothing about the volume of labor that is required to support the current or desired level of GDP. So, if there aren’t enough workers, it is quite possible to have slower aggregate GDP growth, no aggregate GDP growth, or even recession at the same time there is a low unemployment rate.

    Today, the pool of available labor is 10.6 million. It is less than the number of job posts, and is the lowest level the pool has been since the turn of the century. The bulk of those remaining unemployed are there because they either don’t have the skills, or they don’t live where the jobs are (and maybe can’t afford to live where they are!). 

    As predicted - made your snatch sore
    Demographics are hard!
    Not really.
    Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.
    Explains your sore vag
    I guess when we stop using GDP growth and start using labor shortages as our measures of economic vitality, you and the other gals will really be celebrating.
    It would be way better if unemployment were at an all time high instead. I’m rooting for that.
    And there's the white flag.
    And there’s the sore vag over low unemployment. As predicted
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,693 Founders Club
    BennyBeaver said:

    RaceBannon said:

    People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them

    Also, we? need to close the boarders to keep out competitors for jobs AND bring back coal and manufacturing jobs.

    MAGA

    It's working.
    Yes

    It is


    Try not to be so sad. More wall going up as we speak

    Odd how someone who claims to care about wages wants to bring in people to suppress them

    Your Democrats
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,460 Standard Supporter
    RaceBannon said:

    BennyBeaver said:

    RaceBannon said:

    People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them

    Also, we? need to close the boarders to keep out competitors for jobs AND bring back coal and manufacturing jobs.

    MAGA

    It's working.
    Yes

    It is


    Try not to be so sad. More wall going up as we speak

    Odd how someone who claims to care about wages wants to bring in people to suppress them

    Your Democrats
    They need to keep the blacks down. Indentured voting blocks are hard to come by.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,321 Founders Club
    MikeDamone said:

    This will make the HondoBros and OKBs snatch hurt

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u-s-unemployment-rate-falls-to-50-year-low



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmPg4lrBKc
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.