Well crap
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u-s-unemployment-rate-falls-to-50-year-low
Comments
-
Shittiest recession ever.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 -
People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them
-
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 soreHHusky 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!). -
Demographics are hard!MikeDamone said:
As predicted - made your snatch soreHHusky 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..........😂😂😂😂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!).
-
Delphic.DJDuck said:
It’s just all smoke and mirrors..........😂😂😂😂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!). -
Also, we? need to close the boarders to keep out competitors for jobs AND bring back coal and manufacturing jobs.RaceBannon said:People are hurting out there man. They need higher taxes and to pay more for gas and heating oil to help them
MAGA
It's working. -
Not really.HHusky said:
Demographics are hard!MikeDamone said:
As predicted - made your snatch soreHHusky 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!). -
Explains your well reasoned response, I'm sure.MikeDamone said:
Not really.HHusky said:
Demographics are hard!MikeDamone said:
As predicted - made your snatch soreHHusky 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!).
