7 ms·

Interested to know which statistics you based this opinion of the US economy being "quite healthy" on. Anything deeper than top level unemployment rate?

cryoshon 11y ago
I am also interested in seeing the data which claims that the US economy is quite healthy right now. The unemployment rate is a juked stat; check out the labor force participation rates if you want the full story. A primer: labor force participation got smashed in the Great Financial Crisis, and still hasn't recovered.
- wiremine 11y ago
  The participation rate is down 3.3% from 2005 [1]. Given the huge shift in demographics over the last 10 years [2], I don't think that's a data point that screams "smashed." [1] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [2] Lost of baby boomers retiring and Gen X being such a small demo compared to the boomers and the millennials.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    The demographic shift angle doesn't make sense. The boomers are slowly exiting the workforce, sure-- on an individual basis, as they can choose to retire at different times. Many are having to defer retirement or not retire. This isn't an orderly mass exit, it's a trickle. Millenials are a far larger generation than the boomers, and are rapidly leaving college and attempting to enter the workforce-- 100% of them are trying to enter the workforce at the same time, immediately after graduation day. The fact that labor participation rates haven't stabilized or even increased in response to their population level attempts to enter the workforce shows that there really are not enough jobs to go around. Jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned, and there are many more people out and about looking for them now than there were before. Boomers are retiring, but their children are desperate to take their place, which isn't actually possible.
    - achompas 11y ago
      The fact that labor participation rates haven't stabilized or even increased in response to their population level attempts to enter the workforce shows that there really are not enough jobs to go around. I'm not sure the data bears this out. If they're looking they're in the labor force, and we'd see a commensurate rise in unemployment for age groups 20-24. That's clearly not the case, as unemployment is down ~1.5% for that demo since mid-2014: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm I don't have demo-level participation data available but that would clarify whether rates are lower bc of millenial LF dropout or millenial employment success.
    - wiremine 11y ago
      > Millenials are a far larger generation than the boomers Depends on your definition of "far larger". - The Millennial cohort is 83.1 million - The Boomer cohort is 75.4 million, 90% the size of the Millennials. Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113...
    - wiremine 11y ago
      > Jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned There are actually more jobs now then there were in 2005: - January 2005: 132,752,000 - January 2015: 140,793,000 Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1 http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=w... Obviously the _type_ of jobs have changed, and this doesn't factor in population growth directly, but I don't think the statement "jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned" isn't grounded in the data.
code4tee 11y ago
Debt to income ratios, capitalization of companies, worker productivity, oil prices, savings rates, more healthy housing prices (in most areas), foreclosure rates, industrial orders, housing starts, .... This isn't 2007-08.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Wages are shit for workers and thus consumption/demand are weak... this undermines the Chinese economy, which in turn undermines the US economy. Labor force participation is also garbage. Savings rates are a bit moot when tons of people are living paycheck to paycheck, also. It's not 2007-2008, but it's not quite 1998 either.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Capitalism at it's finest. The race to the bottom will eventually force someones (possibly everyones) hand. The mechanism that will drive change (either violent/non-violent) is just a matter of who blinks first.
    - maratd 11y ago
      > Capitalism at it's finest. The race to the bottom will eventually What are you going on about? If capitalism is a race to the bottom, we would have reached it a long time ago. Capitalism isn't new. It's been around for a while.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I'm amazed anyone can try to defend a system that has manic-depressive episodes built in as a feature.
        merpnderp 11y ago
        Because it's the system that's pulled several billion people out of abject poverty in the last 30 years? I believe the system that was tried before that was called socialism, and didn't work as well as capitalism.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
code4tee 11y ago
PS... I don't deny that a subset of the US economy/workforce got hit really hard in 2008 and never recovered. But when you look at the US economy as a whole things are doing quite well.
- sillygeese 11y ago
  > when you look at the US economy as a whole things are doing quite well To be more accurate, when you look at the propaganda spewed by the mainstream media, everything seems to be fine, because they keep spinning everything in a positive light. In the US, for starters, there's a huge bubble in stocks, and an echo bubble in housing. There's a massive property bubble in Canada and Australia, and so on. With interest rates already at roughly zero, they don't have room for lowering them to "stimulate" the economy (to avoid the inevitable crash that's coming). Of course, getting people to spend money they don't have and businesses to start projects they shouldn't, isn't exactly good for the economy but hey.. whatever keeps the show going for a while longer. (Downvoters? It's at the very least possible that you just don't know that I'm right.. :) Do your homework, but not from mainstream media sources)
  - MCRed 11y ago
    We have a democrat who is president, and who took over after a crisis during the term of a republican. (never mind that he was part of the cause of the crisis with his 1990s era "not lending to people who can't repay is racist" lawsuit against banks)... so the liberals of HN are highly motivated to believe that democrats are "responsible" and that they have "fixed the economy" after republicans "wrecked it". So when you point out that the king has no clothes, naturally you get downvoted. The current mess of the US economy is due to the choices of many politicians, in congress and the presidency, from both parties. Neither party should get a passing grade in this regard. This is why we need the government out of the economy, and let it work. Hell if it weren't for government the bad banks would have failed in 2008-- and we would have had a real recovery afterwards.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
topkai22 11y ago
Corporate profits have been good, GDP has been rising at a decent rate, consumer confidence has been looking OK. Statistically, the economy has been looking alright, although the distribution of benefits continues to be unequal.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Staggeringly unequal benefits distribution makes for an unhealthy economy. We don't describe the economy of Mexico or Brazil to be healthy even when they are at high employment and growing GDP mostly because the burgeoning economy doesn't produce a similar ripple in their societies.
  - cynicalkane 11y ago
    There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even without triggering a "proletarian revolution?"
      - cynicalkane 11y ago
        No, because an economic crisis is a fall in economic output. The point is that "undesirable wealth distribution" is not what an economic crisis is. If 400 people controlled everything, the world wouldn't be a great place to live, but the economy would probably be more stable.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't recall high Gini coefficients being associated with economic stability. The massive reduction in marginal utility from most people focusing only on immediate consumption, coupled with the massive oligopolism and centralization leading to price distortions -- those alone don't imply economic stability to me. An extreme oligopoly would likely imply civil unrest, so all else would suffer.

cryoshon 11y ago

I am also interested in seeing the data which claims that the US economy is quite healthy right now. The unemployment rate is a juked stat; check out the labor force participation rates if you want the full story. A primer: labor force participation got smashed in the Great Financial Crisis, and still hasn't recovered.

wiremine 11y ago
The participation rate is down 3.3% from 2005 [1]. Given the huge shift in demographics over the last 10 years [2], I don't think that's a data point that screams "smashed." [1] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [2] Lost of baby boomers retiring and Gen X being such a small demo compared to the boomers and the millennials.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  The demographic shift angle doesn't make sense. The boomers are slowly exiting the workforce, sure-- on an individual basis, as they can choose to retire at different times. Many are having to defer retirement or not retire. This isn't an orderly mass exit, it's a trickle. Millenials are a far larger generation than the boomers, and are rapidly leaving college and attempting to enter the workforce-- 100% of them are trying to enter the workforce at the same time, immediately after graduation day. The fact that labor participation rates haven't stabilized or even increased in response to their population level attempts to enter the workforce shows that there really are not enough jobs to go around. Jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned, and there are many more people out and about looking for them now than there were before. Boomers are retiring, but their children are desperate to take their place, which isn't actually possible.
  - achompas 11y ago
    The fact that labor participation rates haven't stabilized or even increased in response to their population level attempts to enter the workforce shows that there really are not enough jobs to go around. I'm not sure the data bears this out. If they're looking they're in the labor force, and we'd see a commensurate rise in unemployment for age groups 20-24. That's clearly not the case, as unemployment is down ~1.5% for that demo since mid-2014: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm I don't have demo-level participation data available but that would clarify whether rates are lower bc of millenial LF dropout or millenial employment success.
  - wiremine 11y ago
    > Millenials are a far larger generation than the boomers Depends on your definition of "far larger". - The Millennial cohort is 83.1 million - The Boomer cohort is 75.4 million, 90% the size of the Millennials. Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113...
  - wiremine 11y ago
    > Jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned There are actually more jobs now then there were in 2005: - January 2005: 132,752,000 - January 2015: 140,793,000 Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1 http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=w... Obviously the _type_ of jobs have changed, and this doesn't factor in population growth directly, but I don't think the statement "jobs lost in the early depression haven't returned" isn't grounded in the data.

code4tee 11y ago

Debt to income ratios, capitalization of companies, worker productivity, oil prices, savings rates, more healthy housing prices (in most areas), foreclosure rates, industrial orders, housing starts, .... This isn't 2007-08.

cryoshon 11y ago
Wages are shit for workers and thus consumption/demand are weak... this undermines the Chinese economy, which in turn undermines the US economy. Labor force participation is also garbage. Savings rates are a bit moot when tons of people are living paycheck to paycheck, also. It's not 2007-2008, but it's not quite 1998 either.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Capitalism at it's finest. The race to the bottom will eventually force someones (possibly everyones) hand. The mechanism that will drive change (either violent/non-violent) is just a matter of who blinks first.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > Capitalism at it's finest. The race to the bottom will eventually What are you going on about? If capitalism is a race to the bottom, we would have reached it a long time ago. Capitalism isn't new. It's been around for a while.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      I'm amazed anyone can try to defend a system that has manic-depressive episodes built in as a feature.
      - merpnderp 11y ago
        Because it's the system that's pulled several billion people out of abject poverty in the last 30 years? I believe the system that was tried before that was called socialism, and didn't work as well as capitalism.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

code4tee 11y ago

PS... I don't deny that a subset of the US economy/workforce got hit really hard in 2008 and never recovered. But when you look at the US economy as a whole things are doing quite well.

sillygeese 11y ago
> when you look at the US economy as a whole things are doing quite well To be more accurate, when you look at the propaganda spewed by the mainstream media, everything seems to be fine, because they keep spinning everything in a positive light. In the US, for starters, there's a huge bubble in stocks, and an echo bubble in housing. There's a massive property bubble in Canada and Australia, and so on. With interest rates already at roughly zero, they don't have room for lowering them to "stimulate" the economy (to avoid the inevitable crash that's coming). Of course, getting people to spend money they don't have and businesses to start projects they shouldn't, isn't exactly good for the economy but hey.. whatever keeps the show going for a while longer. (Downvoters? It's at the very least possible that you just don't know that I'm right.. :) Do your homework, but not from mainstream media sources)
- MCRed 11y ago
  We have a democrat who is president, and who took over after a crisis during the term of a republican. (never mind that he was part of the cause of the crisis with his 1990s era "not lending to people who can't repay is racist" lawsuit against banks)... so the liberals of HN are highly motivated to believe that democrats are "responsible" and that they have "fixed the economy" after republicans "wrecked it". So when you point out that the king has no clothes, naturally you get downvoted. The current mess of the US economy is due to the choices of many politicians, in congress and the presidency, from both parties. Neither party should get a passing grade in this regard. This is why we need the government out of the economy, and let it work. Hell if it weren't for government the bad banks would have failed in 2008-- and we would have had a real recovery afterwards.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

topkai22 11y ago

Corporate profits have been good, GDP has been rising at a decent rate, consumer confidence has been looking OK. Statistically, the economy has been looking alright, although the distribution of benefits continues to be unequal.

cryoshon 11y ago
Staggeringly unequal benefits distribution makes for an unhealthy economy. We don't describe the economy of Mexico or Brazil to be healthy even when they are at high employment and growing GDP mostly because the burgeoning economy doesn't produce a similar ripple in their societies.
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even without triggering a "proletarian revolution?"
    - cynicalkane 11y ago
      No, because an economic crisis is a fall in economic output. The point is that "undesirable wealth distribution" is not what an economic crisis is. If 400 people controlled everything, the world wouldn't be a great place to live, but the economy would probably be more stable.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't recall high Gini coefficients being associated with economic stability. The massive reduction in marginal utility from most people focusing only on immediate consumption, coupled with the massive oligopolism and centralization leading to price distortions -- those alone don't imply economic stability to me. An extreme oligopoly would likely imply civil unrest, so all else would suffer.