BF2S Forums The state of the US economy.

i hope you ment 770,000. Even then the math is still off. 300million people about 5% equals to around 15mil people.

Considering that this economy will implode eventually it's not that surprising, but a bit alarming.

mtb0minime wrote:

Yes the economy is in a rut, but that's how the cycle goes. Back in the 80s / 90s things were a little bit better. The economy will be in the shitter for a bit longer, but eventually it'll go on the rise again; that's just how things go.

only when we realize that we're not super duper special and that we can be poor too.

Um...  When unemployment is listed as a general figure, it's an actual average of many things.  For example, certain groups always have much higher unemployment than others, regardless of the economic period.  People without a college education have much higher unemployment than people with it.  Young adults (18-24) have a higher unemployment rate than people between 25 and 35.  Black males have a higher unemployment rate than white males.  Just about every part of demographics make a difference in unemployment rates.  Another issue is measuring underemployment (people who have part-time jobs but are trying to find work that is full-time or are trying to get a second part-time job).  So, overall, when you see a rise or fall in unemployment, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone is benefitting or suffering equally.  What can be interpreted as a rise in the number of jobs may actually just be more people working part-time that found a second part-time job.

With the unemployment rate being as complicated as it is, I wouldn't generally use it as a primary indicator of economic growth or recession.  Interest rates, exchange rates, and the trade deficit/surplus are all better measures of economic strength or weakness.

Not too surprising the sub prime fallout continues to occur.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Tell that to some of the people who couldn't afford to stay in business in the early 80's and couldn't get on the welfare that they helped pay for because they were too white.

what? I sure would like to know where you get that tidbit of knowledge from


Traits of families on AFDC (1)

Race
--------------
White    38.8%
Black    37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian     2.8
Other     3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months     19.0%
7 to 12 months         15.2
One to two years       19.3
Two to five years      26.9
Over five years        19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One           43.2%
Two           30.7
Three         15.8
Four or more  10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager      7.6%
20 - 29      47.9
30 - 39      32.7
40 or older  11.8

Status of Father        1973     1992
-------------------------------------
Divorced or separated   46.5%    28.6
Deceased                 5.0      1.6
Unemployed or Disabled  14.3      9.0
Not married to mother   31.5     55.3
Other or Unknown         2.7      5.5


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Atm the US economy is in a state of recession - so we're all looking at a lousy economical year. Not the year to sell - definitely a year to buy.
The whole stockmarket has plumeted with the beginning of this new year - all because of the USA - damn your influence!

-konfusion

The#1Spot wrote:

i hope you ment 770,000. Even then the math is still off. 300million people about 5% equals to around 15mil people.

I only got the figures from a stupid website, sorry for the incorrect figures, and i do now realise its around 15 million, but still the rest is just alarming.

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  When unemployment is listed as a general figure, it's an actual average of many things.  For example, certain groups always have much higher unemployment than others, regardless of the economic period.  People without a college education have much higher unemployment than people with it.  Young adults (18-24) have a higher unemployment rate than people between 25 and 35.  Black males have a higher unemployment rate than white males.  Just about every part of demographics make a difference in unemployment rates.  Another issue is measuring underemployment (people who have part-time jobs but are trying to find work that is full-time or are trying to get a second part-time job).  So, overall, when you see a rise or fall in unemployment, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone is benefitting or suffering equally.  What can be interpreted as a rise in the number of jobs may actually just be more people working part-time that found a second part-time job.

With the unemployment rate being as complicated as it is, I wouldn't generally use it as a primary indicator of economic growth or recession.  Interest rates, exchange rates, and the trade deficit/surplus are all better measures of economic strength or weakness.

I agree it isn't the best indicator of positive or negative growth, but unemployment is always higher than what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says anyways. So you can only assume it is worse.

The best indicator is the DOW Jones but I think is is very misleading right now. People holding federal bonds are moving into commodities because no one wants to hold bonds. You can’t have 12 or 13% inflation (according to M3) and 5% bond yields for very long. Sooner or later yields are going to catch up with inflation. It is why gold and commodities are good for investment, and commodities shot up in 2005. The DOW was, supposedly, showing corporate growth for a while and you had everyone saying how great the economy was. Everything is taking a dip though, and now mainstream media is starting to realize how "great" the economy is.

But our debt, a weaker dollar, some major sectors in the economy in rough shape, credit revulsion etc. all indicate things are not as Goldilocks as people say things are. Mainstream is starting to realize. I don't understand what the big deal is though. Recessions are healthy for the economy.

US consumer bankruptcy filings rose 40% in 2007. I believe this is bigger news.

Last edited by Phrozenbot (2008-01-05 08:44:32)