It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Well, we're back above the Great Recession start...just that it's not quite the same.
Many focus only on Manufacturing and Construction...and Retail.
But the economy for the US has changed.
Those aren't where it's at anymore...it's more a High-Tech, Media and Services industry.
There are jobs...just more skilled labor...different fields.

People have to figure out that you can't live on one company & field anymore...retire from that.
It's more complex and dynamic...you have to flex, retrain...see where the market is.
A modern form of "go west young man!"...
Except that it is anyone, anywhere...doing anything...for any entity. (soon to be done remote from anyplace)

Link to article to see chart

 

You may find it interesting to note that the S&P 500 has more than doubled since Obama took office. That's compared to it dropping a net 40% between George W. Bush's inauguration and the time he left office. (But in W.'s defence, it had, at one point, increased by as much as a net 10% by the middle of his second term.)

But they're probably not connected.

Obama ruins the economy except when he doesn't.

 

It's probably some kind of Kenyan socialist sorcery.

 

Well, unfortunately...the jobs that people in the lower income brackets aren't the ones that they tend to take.
The ones that now exist, tend to emphasize higher educated, higher skilled situations.
For example, there's a shortage in nursing...and a shortage in IT
And for some reason, companies don't want to train anymore...they want experienced right out of the box.
Not to say that those cannot get it...its just that it takes money and time...and they typically don't have the money
...or if they do have a job, it's labor intensive...so they don't have the time. It's a catch-22

And the computers are taking some jobs...it's just that these jobs are the ones unskilled or less skilled laborers too.
Repetitive non-decision making positions...like manufacturing...or if it is manufacturing...it's higher end.
There are plenty of jobs where computers can't do it...but these are less and less so, low-skill positions.

And you're right, there's often no way to buy a house and keep everything else.
But that's what some do...they become "house poor"...then they're stressed they don't have enough for other things as much. (my cuz did this)
Keepin' up with the Joneses.

I think people need to start thinking more pragmatic, less idealistic.
You can still have values and morals...but they should observe, consider, research, flex, estimate impact...then move.
Not dream big...strive for something you can't take with you...and it takes more to maintain.
I'd rather do, than have.
I'd rather not be burdened by more shit. (life and the system is already too complicated)

And those who don't have a job...the need to do the same thing...but for work, not for things.
I can't tell you how many people complain they can't...but they're not going for what is being called for. They go for what feels comfortable for them.
If I was a business owner...I pay for what I need. Not just because it's convenient for someone else.
If there is no work in your area...then find another area.
If your chosen profession doesn't have job...figure out a different job.

When I was out of work...I made it happen.
I was disappointed that things weren't near...but if I had to travel, so be it.
If there were not enough jobs in a city...I moved.
If I found I didn't have the skills I saw asked for again & again, I retrained myself.
Sure it was a pain, a burden...but the companies weren't going to change.
So I had to.

That's what my favorite futurist, Alvin Toffler, was saying...the new dynamic.
The survivors...they're going to have the ability/desire to learn, unlearn, relearn...again & again.
If you don't...you won't survive.

 

Tough Swap Standards Drive Up Trade Costs 92-Fold

Frankly, I doubt it is that much...or will that much in the long run.
But when are traders going to understand that their overall gain, leads to periodic pain for everyone else.

And yes, their activities may be a benefit...but if something collapses, there's hell to pay...and not just for the trader.

Kind of like ...
Airplanes - great to fly...bad to crash.
Buildings - great to work/live in...terrible to fall.
Bridges - very useful...not so good when they collapse.

Well, the same goes for financial structures...even though you can't "touch" them physically.
You need some oversight, some rules.
Because when those suckers collapse or someone abuses it...the shit hits the fan...and we ALL get splattered.
And guess who gets to clean up the mess too??

And excuse me for playing the world's smallest violin for you being slowed down while making your millions.
You don't care if I'm in traffic during my commute to work.

Enjoy, make money, that's cool.
Just so someone is watching to make sure you don't screw it up for the rest of us.
I don't want to pay your bill, just like you don't want to pay mine.

 

There are quite a few indicators and articles out there saying that we're bit by bit doing better. (and I don't just mean the US, but Europe, Canada and other countries too)
And we still have room to grow at a measured pace.

Yet, many out there hitting the big red warning button.
Are they doing this because it is true...or fulfilling some type of bias or agenda?

Which is the red herring?

Me, I tend to go with people like Mr. Buffett.
But I play a long game like he does...

 

I think this is true for almost all professions...even more so these days.
It's not what a person is worth...but what you can get away with.

If given the choice, they'd have everything, for nothing, immediately
or even more so...you pay them...and have it yesterday.

 

So just like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz...we've had a way to solve our problems.
But the people of interest, are either not doing anything with it, involved with their own CYA (The Wizard, Obama, Reid)
Or others are leveraging the fear to get what they want. (The Witch, GOP, Boehner)
Or just oblivious or unaware of what they can do. (Dorothy, The Public)

I don't think it would as easy or straight-forward as Mr. Krugman is implying.
but I do think we haven't acted with all the efforts we could.

BUT...I was interested in his class slides.
How often do you get to see economics by a Nobel prize winner?? (link below in article)

 

Somewhat related:

You may have heard a bit about this book. I'm tempted to read it myself.

It seems to be making shockwaves. It's currently Amazon.com's bestselling book overall, which is pretty damn good for a book by a French neo-Keynesian economist.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century: How to succeed in business without really trying - The Globe and Mail

 

Yes, I wanted to pick it up...I heard about it on Bill Maher and This Week.
Seems to ripping up the bookshelves.

Although, I do believe realistically, all economic philosophies and political systems trend sooner or later to the elite,
whomever they are...unless checked periodically.

It is people's tendencies as whole to look out for themselves and grow their own resources.
It is their nature to give to their successors too.
Even someone like Warren Buffett, who's giving most of his money away, is still giving his children "only" a billion each.
Those who make money...lots of money, it is in their nature to do so.
A few give back...most attempt to gain more...and keep it.
Even in "communist" or "socialist" based societies.
And they set up the rules to allow them to do so.

I guess I am a cynic...I expect people to gain as much as possible.
I just want a system that harnesses that energy.
And checks it too a bit.

 

He doesn't ignore it in his big picture view. He merely acknowledges that the debt isn't the number one priority. If you serve the debt first and foremost, you run into the same problems others have run into with the severe impact of austerity measures that obsess over eliminating deficits. It's simplistic to think that deficits are always bad. They're only bad when they aren't used judiciously. They're only bad when budget surpluses aren't ever in the picture, or if the debt growth is unmanageable in proportion to economic growth.

Krugman's main points are about doing the spending that's necessary to create/sustain jobs to get the economy out of the trench. The Tea Party is the direct enemy of this approach because they obsess over tax cuts and spending cuts in and of themselves. Krugman's view is holistic, while the Tea Party's is myopic.

Trust me, Krugman isn't ignorant about the debt. If anything, he understands it far more than the average American.

 

I doubt "Obamacare" was the biggest factor. The biggest factors are likely the risks of a liquidity trap/deflationary spiral, or, basically, there is too much wealth trapped at the top of the economy.

The economy cannot grow at a healthy rate in this situation.

"Obamacare" has, at worst, a mixed impact. Health care spending has increased in large part due to the program.

How would you answer? Tax cuts or something? I already know you support a single-payer universal health care system, but that's a pipe dream with the current reactionary political environment.