Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
as usual you miss half the information
evince
Truthmatters
read idiot
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Any major crash like that, by its very nature, is rooted in panic.
I was right! Nyah, nyah. More right than you, lying liar.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Jobs are almost always (and maybe 100% always) lag behind the market in a recovery.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I was just offering some consolation for Chapdog.
I liked uscitizen - his "claim" was right, but hardly groundbreaking. It was based on precedent.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
First link that came up; there are many:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/industry-employment-and-output-projections-to-2022.pdf
"Although the recession ended in 2009, total employment, which tends to lag in
recovery"
It's really basic common sense, though. Businesses are slaves to the market, in general. They don't have faith to do a lot of hiring until they see significant, consistent upticks.
And why do you have good reason to? You're the lying liar, full of lies.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../in-new-economy-jobs-lag-behind-recovery.html
From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.
You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.
At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.
The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.
The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.
From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.
From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.
You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.
At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.
The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.
The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.
From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.
Last edited:
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
And?
Where does this mention the market? Or is just another one of your non-sequitor posts?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, the market normally responds first. It is in its nature to bounce back, especially off major downturns. Whereas companies have to be cautious about rehiring due to the cost of hiring/firing. It was similar to say 1+1=2.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-recovery.asp
Definition of 'Economic Recovery'
A period of increasing business activity signaling the end of a recession. Much like a recession, an economic recovery is not always easy to recognize until at least several months after it has begun. Economists use a variety of indicators, including GDP, inflation, financial markets and unemployment to analyze the state of the economy and determine whether a recovery is in progress.
Definition of 'Economic Recovery'
A period of increasing business activity signaling the end of a recession. Much like a recession, an economic recovery is not always easy to recognize until at least several months after it has begun. Economists use a variety of indicators, including GDP, inflation, financial markets and unemployment to analyze the state of the economy and determine whether a recovery is in progress.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Your article didn't mention the market, and I said MAYBE 100%.
Freak. Lying friggin' freak.