Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL LOL LOL LOL

From your own link, FREAK:

"On the other hand, employment is typically a lagging indicator. Unemployment often remains high even as the economy begins to recover because many employers will not hire additional personnel until they are confident there is a long-term need for new hiring"

LOL LOL
LOL
 
evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

they are discussing economic recoverys you fool
 
evince said:
so you have yet to prove this pattern you claimed was SO well known
Click to expand...


LOL - I posted a link. And not only that - YOU posted a link. YOU posted a link, that said exactly what I said.

Whassa matter, freak? Can't admit you were wrong?

You lying friggin' freak. Apologize.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL LOL LOL LOL

From your own link, FREAK:

"On the other hand, employment is typically a lagging indicator. Unemployment often remains high even as the economy begins to recover because many employers will not hire additional personnel until they are confident there is a long-term need for new hiring"

LOL LOL
LOL
Click to expand...

well very good.


Im glad I could provide you with proof.

Now what do you think of the other article that sure seems to say that is a more recent pattern and was not always the case?
 
evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

they seem to think its a more recent pattern

what say you?
 
evince said:
well very good.


Im glad I could provide you with proof.

Now what do you think of the other article that sure seems to say that is a more recent pattern and was not always the case?
Click to expand...

You mean the article that said absolutely NOTHING about the market?

Don't grasp. You've been undone here - admit it, and apologize.

Saving this one for the constant "where have I lied" BS out of you. Loser.
 
evince said:
I gave you the definition of recovery.

It includes markets recovering
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah - it does. What does that even have to do w/ what we were discussing? I said the markets recover - generally prior to significant job growth.

You're lost, and will continue to obfuscate. You're incredibly despicable, and a real liar.
 
Now what was changing the markets so that jobs now lag financial markets


Is it a black president?

that is what you guys claim
 
Thing1 said:
You mean the article that said absolutely NOTHING about the market?

Don't grasp. You've been undone here - admit it, and apologize.

Saving this one for the constant "where have I lied" BS out of you. Loser.
Click to expand...

this post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top