Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

dude ,

You were partially right.


you acted like its always been a lagging indicator.


that has not been the case.
 
Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation




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.



http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../in-new-economy-jobs-lag-behind-recovery.html
 
Its means it has not always been a lagging indicator.

why do you refuse to accept the facts yet again?
 
evince said:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-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...

yes desh, we get it... you know how to post links over and over and over and over and over again... it is a shame you have no fucking clue what they say. It says EXACTLY what we did. But you are too fucking ignorant to understand that.
 
evince said:
jobs and such


he was correct.

he correctly saw this mess coming and you treated him like shit.


and here you are pretending your smarter than him.

stay Classy
Click to expand...

dear fucking idiot... the market ALWAYS recovers before jobs. ALWAYS.

If you celebrated someone who told you 1+1=2, that would be the same thing. It is fucking obvious. It is ALWAYS the case. Jobs ALWAYS FOLLOW economic rebounds. Jobs NEVER rebound before the market. NEVER.
 
evince said:
dude ,

You were partially right.


you acted like its always been a lagging indicator.


that has not been the case.
Click to expand...

yes it is you fucking retard. EVERY time. Take a look at the link you keep posting. JOBS STILL LAG MARKET RECOVERY. THEY SIMPLY HAVE A GREATER LAG TIME IN RECENT DOWNTURNS. BUT THEY STILL LAG. YOU FUCKING RETARD.
 
evince said:
http://pragcap.com/are-jobs-really-a-lagging-indicator
Click to expand...


Upon researching past employment information it appears as if there is no convincing evidence that jobs as a whole are a lagging indicator:

The following charts are year over year unemployment rate and non-farm payrolls along with the S&P 500 since 1970. We’ve had 4 major recessions since 1970 excluding the current one. In 2001 NFP bottomed well in advance of the market. NFP bottomed in Q4 of 2001 while the market actually continued to decline throughout most of 2002. In the 1990-91 recession NFP bottomed in Q1 1991 while the market bottomed well in advance. In the 1981 recession NFP reached its worst levels in the middle of 1982. The market, however, did not rebound until Q4 1982. During the 1974 recession NFP bottomed in Q4 1974 while the market bottomed in Q4 of 1974. In just 2 out of 4 cases the market actually led job losses.
 
evince said:
Upon researching past employment information it appears as if there is no convincing evidence that jobs as a whole are a lagging indicator:

The following charts are year over year unemployment rate and non-farm payrolls along with the S&P 500 since 1970. We’ve had 4 major recessions since 1970 excluding the current one. In 2001 NFP bottomed well in advance of the market. NFP bottomed in Q4 of 2001 while the market actually continued to decline throughout most of 2002. In the 1990-91 recession NFP bottomed in Q1 1991 while the market bottomed well in advance. In the 1981 recession NFP reached its worst levels in the middle of 1982. The market, however, did not rebound until Q4 1982. During the 1974 recession NFP bottomed in Q4 1974 while the market bottomed in Q4 of 1974. In just 2 out of 4 cases the market actually led job losses.
Click to expand...

dear retard... The above has NOTHING to do with recoveries. You fucking idiot. It has to do with DOWNTURNS. Seriously, grind is right. You are simply just too fucking stupid to understand anything.
 
http://seekingalpha.com/article/154424-is-employment-a-lagging-indicator


Employment is NOT a lagging indicator, although duration of unemployment IS. The Conference Board, a not-for-profit economic study organization, publishes three popular indexes: 1) the Leading Economic Index (LEI), which foretells turning points in the economy before we move into or out of recessions, 2) the Coincident Economic Index, which measures current economic conditions, and 3) the Lagging Economic Index, which changes direction following the others.

There are two employment indicators that are incorporated into the LEI, namely Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance (inverted), and Average Weekly Manufacturing Hours. Like other leading indicators, we do not normally recognize these things as obvious improvements in the economy. After all, if over 500,000 workers file claims for unemployment insurance, as was the case this week, this is still a relatively large number and the fact that it is much lower than was the case a few weeks and months ago does not mean that the economy is improving. But it DOES mean (with history as our guide), along with improvement in the other leading indicators, that the economy is going to improve soon.
 
there are some alternative theories I guess.

I do think from what I have looked at on my own without the kind help of you nice gentlemen has proven to me that they are lagging indicators.


I will apolgise for getting caught up in the alternate theories while researching this.


I admit my questioning it was wrong.

jobs are a lagging indicator.

Now what does that do to your grand criticisms of the Obama 48 months of job growth in this nation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top