https://www.nationaltruecostofliving.org/research/pressrelease
QuoteSixty-five percent of Americans often considered "middle class" – those earning more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) – are struggling financially today and don't expect that to change for the remainder of their lives
Quotethe poll found that 40 percent of ALL Americans are unable to plan beyond their next paycheck, and 46 percent don't have $500 saved for a rainy day.
QuoteMeanwhile, by traditional measures, the American economy is incredibly strong, adding jobs much faster than most experts predicted, with U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) also growing at a world-beating pace. This disconnect goes a long way to explain Americans' pessimistic attitude about the health of the national economy, while underscoring the gap in our nation's ability to measure economic wellbeing in 21st-century America.
I tried to find more information about the details/data/stats behind the poll, but was unable.
These numbers are pretty stable in surveys regardless of the economy. About 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. People in America are bad with money.
Let's ignore that survey data is unreliable at best.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 04, 2024, 09:30:34 PM
These numbers are pretty stable in surveys regardless of the economy. About 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. People in America are bad with money.
Let's ignore that survey data is unreliable at best.
I call BS on this, Americans being bad with money is not the primary reason. Easy for you to say.
Family of 4-200% FPL is 60K-
5K a month-lets say 3500 after taxes
Looked in my town- a 3 bedroom apartment runs almost 2K a month.
Car- 500 a month
Food- 1000/month
Utilities
Insurance
Clothing
School incidentals
God forbid, one has to go to the doctor.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/#Share%20of%20adults%20with%20medical%20debt,%20by%20health%20status%20and%20income,%202021 (https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/#Share%20of%20adults%20with%20medical%20debt,%20by%20health%20status%20and%20income,%202021)
Where do you expect the savings to come from?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 04, 2024, 09:30:34 PM
These numbers are pretty stable in surveys regardless of the economy. About 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. People in America are bad with money.
Let's ignore that survey data is unreliable at best.
Silly statement.
Lots of people in America ARE bad with their money.
I've known many struggling people who think nothing of spending $100+ for alcohol and cigarettes every week.
Quote from: Jockey on June 05, 2024, 06:36:42 AM
Lots of people in America ARE bad with their money.
I've known many struggling people who think nothing of spending $100+ for alcohol and cigarettes every week.
Addiction/self medication is a thing
Quote from: Jockey on June 05, 2024, 06:36:42 AM
Lots of people in America ARE bad with their money.
I've known many struggling people who think nothing of spending $100+ for alcohol and cigarettes every week.
It's hard to quantify because I suspect a lot of Americans think they're good with their money when they absolutely are not.
I tend to agree a lot of Americans are terrible with money and it's probably more than most people think.
Many Americans think they are good drivers and fast golfers.
Quote from: tower912 on June 05, 2024, 07:02:42 AM
Many Americans think they are good drivers and fast golfers.
Many Americans also think they know how the other half lives
Many Americans are bad with their money.
Many Americans, including both those who are bad with their money and good with their money, are struggling.
Both are true.
Hell, I've been bad with money, I've been good with money, I've struggled, I've overcome my badness with money to get decent with money, I've flourished. All within about a 20-year stretch. And I'm guessing that many others here can say the exact same thing.
I remember shooting victims telling me to cancel the ambulance, as they could not afford an ER trip. 3 families in a 1200 sq foot house heating it with the stove and a space heater. Cockroaches climbing up walls in broad daylight. Listening to a kid the age of my child telling his dad (my age) to keep fighting while we were doing CPR on him. Hoarder houses. Apartments with a dozen formerly homeless men taking advantage of the fact that one of their comrades had actually got an apartment and now they all had somewhere to stay for the winter. Great-grandmothers taking care of multiple generations due to absent parents.
I agree. A lot of people don't understand how the other half lives.
From the NYT's DealBook newsletter:
Tomorrow is a big day for the European Central Bank. It is widely expected to lower interest rates by a quarter percentage point, its first cut since 2019 — and outpace the Fed in lowering borrowing costs. Investors will watch to see how that would influence monetary policy beyond Brussels, as well as its effect on global trade, stock markets and the dollar.
The big questions on our mind: Will Christine Lagarde, the central bank's president, signal further cuts at its July and September meetings? And how far can the E.C.B. go if the Fed stays put?
The good news: Economists say the era of elevated rates around the world is coming to an end. But they add that sticky inflation will tie central bankers' hands, limiting their ability to lower borrowing costs much.
Policymakers are most likely entering a "shallower for shorter" phase, Holger Schmieding, an economist at Berenberg Bank, told DealBook, in which the cuts are staggered and rates remain above prepandemic levels.
The E.C.B. is considered a step ahead of the Fed. The futures market this morning sees one Fed rate cut before Election Day, probably in September. That said, those odds could change if Friday's jobs report brings any surprises.
Watch the dollar and stocks. A rate cut by the E.C.B. would most likely push the dollar higher against the euro. That could be good news for European exporters like Airbus and automakers.
The same phenomenon could influence global investment flows. "In a scenario where the E.C.B. is cutting, and the Fed is not, this is likely to be positive for European equities and could see a period in which they outperform the U.S. S&P 500," Dan McCormack, the head of research at the Macquarie Group, told DealBook.
The Fed remains another wild card. The U.S. economy has been robust, creating an inflation risk that has scrambled the Fed's rate-cutting timeline. The longer the Fed leaves its rates unchanged, the more that could weigh on other central bankers who are worried that diverging policies would push up the dollar — and domestic inflation.
"The key question is how much can the E.C.B. deviate from the Fed, particularly if inflation remains sticky," said Mohit Kumar, an economist and strategist at Jefferies. "In a scenario where the Fed doesn't cut rates at all this year we see," the E.C.B. making two rate cuts this year instead of three, he said.
Available jobs decreasing
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html)
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 05, 2024, 07:32:55 AM
Available jobs decreasing
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html)
Yep. And that's why the market reversed yesterday. Bad news = good news because of an increased possibility of a rate cut.
IMO, there is a faction of the population that were fortunate to see big paper gains in their net worth over the past decade and either think they are smart or have little empathy for the segment that did not see big increases in their net worth. Making money in the real world is hard and seeing 50+% uptick in housing prices and big stock market gains has been a bonus for many of us.
As for savings, I remember a wise business mentor saying to me "you don't think a $100K is a lot of many, then try and save it". For people having limited savings accounts, it is not completely because they are bad with money. I truly feel for the people that are doing the right things and still struggling.
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 07:58:31 AM
IMO, there is a faction of the population that were fortunate to see big paper gains in their net worth over the past decade and either think they are smart or have little empathy for the segment that did not see big increases in their net worth. Making money in the real world is hard and seeing 50+% uptick in housing prices and big stock market gains has been a bonus for many of us.
As for savings, I remember a wise business mentor saying to me "you don't think a $100K is a lot of many, then try and save it". For people having limited savings accounts, it is not completely because they are bad with money. I truly feel for the people that are doing the right things and still struggling.
That's a great line!
Quote from: Jockey on June 05, 2024, 06:36:42 AM
Lots of people in America ARE bad with their money.
I've known many struggling people who think nothing of spending $100+ for alcohol and cigarettes every week.
That's only 5 packs of cigarettes in Chicago these days.
Also, people in America bad with money in that "living paycheck to paycheck" is not a good measure of actual money problems. I have friends making $200k+ that are heavily in debt. They are living paycheck to paycheck.
Again, surveys are bad measures of the economy and affordability. Large % of American consumers are a little too good at the consumer part of things.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 05, 2024, 07:32:55 AM
Available jobs decreasing
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/economy/job-openings-quits-jolts-april/index.html)
Not necessarily a bad thing.
Quote from: Jockey on June 05, 2024, 08:43:08 AM
Not necessarily a bad thing.
I think the saying is it may be bad for Main Street, but not Wall Street.
Still 1.2 openings for every applicant.
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-04-one-person-one-price/
A fantastic article that everyone should read.
Skatastrophy
People living paycheck to paycheck making more money is more troublesome, imo. These people are helping drive the economy and we need them spending. If they decide to be good with money it will not help the economy. IMO, there are a good number of $200k folks that have been for the economy over the short term and may be the ones that stop driving the economy.
I saw an article earlier this week that YOLO mindset is being replaced with the YONO mindset. At some point people were going to run out of money or wise up. Either way, I think this is something to watch closely. For the record, I saw that article on CNN.COM for those with questions on the surce.
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 10:28:33 AM
Skatastrophy
People living paycheck to paycheck making more money is more troublesome, imo. These people are helping drive the economy and we need them spending. If they decide to be good with money it will not help the economy. IMO, there are a good number of $200k folks that have been for the economy over the short term and may be the ones that stop driving the economy.
I saw an article earlier this week that YOLO mindset is being replaced with the YONO mindset. At some point people were going to run out of money or wise up. Either way, I think this is something to watch closely. For the record, I saw that article on CNN.COM for those with questions on the surce.
I agree. The 70% of US citizens living paycheck to paycheck is bullish, and we really need to get that number up. USA USA
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 10:28:33 AM
Skatastrophy
People living paycheck to paycheck making more money is more troublesome, imo. These people are helping drive the economy and we need them spending. If they decide to be good with money it will not help the economy. IMO, there are a good number of $200k folks that have been for the economy over the short term and may be the ones that stop driving the economy.
I saw an article earlier this week that YOLO mindset is being replaced with the YONO mindset. At some point people were going to run out of money or wise up. Either way, I think this is something to watch closely. For the record, I saw that article on CNN.COM for those with questions on the surce.
One of the biggest ways people start to live below their means is to downsize their home. Unfortunately, that is not good of an option as it was in the past.
Skatastrophy
I had a good friend years ago that used to say that on a down year he only spent $1.5 for every $1 made. I used "had" because that got him in some financial troubles and Uncle Goose bailed him more than I would have liked, and I am still waiting to get paid back.
I have parallel stories. Substitute mother in law and brother in law for friend. I do not have the option of walking away.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of people also lived paycheck-to-paycheck when Trump, Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or Carter was president.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 04, 2024, 09:30:34 PM
These numbers are pretty stable in surveys regardless of the economy. About 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. People in America are bad with money.
Let's ignore that survey data is unreliable at best.
That's a f*cking travesty in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
That said, the current situation is that the 50% or 70% doesn't see the economy as being "great" despite all the headlines trying to tell them how good it is.
I suppose the difference is micro vs macro.
Regardless, messaging on the economy has been awful if you're trying to get individuals to vote.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 05, 2024, 12:06:32 PM
That's a f*cking travesty in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
That said, the current situation is that the 50% or 70% doesn't see the economy as being "great" despite all the headlines trying to tell them how good it is.
I suppose the difference is micro vs macro.
Regardless, messaging on the economy has been awful if you're trying to get individuals to vote.
What are your suggestions for improving this issue?
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 05, 2024, 12:09:38 PM
What are your suggestions for improving this issue?
The wealth disparity or the economy messaging?
Another locked thread. Great work, 82. How many is that in your career?
Still behind Jamie.
Wasn't Jamie banned? 82 is the Teflon man on scoop. Say the company line and all is good.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 05, 2024, 12:15:14 PM
The wealth disparity or the economy messaging?
Economic disparity.
I have ideas, but am curious how you would suggest we go about it.
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 12:44:40 PM
Another locked thread. Great work, 82. How many is that in your career?
Yes, I was the only one making political comments in that thread. You had zero. Bravo, you gallant defender of Scoop!
82
I would never lock a thread, regardless of what you or others post. I just find it funny that your fingerprints are on a lot of locked downs, and I do not remember you ever being suspended. As for your comments vs. mine, that is makes me laugh.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 05, 2024, 12:06:32 PM
That's a f*cking travesty in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
That said, the current situation is that the 50% or 70% doesn't see the economy as being "great" despite all the headlines trying to tell them how good it is.
I suppose the difference is micro vs macro.
Regardless, messaging on the economy has been awful if you're trying to get individuals to vote.
I don't think it's a travesty as much as it's telling about a couple of things.
1. Most people will always overspend their means no matter what, and most people will spend $500 as soon as they receive it
2. Asking people what they think about the current economy is a waste of time
People are idiots. They don't know how good they have it being born in the wealthiest, most stable nation at this point in history.
Let them eat cake.
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 01:16:05 PM
82
I would never lock a thread, regardless of what you or others post. I just find it funny that your fingerprints are on a lot of locked downs, and I do not remember you ever being suspended. As for your comments vs. mine, that is makes me laugh.
The good news is hopefully he drops the "Convicted J. Felon" moniker. It's not all that clever.
Fluff
He ran with vanilla soft serve for several years; I would not bet he will drop that one any time soon.
Meh. I was as much to blame as Mike. He just got in the last post.
Quote from: tower912 on June 05, 2024, 01:43:54 PM
Meh. I was as much to blame as Mike. He just got in the last post.
At least he's not doxxing scoopers.
He has been given timeouts multiple times. As he should.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 05, 2024, 01:21:20 PM
I don't think it's a travesty as much as it's telling about a couple of things.
1. Most people will always overspend their means no matter what, and most people will spend $500 as soon as they receive it
2. Asking people what they think about the current economy is a waste of time
People are idiots. They don't know how good they have it being born in the wealthiest, most stable nation at this point in history.
Let them eat cake.
1. People will overspend their means in a lot of cases and not realize they are overspending their means, which leads to negative opinions that aren't based in reality.
2. US capitalism in 2024 is built to benefit corporations and the rich, not the general population, and there's little to show that we have any interest in correcting it as it keeps getting worse.
Both things can be true.
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 05, 2024, 12:50:03 PM
Economic disparity.
I have ideas, but am curious how you would suggest we go about it.
Wider and broader social programs - paid family leave, paid time off, universal childcare, etc.
Significantly more wealth redistribution through tax structure
Regulatory enforcement particularly of financial sector and anti-trust
Probably other things I can't think of off the top of my head
Quote from: BM1090 on June 05, 2024, 02:29:33 PM
1. People will overspend their means in a lot of cases and not realize they are overspending their means, which leads to negative opinions that aren't based in reality.
2. US capitalism in 2024 is built to benefit corporations and the rich, not the general population, and there's little to show that we have any interest in correcting it as it keeps getting worse.
Both things can be true.
2. Bingo
BM1090
Did Fluff ever get back to your well thought post from last week? He had mentioned he wanted to think about his reply, and I do not remember seeing anything. Possibly he sent you a PM but was curious on what his reply was going to be to your post.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 05, 2024, 02:38:31 PM
Wider and broader social programs - paid family leave, paid time off, universal childcare, etc.
Significantly more wealth redistribution through tax structure
Regulatory enforcement particularly of financial sector and anti-trust
Probably other things I can't think of off the top of my head
Name one thing you mention that an R would vote for.
I think he was asking for something realistic.
BTW, I agree with what you posted. Alas, there is a 0% chance for any of it.
Quote from: tower912 on June 05, 2024, 01:51:59 PM
He has been given timeouts multiple times. As he should.
Yep.
Quote from: BM1090 on June 05, 2024, 02:29:33 PM
1. People will overspend their means in a lot of cases and not realize they are overspending their means, which leads to negative opinions that aren't based in reality.
2. US capitalism in 2024 is built to benefit corporations and the rich, not the general population, and there's little to show that we have any interest in correcting it as it keeps getting worse.
Both things can be true.
Excellent post.
Quote from: Goose on June 05, 2024, 02:42:47 PM
BM1090
Did Fluff ever get back to your well thought post from last week? He had mentioned he wanted to think about his reply, and I do not remember seeing anything. Possibly he sent you a PM but was curious on what his reply was going to be to your post.
1. I completely forgot about it when the topic was locked
2. I never said I was going to reply
Anyway, I just watched the Ted Talk. You can tell he's a marketing professor and not an economics professor. Very slick and polished, but a lot is taken out of context and a lot is simply wrong. For instance, he gets a lot wrong about higher education - or I should say that he gets a lot wrong about higher education when you don't include where he went (UCLA and Berkeley) or works (NYU). The problem in higher education isn't lack of access. There is more capacity now in higher education than there has been in 30 years! Has some decent policy ideas but most of it was not terribly substantive.
And it doesn't really address my overall point. Milennials and Gen Z aren't facing substantively anything that previous generations didn't face before.
Quote from: tower912 on June 05, 2024, 12:44:57 PM
Still behind Jamie.
The expression "Damning someone with faint praise" comes to mind.
Reminds me of Shecky Greene talking about Shelley Berman. After ranting for several minutes about what a dick Berman was, the interviewer asked Shecky if there was anything positive he could say about him. He thought for a long moment and said "Yes. His brother was worse."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 05, 2024, 04:28:51 PM
The expression "Damning someone with faint praise" comes to mind.
Reminds me of Shecky Greene talking about Shelley Berman. After ranting for several minutes about what a dick Berman was, the interviewer asked Shecky if there was anything positive he could say about him. He thought for a long moment and said "Yes. His brother was worse."
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/BWBA0EhDtWAAAAAC/grandpa-simpson.gif)
From Yahoo Finance:
The state of the consumer has remained a hot-button issue for the past year.
Recent warnings from companies like McDonald's and Starbucks about price-conscious consumers have added to the growing case some have made about a potential slowdown in consumer spending. A revision lower in personal consumption within first quarter GDP data and weaker-than-expected April retail sales have also added to the case.
But the broader question remains whether consumers still have enough left in the tank to keep spending throughout 2024.
A deep dive on the consumer led by Barclays senior US economist Jonathan Millar argues there's more spending coming down the pike even if there is a shift to "value-focused spending."
Millar notes that while some studies have claimed pandemic-driven excess savings are gone, that might not fully be the case. Millar estimates consumers still have $850 billion in excess savings.
And even with Americans spending about $50 billion per month from their excess savings, it would take another 17 months for the entire excess savings nest egg to expire.
"Households are still comfortable dipping into savings to support income," Millar said. "In our view, there is plenty of scope for this to continue."
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emailimagecdnuyi.com%2F4xwut9c68l%2Fen_us%2Fimages%2F6660ec4d7acb5-1717627981.503.png&t=1717687084&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1caa-e0074201d800&sig=QOy3DyrxQlwbTvuDAbqY6g--~D)
So, "about 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck", but there's plenty of savings for Starbucks and McDonald's?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 11:07:38 AM
So, "about 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck", but there's plenty of savings for Starbucks and McDonald's?
Because you're leaning far too heavily on qualitative survey responses and polling and automatically absolving any personal decision making with the paycheck to paycheck figures. I knew single people making $80Kish in their late 20s/early 30s in the late 2010s and people making $200K now living paycheck to paycheck (and very open about complaining they are). Its not from some sort of nefarious capitalistic toxicity, its due to reckless spending and lifestyle creep.
I'm not blaming poor people for being poor or for cash strapped families at/near/just above the poverty line to be castigated as stupid for their financial decisions. I am blaming plenty of people with sufficient financial means being happily used as a fodder for complaining about any number of financial factors in the US.
Key factor from that article is people not stopping spending or changing lifestyle when money is tight, its just spending money on value things. Notice, this is data from actual spending and consumption data, and not people responding to a survey. Someone could have $3K a month in car payments and a $8K mortgage and be living "paycheck to paycheck" as far as a survey is concerned.
And FWIW, there are plenty of middle class Europeans taxed out the a** for "wealth redistribution" living in countries with ample social safety nets who are still paycheck to paycheck. People spending beyond their means is not a uniquely American concept.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 11:07:38 AM
So, "about 50% of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency or 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck", but there's plenty of savings for Starbucks and McDonald's?
I mean...yeah.
Their "living paycheck to paycheck" includes stopping at Starbucks a couple times a week.
Scoopers in a recent survey are all over 6ft with a minimum of a 24" vertical
Marquette dentists all believe that the economy is in ruins despite data to the contrary.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 06, 2024, 11:25:01 AM
And FWIW, there are plenty of middle class Europeans taxed out the a** for "wealth redistribution" living in countries with ample social safety nets who are still paycheck to paycheck. People spending beyond their means is not a uniquely American concept.
I'm sure this is true, but FWIW, if you live in a country that pays for its ample social safety net with your taxes, the calculation on what is irresponsible spending shifts. E.g., if the US had a UK-style NHS, old folks would need to hold far less in reserve.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 11:31:27 AM
I mean...yeah.
Their "living paycheck to paycheck" includes stopping at Starbucks a couple times a week.
I don't think those couple Starbucks visit a week - what's that, $15? - is the difference between living paycheck to paycheck vs a more stable financial existence.
And yet the trope gets tossed out there by the Dave Ramseys of the world as an example of frivolity that's keeping people living paycheck to paycheck.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 06, 2024, 11:55:59 AM
I don't think those couple Starbucks visit a week - what's that, $15? - is the difference between living paycheck to paycheck vs a more stable financial existence.
And yet the trope gets tossed out there by the Dave Ramseys of the world as an example of frivolity that's keeping people living paycheck to paycheck.
I like to listen to Money Guys and they push back on the Starbucks and Avocado trope. They argue it's more about bigger purchases like too much house, car payments, etc.
Quote from: cheebs09 on June 06, 2024, 12:03:19 PM
I like to listen to Money Guys and they push back on the Starbucks and Avocado trope. They argue it's more about bigger purchases like too much house, car payments, etc.
Yep, agreed.
Though "too much house" is a tough one, given the lack of affordable stock out there (and the high prices being sought for what not long ago would have been viewed as affordable/starter housing).
Quote from: Pakuni on June 06, 2024, 11:55:59 AM
I don't think those couple Starbucks visit a week - what's that, $15? - is the difference between living paycheck to paycheck vs a more stable financial existence.
And yet the trope gets tossed out there by the Dave Ramseys of the world as an example of frivolity that's keeping people living paycheck to paycheck.
Right. That's my point. People can still be living paycheck to paycheck and go to Starbucks.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, by definition you have no savings.
Therefore you'd have no "excess savings" to spend on anything, Starbucks or otherwise.
Quote from: MUBurrow on June 06, 2024, 11:45:02 AM
I'm sure this is true, but FWIW, if you live in a country that pays for its ample social safety net with your taxes, the calculation on what is irresponsible spending shifts. E.g., if the US had a UK-style NHS, old folks would need to hold far less in reserve.
Right.
If there were ample social safety nets here like EU, when an emergency strikes there isn't complete life/financial ruin.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 11:31:27 AM
I mean...yeah.
Their "living paycheck to paycheck" includes stopping at Starbucks a couple times a week.
I took 82's article to be saying there's a ton of people out there with significant excess savings available for spend.
If 70% of people live paycheck to paycheck, they have no savings at all, let alone "excess"
And I'm sure the majority of those with "excess savings" - likely 1%ers or better, aren't picking up a big Mac on the way home.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 06, 2024, 11:25:01 AM
Because you're leaning far too heavily on qualitative survey responses and polling and automatically absolving any personal decision making with the paycheck to paycheck figures. I knew single people making $80Kish in their late 20s/early 30s in the late 2010s and people making $200K now living paycheck to paycheck (and very open about complaining they are). Its not from some sort of nefarious capitalistic toxicity, its due to reckless spending and lifestyle creep.
I'm not blaming poor people for being poor or for cash strapped families at/near/just above the poverty line to be castigated as stupid for their financial decisions. I am blaming plenty of people with sufficient financial means being happily used as a fodder for complaining about any number of financial factors in the US.
Key factor from that article is people not stopping spending or changing lifestyle when money is tight, its just spending money on value things. Notice, this is data from actual spending and consumption data, and not people responding to a survey. Someone could have $3K a month in car payments and a $8K mortgage and be living "paycheck to paycheck" as far as a survey is concerned.
Agree people live/spend beyond their means. You're correct.
But if the premise that 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, they don't have savings.
See my response to sultan.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 12:13:43 PM
If you live paycheck to paycheck, by definition you have no savings.
Therefore you'd have no "excess savings" to spend on anything, Starbucks or otherwise.
That's not exactly what it means. It doesn't necessarily mean you have no savings. And it doesn't mean that you don't buy items like Starbucks occasionally.
I would interpret paycheck to paycheck meaning that you don't have enough savings to pay expenses should you, for whatever reason, have to skip a paycheck.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 12:13:43 PM
If you live paycheck to paycheck, by definition you have no savings.
Are you certain about that?
My understanding is that your 70% number came from people self-describing themselves as living paycheck to paycheck. There was a time in my life where if you asked me, I would have told you I was living paycheck to paycheck. But I also had a sizeable 401A account. To me, that money was untouchable because accessing it now would carry severe penalties, but it was there if I ever had an emergency. I suspect that others who consider themselves "paycheck to paycheck" also don't factor in retirement savings because to them it is a necessary expense.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 12:18:13 PM
Agree people live/spend beyond their means. You're correct.
But if the premise that 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, they don't have savings.
See my response to sultan.
Why are you taking a unscientific survey as bible? Versus actual tracked and recorded spending?
Ive heard "paycheck to paycheck" meaning their biweekly paycheck is used up...a paycheck that also has 401K and savings account deposits taken out of it. I know some people who complain they have no day to day money but having assorted savings/retirement funds they wont touch.
Ive heard people say they are paycheck to paycheck cause they spend a huge chunk of it paying off big credit card purchases (that are not healthcare costs).
Again, this is not to disparage the truly economically disadvantaged in this country (which believe is a decent chunk of that 70%), but self reported data about financial situations is a terrible way to assess a general population/country's economic well being. It fits your narrative so you're placing a lot of weight on it.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 12:14:45 PM
Right.
If there were ample social safety nets here like EU, when an emergency strikes there isn't complete life/financial ruin.
If you're bad with money and spend beyond your means so that you're tight on cash, how is that social net going to help with an expensive car repair or blow water heater? Not having $500 for an emergency doesn't automatically mean healthcare costs.
And its a bit presumptuous to assume if people had more things paid for by the government, they are suddenly gonna sock all that extra cash.
Financial wellness, literacy, budgeting, etc... should be mandatory school curriculum if we're talking about actual tangible steps toward solutions
I suppose there's some semantics at play.
IMO, paycheck to paycheck meant no savings.
That's an assumption I guess I made.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 06, 2024, 12:45:15 PM
I suppose there's some semantics at play.
IMO, paycheck to paycheck meant no savings.
That's an assumption I guess I made.
Nearly 70% of adult Americans have a savings account. The problem is that half of these people have less than $500.
This doesn't include retirement savings, which isn't considered "transactional." My guess is that the half who cannot afford a $500 emergency aren't including the possibility of an early withdrawl or loan off their retirement account.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 12:50:40 PM
Nearly 70% of adult Americans have a savings account. The problem is that half of these people have less than $500.
This doesn't include retirement savings, which isn't considered "transactional." My guess is that the half who cannot afford a $500 emergency aren't including the possibility of an early withdrawl or loan off their retirement account.
Thanks.
In my head "paycheck to paycheck" meant spending every last cent on required monthly expenses. Which would leave no money for savings.
And my discussion was in the context of 82's article that seemed to imply there were tons of people out there with significant money to burn.
If 35%+ of adult Americans have less than $500 then it would be a fair assumption that another block have not much more than that.
That would lead me to believe the $850 billion in excess savings is amongst a relatively small % of the population.
If that's true, those folks are more likely to be hoarding their savings than spending it.
Hoarding wealth and investing it in corporations is the established meta in a capitalist society. If you're not doing that, then you're a pleb.
https://www.realestatenews.com/2023/09/06/mortgage-payments-jump-60-in-just-two-years
Average mortgage payment is $2306 per month before property taxes. Up 80% in two years. $27,672 per year. Average household income is $63,500, $48,589 after taxes. So a median household trying to buy a median house would have to put 57% of their income towards mortgage alone. That's unsustainable.
In 2000 the median household income was 42,189 and 32,032 after taxes. The average mortgage payment was $769 per month or $9,228 per year. That's 28% of salary towards mortgage.
Obviously there are other factors. But add in other cost of living increases and I'm honestly really surprised people are arguing that it isn't much harder to accumulate wealth today. People didn't largely and suddenly get worse at making financial decisions.
People have less money than ever, fewer realistic choices than ever. And fewer realistic choices leads to increased exploitation.
Hey bros how much u make a year?
Quote from: BM1090 on June 06, 2024, 01:44:42 PM
https://www.realestatenews.com/2023/09/06/mortgage-payments-jump-60-in-just-two-years
Average mortgage payment is $2306 per month before property taxes. Up 80% in two years. $27,672 per year. Average household income is $63,500, $48,589 after taxes. So a median household trying to buy a median house would have to put 57% of their income towards mortgage alone. That's unsustainable.
In 2000 the median household income was 42,189 and 32,032 after taxes. The average mortgage payment was $769 per month or $9,228 per year. That's 28% of salary towards mortgage.
Obviously there are other factors. But add in other cost of living increases and I'm honestly really surprised people are arguing that it isn't much harder to accumulate wealth today. People didn't largely and suddenly get worse at making financial decisions.
People have less money than ever, fewer realistic choices than ever. And fewer realistic choices leads to increased exploitation.
People don't "have less money than ever." That is an absolutely inaccurate statement.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 02:12:15 PM
People don't "have less money than ever." That is an absolutely inaccurate statement.
I was gonna say. It may feel like it do to some inflation factors and a recent spike in housing, but by no means do they have less money than ever.
Quote from: BM1090 on June 06, 2024, 01:44:42 PM
People didn't largely and suddenly get worse at making financial decisions.
No, but similar to the previous posts, this is also an exercise in showing how TERRIBLE most people are at benchmarking themselves and their financial situation. There is the old ancedote how no rich person every thinks they are rich, often because their scale their gradually and so do their expenses as well as the company they keep (often wealthier than them). Well conversely, I think many many middle class people don't realize how much more financially sound they are than others.
I remember thinking how underpaid and struggling I was compared to many of my friends when I was making around $65K in my late 20s. In reality, I was making well over the average household income, as a single person, and was in a position to be just fine, even though it didn't feel like it.
Similarly, paycheck to paycheck is commonly considered the idea that your housing, food, utilities, and essentials, etc... take up all your income until the next paycheck. But for people with a mindset mentioned above, they just think that not being able to have money left over or plugged into savings after buying what they wanted or living their life means they are actually paycheck to paycheck. So the definition and perception gets blurred. Cause in reality, financially those groups are quite different.
Ancedotes are often terrible when adding contrasting color to hard data. But when addressing qualitative surveys or perceptions like "people have less money now", its relevant cause the responses and sentiments are usually just based on vibes.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 06, 2024, 02:03:58 PM
Hey bros how much u make a year?
You guys have jobs? I thought Scoop was for men of leisure
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 02:12:15 PM
People don't "have less money than ever." That is an absolutely inaccurate statement.
To be clear, my intent wasn't to say "less money" but it was bad phrasing on my part. People absolutely have a lower % of their income left after only necessary expenses than they did 10, 20, or 30 years ago, which makes it harder to accumulate wealth.
The costs of nearly every necessary living expense have risen at a much quicker rate than income. The average debt to income ratio is higher as well.
Given that, how can you say it's not more difficult to accumulate wealth than it has been in the past? That's all I'm arguing.
Nothing says Scoop more than wealthy white guys telling poor people that they are poor because they are bad with money
Quote from: JWags85 on June 06, 2024, 02:25:31 PM
I was gonna say. It may feel like it do to some inflation factors and a recent spike in housing, but by no means do they have less money than ever.
No, but similar to the previous posts, this is also an exercise in showing how TERRIBLE most people are at benchmarking themselves and their financial situation. There is the old ancedote how no rich person every thinks they are rich, often because their scale their gradually and so do their expenses as well as the company they keep (often wealthier than them). Well conversely, I think many many middle class people don't realize how much more financially sound they are than others.
I remember thinking how underpaid and struggling I was compared to many of my friends when I was making around $65K in my late 20s. In reality, I was making well over the average household income, as a single person, and was in a position to be just fine, even though it didn't feel like it.
Similarly, paycheck to paycheck is commonly considered the idea that your housing, food, utilities, and essentials, etc... take up all your income until the next paycheck. But for people with a mindset mentioned above, they just think that not being able to have money left over or plugged into savings after buying what they wanted or living their life means they are actually paycheck to paycheck. So the definition and perception gets blurred. Cause in reality, financially those groups are quite different.
Ancedotes are often terrible when adding contrasting color to hard data. But when addressing qualitative surveys or perceptions like "people have less money now", its relevant cause the responses and sentiments are usually just based on vibes.
You're not refuting anything I'm saying though. And I got my data from studies and the census, not surveys.
In case I'm talking in circles, which I tend to do, I'm saying that younger generations today have a far lower percentage of their income leftover after necessary expenses. And that makes it harder to accumulate wealth. And there's nothing that I've seen in the data to show it will reverse in the future.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 06, 2024, 03:05:14 PM
Nothing says Scoop more than wealthy white guys telling poor people that they are poor because they are bad with money
(https://i.imgur.com/pUV7Fcr.gif)
Quote from: BM1090 on June 06, 2024, 03:04:17 PM
To be clear, my intent wasn't to say "less money" but it was bad phrasing on my part. People absolutely have a lower % of their income left after only necessary expenses than they did 10, 20, or 30 years ago, which makes it harder to accumulate wealth.
The costs of nearly every necessary living expense have risen at a much quicker rate than income. The average debt to income ratio is higher as well.
Given that, how can you say it's not more difficult to accumulate wealth than it has been in the past? That's all I'm arguing.
YEP
Quote from: Hards Alumni on June 06, 2024, 06:34:22 PM
YEP
Still waiting for you to dunk on the article I posted last week.
Quote from: BM1090 on June 06, 2024, 03:05:45 PM
You're not refuting anything I'm saying though. And I got my data from studies and the census, not surveys.
In case I'm talking in circles, which I tend to do, I'm saying that younger generations today have a far lower percentage of their income leftover after necessary expenses. And that makes it harder to accumulate wealth. And there's nothing that I've seen in the data to show it will reverse in the future.
Again, that's just not accurate.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/wealth-of-younger-americans-is-historically-high/
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 05, 2024, 02:38:31 PM
Wider and broader social programs - paid family leave, paid time off, universal childcare, etc.
Significantly more wealth redistribution through tax structure
Regulatory enforcement particularly of financial sector and anti-trust
Probably other things I can't think of off the top of my head
Oh, so you actually have a head? Thought it was just a hollow coconut, hey?
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 06:48:26 PM
Again, that's just not accurate.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/wealth-of-younger-americans-is-historically-high/
Thanks for the link. Need to think about this more, but I'll reply once I have more time to read more closely.
I'll look for data for 30 and under too, as that's more the age range I was referring to.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 06, 2024, 06:35:55 PM
Still waiting for you to dunk on the article I posted last week.
Sorry, I just moved on with my life, and so did you until now. I didn't think you'd actually want that.
OK, and I get under-30. Between students loans, housing and Covid, it's been a struggle. But I would suggest that under 30 aren't really your prime wealth accumulating years. They can make up for lost time.
From Seeking Alpha:
U.S. nonfarm payrolls climbed by 272K in May, outpacing the 182K expected and 165K in April, which was revised down from +175K, the U.S. Department of Labor said on Friday.
The May figure, while rising from April, declined from +310K in March 2023 and +303K in May 2023. The three-month average stands at +249K.
Unemployment rate: 4.0% vs. 3.9% expected and 3.9% prior.
U.S. equity futures dipped after the strong print on jobs added may put a Fed rate cut even farther into the future. Nasdaq futures slipped 0.2%, S&P futures -0.4%, and Dow futures -0.4%. The 10-year US Treasury yield jumped 13 basis points to 4.424%.
Average hourly earnings rose 0.4% in May, accelerating from 0.2% in April and topping the 0.3% consensus. Y/Y, average hourly earnings increased 4.1%, compared with the +3.9% consensus and +4.0% in the prior month (revised from +3.9%).
Traders have reduced their bets that the Federal Open Market Committee will cut its policy rate by 25 basis points in September. The probability of a 25-bp rate cut fell to 50.0% from 55.4% on Thursday. The probability that the rate will stay at 5.25%-5.50% increased to 45.6% from 31.13%, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
Quickie Take: The economy is creating too many jobs, and wages are rising higher than expected. That seemingly good news is seen as bad news by Mr. Market, who is concerned that the Fed won't cut rates this year.
Quote from: BM1090 on June 06, 2024, 01:44:42 PM
Average mortgage payment is $2306 per month before property taxes. Up 80% in two years. $27,672 per year. Average household income is $63,500, $48,589 after taxes. So a median household trying to buy a median house would have to put 57% of their income towards mortgage alone. That's unsustainable.
A nit I suppose, but that's not how housing as a percentage of income is calculated. And not all "households" have mortgages, many have rents.
Also, a surprisingly high percentage of houses are fully paid for - almost 40% are mortgage-free according to the most recent data available.
The share of mortgage-free U.S. homes has jumped from 34.3% to 39.3% in the past decade, per the census data.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/12/mortgage-free-homes
Quote from: MU82 on June 07, 2024, 08:55:58 AM
Also, a surprisingly high percentage of houses are fully paid for - almost 40% are mortgage-free according to the most recent data available.
The share of mortgage-free U.S. homes has jumped from 34.3% to 39.3% in the past decade, per the census data.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/12/mortgage-free-homes
Sure, but the large majority of those homes are owned by retirees.
In the not-so-good economic news department ...
From AP: More than 7,000 debt-laden companies are just stumbling by on the brink of survival
They're called zombies, companies so laden with debt that they are stumbling by, barely able to pay even the interest on their loans and just a hit away from dying off for good. An Associated Press analysis found their ranks in raw numbers have jumped over the past decade by a third or more globally – whiplashed by years of piling up cheap debt followed by stubborn inflation that has pushed borrowing costs to decade highs.
Many of these companies could soon be facing their day of reckoning, with due dates looming on hundreds of billions of dollars of loans they may not be able to pay back. "They're going to get crushed," Valens Securities Managing Director Robert Spivey said of the weakest zombies.
As the number of zombies has grown, so too has the potential damage if they are forced to file for bankruptcy or close their doors permanently. Companies in AP's analysis employ at least 130 million people in a dozen countries. Already, the number of U.S. companies going bankrupt has hit a 14-year high, a surge expected in a recession, not an expansion.
A real concern among investors is that too many zombies could collapse at the same time because central banks kept them on life support with low interest rates for years instead of allowing failures to sprinkle out over time.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 07, 2024, 09:17:59 AM
Sure, but the large majority of those homes are owned by retirees.
Or how many are owned by large investor groups that paid cash?
Quote from: MU82 on June 07, 2024, 09:46:59 AM
In the not-so-good economic news department ...
From AP: More than 7,000 debt-laden companies are just stumbling by on the brink of survival
They're called zombies, companies so laden with debt that they are stumbling by, barely able to pay even the interest on their loans and just a hit away from dying off for good. An Associated Press analysis found their ranks in raw numbers have jumped over the past decade by a third or more globally – whiplashed by years of piling up cheap debt followed by stubborn inflation that has pushed borrowing costs to decade highs.
Many of these companies could soon be facing their day of reckoning, with due dates looming on hundreds of billions of dollars of loans they may not be able to pay back. "They're going to get crushed," Valens Securities Managing Director Robert Spivey said of the weakest zombies.
As the number of zombies has grown, so too has the potential damage if they are forced to file for bankruptcy or close their doors permanently. Companies in AP's analysis employ at least 130 million people in a dozen countries. Already, the number of U.S. companies going bankrupt has hit a 14-year high, a surge expected in a recession, not an expansion.
A real concern among investors is that too many zombies could collapse at the same time because central banks kept them on life support with low interest rates for years instead of allowing failures to sprinkle out over time.
This only matters if their market cap is big. Otherwise, let them die. If you're only surviving because of cheap debt, or if you can't pay your employees a living wage, then it's a mercy killing. Another company will take your market share.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 07, 2024, 09:50:31 AM
This only matters if their market cap is big. Otherwise, let them die. If you're only surviving because of cheap debt, or if you can't pay your employees a living wage, then it's a mercy killing. Another company will take your market share.
What's the definition of "living wage"? How many companies actually pay that?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 07, 2024, 09:51:37 AM
What's the definition of "living wage"? How many companies actually pay that?
I mean...a lot.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 07, 2024, 09:17:59 AM
Sure, but the large majority of those homes are owned by retirees.
True, but I'm not sure why that matters in the scope of what was being discussed.
I was surprised by the 40%, regardless of who owns the houses.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 07, 2024, 09:51:37 AM
What's the definition of "living wage"? How many companies actually pay that?
You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff. And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.
Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year. Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K.
Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3. By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs. You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 07, 2024, 10:59:29 AM
You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff. And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.
Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year. Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K.
Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3. By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs. You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.
Ah yes, the vibe-cession.
It is interesting to see how by almost any objective measure, the US economy is very strong and yet everywhere you look on the internet people are convinced the economy is terrible. Or my random group of politically-aggrieved friends on a text thread who are convinced that the economy has never been worse. It's all vibes man. All vibes.
But to throw a bone in the direction of the "who is paying a living wage" folks, there are certainly companies that have elected not to pay their workforce adequately. Wal-Mart comes to mind as one employer that famously paid their employees so little they qualified for social safety net programs. Whether that remains true in today's tight labor market or not, I can't say. There is also a reasonable logical conclusion that in many high cost of living areas that a larger swath of potentially "living wage" type employment no longer is. Even back when I was a kid and visited NYC, I wondered where the people who worked in McDonalds for minimum wage lived. $25/hr (aprx $50k/yr) might be a living wage in Milwaukee, but is it in San Francisco?
Quote from: JWags85 on June 07, 2024, 10:59:29 AM
You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff. And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.
Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year. Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K.
Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3. By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs. You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.
The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more
Quote from: jficke13 on June 07, 2024, 11:11:36 AM
Ah yes, the vibe-cession.
It is interesting to see how by almost any objective measure, the US economy is very strong and yet everywhere you look on the internet people are convinced the economy is terrible. Or my random group of politically-aggrieved friends on a text thread who are convinced that the economy has never been worse. It's all vibes man. All vibes.
Propaganda works.
Rupert Mudoch is, I would argue, the most poisonous man in U.S. history, with Limbaugh jockeying for 2nd.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 07, 2024, 09:51:37 AM
What's the definition of "living wage"? How many companies actually pay that?
Just in case you (or anyone else) is actually curious
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp
And also: In reality I'm in favor of a $20+ federal minimum wage pegged to inflation. I also think we should be taxing highest earners at 70% for the highest bracket like we were when America was great in the 40s through the 80s. And I think we need to fund the everliving crap out of social security, medicare, and medicaid because those programs save us SO much money compared to the hidden costs of caring for the indigent.
That being said, I'm a capitalist and I'm going to continue arguing capitalist points mostly in this thread. My mask just slipped for a sec and I apologize for that. Eat the poor.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 07, 2024, 11:23:15 AM
The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more
Yeah. He said $55,000 for a family of three. My guess is that in most households of three, there are multiple wage earners.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 07, 2024, 11:23:15 AM
The median wage in the U.S. last year was about $48,060.
If you're saying the living wage is $55K, that means a pretty substantial majority of Americans don't earn a living wage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/14/median-annual-income-in-every-us-state.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20median%20annual,the%20other%20half%20earned%20more
I misread. Basically anywhere outside of the coasts was under $50K.
https://research.zippia.com/living-wage.html
And again that's also talking household, not a single person, unless the argument shifts to everyone should make enough for a single income to support a household.
And, FWIW, that median income factors in myriad jobs and salaries that aren't "corporation/business". Again, not excusing away any income disparities or other factors that affect lower wage workers in this country, just the idea that "what corporations are actually paying a living wage" like it's a rarity is just a silly excessive statement. It's just not a good faith argument
Quote from: jficke13 on June 07, 2024, 11:11:36 AM
Ah yes, the vibe-cession.
It is interesting to see how by almost any objective measure, the US economy is very strong and yet everywhere you look on the internet people are convinced the economy is terrible. Or my random group of politically-aggrieved friends on a text thread who are convinced that the economy has never been worse. It's all vibes man. All vibes.
But to throw a bone in the direction of the "who is paying a living wage" folks, there are certainly companies that have elected not to pay their workforce adequately. Wal-Mart comes to mind as one employer that famously paid their employees so little they qualified for social safety net programs. Whether that remains true in today's tight labor market or not, I can't say. There is also a reasonable logical conclusion that in many high cost of living areas that a larger swath of potentially "living wage" type employment no longer is. Even back when I was a kid and visited NYC, I wondered where the people who worked in McDonalds for minimum wage lived. $25/hr (aprx $50k/yr) might be a living wage in Milwaukee, but is it in San Francisco?
I still wonder how fast-food franchises, retailers and other such companies can find enough employees in the most expensive cities.
So much of this discussion needs to be made on a local and/or regional basis because there is such a significant difference between what it takes to get by in Raleigh/Omaha/Oklahoma City vs. Boston/Washington/LA.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 07, 2024, 11:47:56 AM
Yeah. He said $55,000 for a family of three. My guess is that in most households of three, there are multiple wage earners.
So two people need to ve working in order to earn one living wage?
I'm not sure that's great evidence for the position that wage earners are decently compensated.
According to the article linked below, living wage for a single person in most states is in the mid 40s to low 50s. If the median wage nationally is $48k, that still means about half of wage earners aren't getting a living wage for a single household.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-wage-single-person-needs-112802048.html
Quote from: Pakuni on June 07, 2024, 12:23:26 PM
So two people need to ve working in order to earn one living wage?
I'm not sure that's great evidence for the position that wage earners are decently compensated.
According to the article linked below, living wage for a single person in most states is in the mid 40s to low 50s. If the median wage nationally is $48k, that still means about half of wage earners aren't getting a living wage for a single household.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-wage-single-person-needs-112802048.html
Yes I think it is fair to say that a lot of dual income households would not do too well if the couple separated. But that's probably always been the case - a lot of single people historically have had roommates or lived with family.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 07, 2024, 10:59:29 AM
You and I agree on very little financially/politically, but I find you to be earnest and sincere, so I say this respectfully, but you really need to supplement your online browsings with real world evidence, and probably get outside the online bubble in general when it comes to this kind of stuff. And this is from someone who can often fall into the trap of grounding far too much of reality in online musings.
Online personalities would have you believe that millions of corporations and small businesses are paying near minimum wage (not remotely true) and a true living wage is $80K+ per year. Hell, my wife just saw in a Mom group she is in on Facebook (I know, lol) that posted an article with a study that said the living wage in Florida was $93K.
Meanwhile MIT's Living Wage calculator places it much closer to the mid 50Ks in most of the country for a family of 3. By that metric, the vast majority of corporations are paying that rate for many many jobs. You can argue nuance or actual wage levels by another $10K or whatever, but the idea that all these companies don't pay living wage is just silly and based in nothing but feels.
Thank you.
I think I made the mistake again of not setting up definitions before asking questions.
Appreciate the thorough response.
First item in the WSJ's afternoon e-newsletter:
U.S. hiring and wages were up last month, reinforcing the economy's resilience.
While the U.S. added 272,000 new jobs, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4%, offering a mixed view of a labor market that has generally been cooling while staying hotter than many anticipated. Average hourly earnings rose 4.1% from a year earlier, beating forecasts, the Labor Department said. Economists predicted 190,000 new jobs in May. The unemployment rate, which was 3.9% in April, extended a steady climb, though it is still low by historical standards and has shown little sign of making a big jump. Despite high interest rates and stubborn inflation, businesses keep hiring, wages keep rising and consumers keep spending.
Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work.
You get a job. You get a job. You get a job. Anyone who wants to work can get a job.
what needs to be separated however, are the jobs that were never really intended to pay 'living wages" and are rather, entry level positions. for some to expect entry level positions to pay ~$50k is ludicrous. the people overseeing the entry level positioned employee however, are a different story and should be subject to market forces.
you get what you pay for
Quote from: Jockey on June 07, 2024, 07:04:55 PM
Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work.
You get a job. You get a job. You get a job. Anyone who wants to work can get a job.
I don't think this is accurate.
Quote from: SoCalEagle on June 07, 2024, 08:07:46 PM
I don't think this is accurate.
Correct, unemployment numbers are actually those who have filed for unemployment
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 07, 2024, 11:38:42 AM
I also think we should be taxing highest earners at 70% for the highest bracket like we were when America was great in the 40s through the 80s.
Here's a true story about what happens with a 70 percent marginal tax bracket.
Rudolph and Daisy were married in the 1950s, when you say America was "great". Rudolph was an accountant and Daisy was a primary grades educator. Both were pretty sharp folks.
Shortly after they were married, Daisy became pregnant. Like many couples in the 1950s, they had multiple children in comparatively short order. Rudolph and Daisy agreed that Daisy should stay home when the children were young to care for their ever growing family (back when you could choose to do that!).
By the mid-1960s, Rudolph and Daisy's youngest child was approaching the age at which many children went to kindergarten. Their older children had started school and Daisy was disappointed that neither their state's public nor their Roman Catholic schools offered kindergarten. As a primary educator and a devout Catholic, Daisy thought it might be a good idea to develop a kindergarten for the local Catholic school.
So Daisy sat down with Rudolph to discuss her idea. Rudolph by then was a partner in his accounting firm and, because his firm was an "S" Corp Partnership (or the 1960s equivalent thereof), he was in this 70 percent bracket of which you speak. Daisy, who was focused on education rather than economics, was excited as she believed in the need for enhanced early childhood education. Rudolph patiently listened to Daisy, only to take the wind out of her sails very quickly.
"You do understand," Rudolph said, "that for every dollar you make doing this, the government will take more than 80 cents in federal, state and Social Security taxes."
"That's not fair," said Daisy. "But that's the law," said Rudolph.
Daisy went ahead with her idea and formulated a kindergarten curriculum that became widely used in her state. She did it by resorting to a small time version of what every would-be entrepreneur does: tax avoidance or tax evasion. Even though the statute of limitations long ago expired and both Rudolph and Daisy have attained their eternal reward, all I'll say is Daisy didn't follow the letter of the law.
Morale of the story: Enterprise, innovation and creativity are a lot harder in a 70 percent tax bracket. When you come up with that level of taxation, people find a way around it. Period.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 07, 2024, 09:24:08 PM
Correct, unemployment numbers are actually those who have filed for unemployment
Thank you for the correction. It was when the Liar-in-chief claimed there was 30% unemployment that my comment would be true.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 07, 2024, 07:55:12 PM
what needs to be separated however, are the jobs that were never really intended to pay 'living wages" and are rather, entry level positions. for some to expect entry level positions to pay ~$50k is ludicrous. the people overseeing the entry level positioned employee however, are a different story and should be subject to market forces.
you get what you pay for
Can we agree that any position that asks for a college degree, and therefore requires a significant amount of debt, should pay a living wage?
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 07, 2024, 10:13:47 PM
"You do understand," Rudolph said, "that for every dollar you make doing this, the government will take more than 80 cents in federal, state and Social Security
Rudolph lied! Daisy's income would have been taxed at a much lower rate. It was Rudolph's excess income being taxed at the higher rate
You know this. Rudolph. Don't be the reindeer nobody wants to play with
QuoteDespite high interest rates and stubborn inflation, businesses keep hiring, wages keep rising and consumers keep spending
Yeah, it's terrible, this US economy.
Quote from: BM1090 on June 07, 2024, 11:22:36 PM
Can we agree that any position that asks for a college degree, and therefore requires a significant amount of debt, should pay a living wage?
Depends entirely on the industry and the requirements.
But I think rocket would be surprised at what entry level people are making these days.
Quote from: Jockey on June 07, 2024, 07:04:55 PM
Don't forget that the 4% includes people who are not looking for work.
This isn't accurate. The unemployment rate is those who want to have a job but don't have one.
Can we define "living wage"?
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 08, 2024, 07:22:44 AM
Depends entirely on the industry and the requirements.
But I think rocket would be surprised at what entry level people are making these days.
Yep. The average entry-level salary for teachers in Mississippi is $57K.
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/entry-level-teacher-salary/ms
And that's a notoriously low-paying job in a notoriously low-paying state.
Engineers and lawyers in California and Connecticut do much better.
But sure, entry-level burger-flippers, especially in the South, make squat.
Quote from: MU82 on June 08, 2024, 07:48:38 AM
Yep. The average entry-level salary for teachers in Mississippi is $57K.
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/entry-level-teacher-salary/ms
And that's a notoriously low-paying job in a notoriously low-paying state.
Engineers and lawyers in California and Connecticut do much better.
But sure, entry-level burger-flippers, especially in the South, make squat.
Random stat and maybe not so accurate data, but OK. To the counterpoint, here is the actual data from Jackson Mississippi (the capital city, and largest population if some of you failed Geography).
https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf (https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf)
Entry level with a Bachelors degree-a little under 44K. In order to make 57K in Jackson, you would need 20 years experience.
Edit: found the Mississippi state teachers schedule: Entry level -45K
https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf (https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf)
I guess I am arguining just to argue, but:
1. Entry level teachers salaries suck
2. Entry level teachers salaries are a bad example to show that living wages are there for everyone
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 08, 2024, 08:06:52 AM
Random stat and maybe not so accurate data, but OK. To the counterpoint, here is the actual data from Jackson Mississippi (the capital city, and largest population if some of you failed Geography).
https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf (https://www.jackson.k12.ms.us/cms/lib/MS01910533/Centricity/Domain/1272/SY2223%20TEACHER%20SALARY%20SCALE%20-APPROVED%20BY%20BOARD%20MEMBERS.pdf)
Entry level with a Bachelors degree-a little under 44K. In order to make 57K in Jackson, you would need 20 years experience.
Edit: found the Mississippi state teachers schedule: Entry level -45K
https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf (https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/salary_schedule_for_fy25.pdf)
I guess I am arguining just to argue, but:
1. Entry level teachers salaries suck
2. Entry level teachers salaries are a bad example to show that living wages are there for everyone
Mine was meant to show that location and vocation matter when discussing this stuff.
And thanks for expounding on what I posted and making it a more thorough examination.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 08, 2024, 07:24:43 AM
This isn't accurate. The unemployment rate is those who want to have a job but don't have one.
Correct. Those not looking or those who have given up looking for work are not included in the unemployment rate.
From the NYT:
Heat waves have a big economic impact. A 2022 study, published in the journal Science Advances, that looked at the impact of human-caused heat waves between 1992 and 2013 estimated that they cost the global economy between $5 trillion and $29.3 trillion. Those costs are likely to rise over time.
In recent earnings reports, companies have noted the impact of extreme heat:
"We estimate that adverse weather reduced full-year attendance by over one million guests," said Gary Mick, the chief financial officer at Six Flags Entertainment, in a February conference call. "This includes rain and snow in California during spring break, followed by a record summer heat wave in Texas and eight consecutive weekends of rain or threat of rain in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast after Labor Day."
The chief financial executive of Constellation Energy, Daniel Eggers, said in a November conference call that as a result of extreme heat in Texas, the operator of the state's grid "set 10 new peak demand records during the summer."
Though most of the impact is bad, some companies see a benefit to the bottom line. For example, Ronald Coughlin, the chief executive of Petco at the time, noted in August that "as a result of the extreme heat, we were able to drive our flea and tick business leading to Rx sales up nearly 20 percent year over year."
Quote from: rocky_warrior on June 08, 2024, 12:00:12 AM
Rudolph lied! Daisy's income would have been taxed at a much lower rate. It was Rudolph's excess income being taxed at the higher rate
You know this. Rudolph. Don't be the reindeer nobody wants to play with
Not sure Rudolph lied because he and Daisy filed a joint tax return. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the 1960s era tax code, but I know what Rudolph and Daisy used to say at family gatherings.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on June 08, 2024, 12:00:12 AM
You know this. Rudolph. Don't be the reindeer nobody wants to play with.
You never know when you'll have a foggy Christmas Eve!
Quote from: MU82 on June 08, 2024, 10:32:04 AM
From the NYT:
Heat waves have a big economic impact. A 2022 study, published in the journal Science Advances, that looked at the impact of human-caused heat waves between 1992 and 2013 estimated that they cost the global economy between $5 trillion and $29.3 trillion. Those costs are likely to rise over time.
In recent earnings reports, companies have noted the impact of extreme heat:
"We estimate that adverse weather reduced full-year attendance by over one million guests," said Gary Mick, the chief financial officer at Six Flags Entertainment, in a February conference call. "This includes rain and snow in California during spring break, followed by a record summer heat wave in Texas and eight consecutive weekends of rain or threat of rain in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast after Labor Day."
The chief financial executive of Constellation Energy, Daniel Eggers, said in a November conference call that as a result of extreme heat in Texas, the operator of the state's grid "set 10 new peak demand records during the summer."
Though most of the impact is bad, some companies see a benefit to the bottom line. For example, Ronald Coughlin, the chief executive of Petco at the time, noted in August that "as a result of the extreme heat, we were able to drive our flea and tick business leading to Rx sales up nearly 20 percent year over year."
now there's some science right there-seriously?? some more "journalism" from the NYT?? that whole paper is an op-ed filled with "scientists" eyn'a?
on a more serious note, california's mandated $20/hour is a human caused catastrophe- it has cost California in the range of 10,000 jobs and counting plus the closure of many legitimate businesses. these are jobs that would have paid people decent wages; not living, but entry level. they train people how to work. they also kept the prices of goods down to an affordable level. now they are losing both
Yes, there is science.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:21 AM
now there's some science right there-seriously?? some more "journalism" from the NYT?? that whole paper is an op-ed filled with "scientists" eyn'a?
on a more serious note, california's mandated $20/hour is a human caused catastrophe- it has cost California in the range of 10,000 jobs and counting plus the closure of many legitimate businesses. these are jobs that would have paid people decent wages; not living, but entry level. they train people how to work. they also kept the prices of goods down to an affordable level. now they are losing both
I love global warming. It's made the golf season in the north longer. The future generations may not like it, but who cares
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:21 AM
now there's some science right there-seriously?? some more "journalism" from the NYT?? that whole paper is an op-ed filled with "scientists" eyn'a?
on a more serious note, california's mandated $20/hour is a human caused catastrophe- it has cost California in the range of 10,000 jobs and counting plus the closure of many legitimate businesses. these are jobs that would have paid people decent wages; not living, but entry level. they train people how to work. they also kept the prices of goods down to an affordable level. now they are losing both
Show your work.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:21 AM
now there's some science right there-seriously?? some more "journalism" from the NYT?? that whole paper is an op-ed filled with "scientists" eyn'a?
on a more serious note, california's mandated $20/hour is a human caused catastrophe- it has cost California in the range of 10,000 jobs and counting plus the closure of many legitimate businesses. these are jobs that would have paid people decent wages; not living, but entry level. they train people how to work. they also kept the prices of goods down to an affordable level. now they are losing both
Yes, California's economy has completely collapsed and could manage only a pathetic 6.1% GDP increase last year.
Yes, indeed.
California is only the 5th largest economy. Not in the US. In the world. Underachievers.
EVERYBODY is leaving California.
Never mind that it's still America's most populous state by far, or that it actually saw a population rise in the most recent census.
10,000 jobs. (assuming this number isn't completely fabricated)
the population of California is 39,030,000.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 08, 2024, 02:38:03 PM
Not sure Rudolph lied because he and Daisy filed a joint tax return. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the 1960s era tax code, but I know what Rudolph and Daisy used to say at family gatherings.
You never know when you'll have a foggy Christmas Eve!
Ok...well then find me a state that has ever had a fed + state + medicare + ss 80% tax bracket. I'm not smart enough to do the math apparently. And if Rudolph is as smart as he is rich, he would know how to solve the problem. But, I still think Rudolph lied(/s?).
"for every dollar you make doing this, the government will take more than 80 cents in federal, state and Social Security taxes."
Edit:
Let me amend...since you're talking about "history" ... I'll take 1963 as an example. If you were making $10-20k, you paid a 38% tax rate on that income ($100-200k in today's dollars). Once you got to the $200-400k range ($2-4M today) you were paying around 90% on those earnings. We weep for Rudolph.
But to my original point. It's graduated. You don't pay 90% on all those earnings. You only pay 38% on the first 200k. (in 1963)
From Yahoo Finance:
The New York Fed's latest survey of consumer expectations found that expectations that stocks will be higher in the next 12 months rose from 39% to 41% since last month's reading. At the same time, inflation expectations dropped slightly. Consumer sentiment numbers have recently highlighted how certain demographics are thriving while others aren't, but with the market near all-time highs, it's no surprise that those who own stocks are feeling good.
Money magazine must read Scoop. This came up in my Google news feed from today.
I didn't want to put in the EV thread and drift it further away.
https://money.com/no-income-tax-states-expensive/
Why States With No Income Tax Aren't as Affordable as They Seem
By: Brad Tuttle
Editor: Julia Glum
Published: May 30, 2024 | 9 min read
There are nine states that don't tax workers' wages. But just because a state doesn't have income taxes doesn't necessarily mean it's an affordable place to live.
If a state doesn't charge income tax, it must find revenues elsewhere, which explains why other tax rates tend to be high in these locations. What's more, the cost of living in some states with no income tax has soared in recent years, often as a result of skyrocketing home insurance prices related to climate change, as well as higher housing prices in general.
The point is: Moving to a state with no income tax is not a slam-dunk strategy to save money. In fact, if you don't do the math to factor in other local living expenses, it can seriously backfire. (FYI, the states with no ordinary income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.)
"The correlation between the cost of living and the absence of income tax in a state is relatively weak," Andrey Yushkov, a senior policy analyst with the Center for State Tax Policy at the nonpartisan nonprofit Tax Foundation, explains to Money via email. "Many other factors affect the cost of living, including property and sales taxes, excise taxes and home insurance. Therefore, the absence of income tax does not necessarily imply that it is cheaper for everyone to live there."
(See link for rest of article.)
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 11, 2024, 02:26:09 PM
Money magazine must read Scoop. This came up in my Google news feed from today.
I didn't want to put in the EV thread and drift it further away.
https://money.com/no-income-tax-states-expensive/
Why States With No Income Tax Aren't as Affordable as They Seem
By: Brad Tuttle
Editor: Julia Glum
Published: May 30, 2024 | 9 min read
There are nine states that don't tax workers' wages. But just because a state doesn't have income taxes doesn't necessarily mean it's an affordable place to live.
If a state doesn't charge income tax, it must find revenues elsewhere, which explains why other tax rates tend to be high in these locations. What's more, the cost of living in some states with no income tax has soared in recent years, often as a result of skyrocketing home insurance prices related to climate change, as well as higher housing prices in general.
The point is: Moving to a state with no income tax is not a slam-dunk strategy to save money. In fact, if you don't do the math to factor in other local living expenses, it can seriously backfire. (FYI, the states with no ordinary income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.)
"The correlation between the cost of living and the absence of income tax in a state is relatively weak," Andrey Yushkov, a senior policy analyst with the Center for State Tax Policy at the nonpartisan nonprofit Tax Foundation, explains to Money via email. "Many other factors affect the cost of living, including property and sales taxes, excise taxes and home insurance. Therefore, the absence of income tax does not necessarily imply that it is cheaper for everyone to live there."
(See link for rest of article.)
Since I'm comparatively recent to Florida from Illinois, Ill outline what the difference has been for me. I'll concede it may be different for someone else but this outlines where I think I am.
Taxes on my home, income and my insurance in Illinois the last year I lived there was 2022. The total of all three was $34,700. In Florida, the most recent year is $17,000. Sales tax is about the same in both states.
The cost of living in Florida has increased in no small measure because housing prices have skyrocketed. I can't speak to the difference with Illinois because the two homes are not comparable. I haven't noticed a significant difference in food costs. My utilities are about the same both cases, though I paying for air conditioning rather than both AC and heating.
I won't argue that to live well in either place is expensive, but it's definitely less expensive all-in in Florida. I'll admit the schools here aren't as good and the medical care sucks, which is a problem if one gets really sick. My wife has been told, stabilize me and get me on a plane to Chicago.
Huh.
Violent crime is down and the US murder rate is plunging, FBI statistics show
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/10/us/us-violent-crime-rates-statistics/
"Violent crime dropped by more than 15% in the United States during the first three months of 2024, according to statistics released Monday by the FBI.
The new numbers show violent crime from January to March dropped 15.2% compared to the same period in 2023, while murders fell 26.4% and reported rapes decreased by 25.7%. Aggravated assaults decreased during that period when compared to last year by 12.5%, according to the data, while robberies fell 17.8%.
The numbers released Monday were gathered from 13,719 of the just over 19,000 law enforcement agencies from across the country, according to the bureau.
Meanwhile, property crime went down 15.1% in the first three months of this year. Burglaries dropped 16.7%, while motor vehicle theft decreased by 17.3%. The declines in violent and property crimes were seen in every region of the US.
Compared to the first five months of 2023, murders this year have dropped more than 40% in cities including New Orleans, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, according to the research firm AH Datalytics, which analyzes crime figures reported by law enforcement agencies across the nation.
Although more than six months still remain in 2024, "it's plausible that this will be, by far, the largest one-year decline in American history," said Jeff Asher, criminal justice analyst and co-founder of consulting firm AH Datalytics.
The firm's real-time review of 265 cities currently shows a 19% drop in murders nationwide compared to 2023."
Violent crime has been dropping at the same rate that people with exposure from lead paint and leaded gasoline have been dying off.
I just made that up but it might be true.
Tsmif. No smart. Dum guye
Quote from: MU82 on June 09, 2024, 08:17:00 AM
Yes, there is science.
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
One case in point- the raising and lower of Lake Michigan levels. When the levels were seriously down a few years ago...damn that global warming. Now that they are back up and there is evidence of shore line erosion...ruh-roh, damn that global blah blah again.
The Lake Michigan water levels have been recorded daily since the early 1900's and the may 2024 reading recorded by the army corps of engineers at 579.36 feet above sea level which is almost the average of what has been recorded over the past century for may. Back in 2013, the climate people were gleefully panicking due to the seemingly low levels of the lake around 575 feet. Well over the next few years (2020) it rose to 582 feet. You guessed it- renewed panic kicked in...well it has since dropped 3 feet to its present level
If only global blah blah would sit still eyna?
It is used by "scientists" to get papers published and by politicians to justify requesting and spending money hey, the climate boogy man is here...just pay him to go away
A 3:27 am post just dropped.
Sez da dude hoo reports at 4:32 am, hey?
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 12, 2024, 04:32:05 AM
A 3:27 am post just dropped.
well I was up at 2:30 but needed a cup of joe(no pun) to wake up... sheesh
and the 3:27 drop is significant because....??
some of us are a little preoccupied mid day, but I will try to do better ?-(
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 12, 2024, 03:27:50 AM
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
One case in point- the raising and lower of Lake Michigan levels. When the levels were seriously down a few years ago...damn that global warming. Now that they are back up and there is evidence of shore line erosion...ruh-roh, damn that global blah blah again.
The Lake Michigan water levels have been recorded daily since the early 1900's and the may 2024 reading recorded by the army corps of engineers at 579.36 feet above sea level which is almost the average of what has been recorded over the past century for may. Back in 2013, the climate people were gleefully panicking due to the seemingly low levels of the lake around 575 feet. Well over the next few years (2020) it rose to 582 feet. You guessed it- renewed panic kicked in...well it has since dropped 3 feet to its present level
If only global blah blah would sit still eyna?
It is used by "scientists" to get papers published and by politicians to justify requesting and spending money hey, the climate boogy man is here...just pay him to go away
I'm a huge fan of boomers destroying the environment and leaving the planet a worse place than they found it.
It has extended the Wisconsin golf season. Thanks boomers!
You missed the biblical entreaties to be good and faithful stewards of this gift we have been given.
Quote from: tower912 on June 12, 2024, 06:02:12 AM
You missed the biblical entreaties to be good and faithful stewards of this gift we have been given.
I'm an evangelical Christian, I don't read the Bible
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 12, 2024, 03:27:50 AM
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
One case in point- the raising and lower of Lake Michigan levels. When the levels were seriously down a few years ago...damn that global warming. Now that they are back up and there is evidence of shore line erosion...ruh-roh, damn that global blah blah again.
The Lake Michigan water levels have been recorded daily since the early 1900's and the may 2024 reading recorded by the army corps of engineers at 579.36 feet above sea level which is almost the average of what has been recorded over the past century for may. Back in 2013, the climate people were gleefully panicking due to the seemingly low levels of the lake around 575 feet. Well over the next few years (2020) it rose to 582 feet. You guessed it- renewed panic kicked in...well it has since dropped 3 feet to its present level
If only global blah blah would sit still eyna?
It is used by "scientists" to get papers published and by politicians to justify requesting and spending money hey, the climate boogy man is here...just pay him to go away
Wrong again, keeping your decades-long streak alive. Congrats.
Inflation report this morning and a Fed statement this afternoon - fascinating kind of day to be a market watcher.
A few minutes ago, the inflation report came in, and it was cooler than expected. That is making Mr. Market want to celebrate, and futures are up. But there's a cautious tone ahead of whatever Powell and the Fed are gonna signal a few hours from now.
Here's Seeking Alpha's article on May CPI: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4115144-mays-cpi-cools-more-than-expected-with-core-cpi-rising-34-yy?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 12, 2024, 03:27:50 AM
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
Fox News:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f9/67/0xsp3P5G_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/0xsp3P5G)
vs. Reality
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5f/1d/9RbE4O02_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/9RbE4O02)
Thermometers have a well-known liberal bias
I don't think the weather will have an impact on the economy.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 12, 2024, 03:27:50 AM
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
LOL.
The oil industry literally has spent billions of dollars trying to deny climate science.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending
NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks are rallying Wednesday following a surprisingly encouraging update on inflation.
The S&P 500 was 0.9% higher in early trading and on track to add to its record set a day earlier. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 297 points, or 0.8%, as of 9:35 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.2% higher.
The action was even stronger in the bond market, where Treasury yields tumbled after the report showed U.S. consumers paid prices that were 3.3% higher for food, insurance and everything else last month, versus a year earlier. Economists had been expecting to see the inflation rate stuck at 3.4%.
https://apnews.com/article/stock-markets-fed-rates-inflation-67e0a324c1f203de37dcf4d4390d53c3
Everything interest rate sensitive in my portfolio is going crazy, one might even say overreacting to a very minor tick down in inflation.
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 12, 2024, 09:48:05 AM
Everything interest rate sensitive in my portfolio is going crazy, one might even say overreacting to a very minor tick down in inflation.
It's wild, especially considering that Powell & Co. could throw cold water on the market in a few hours.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 12, 2024, 03:27:50 AM
Yes, there is science disputing global blah blah, but unfortunately there isnt any money in those positions.
One case in point- the raising and lower of Lake Michigan levels. When the levels were seriously down a few years ago...damn that global warming. Now that they are back up and there is evidence of shore line erosion...ruh-roh, damn that global blah blah again.
The Lake Michigan water levels have been recorded daily since the early 1900's and the may 2024 reading recorded by the army corps of engineers at 579.36 feet above sea level which is almost the average of what has been recorded over the past century for may. Back in 2013, the climate people were gleefully panicking due to the seemingly low levels of the lake around 575 feet. Well over the next few years (2020) it rose to 582 feet. You guessed it- renewed panic kicked in...well it has since dropped 3 feet to its present level
If only global blah blah would sit still eyna?
It is used by "scientists" to get papers published and by politicians to justify requesting and spending money hey, the climate boogy man is here...just pay him to go away
(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/059/686/783/original/ewelina-absolutna-wojak5.gif?1676932667)
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 12, 2024, 08:07:01 AM
Thermometers have a well-known liberal bias
Careful, the billionaire scientist class will come for you next!
The metal support frame snapped on my tractor and I had to buy a new tractor for mowing my lawn this week. Not an inexpensive purchase anymore I quickly realized. The guy at Lowe's said they had record sales for outdoor power equipment this season and people are still buying.
MUFan
There is no doubt the cost of lawn tractor and mowers have skyrocketed. That said, I do not believe the average sales guy at Lowe's fully understands the whole story on record sales. If a tractor doubled in price, they better have record sales. I have mentioned before that my neighbor owns two Culvers and the number one thing he checks is number or transactions. If transactions go down is when he is gets nervous.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 07:50:53 AM
MUFan
There is no doubt the cost of lawn tractor and mowers have skyrocketed. That said, I do not believe the average sales guy at Lowe's fully understands the whole story on record sales. If a tractor doubled in price, they better have record sales. I have mentioned before that my neighbor owns two Culvers and the number one thing he checks is number or transactions. If transactions go down is when he is gets nervous.
Not sure buying a durable good like a lawn tractor, which is done once a decade or so, is really comparable to a value meal.
But sure. I'm sure the guy who sells them doesn't understand the whole story.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 07:50:53 AM
MUFan
There is no doubt the cost of lawn tractor and mowers have skyrocketed. That said, I do not believe the average sales guy at Lowe's fully understands the whole story on record sales. If a tractor doubled in price, they better have record sales. I have mentioned before that my neighbor owns two Culvers and the number one thing he checks is number or transactions. If transactions go down is when he is gets nervous.
Seasonal sales items like lawnmowers are often weather dependent. Not sure the weather situation in Connecticut, but here in Wisconsin, I'm sure those sales are through the roof as well.
Just like this past winter, snow removal items would have slumped.
Sultan
My point is they can have record sales on lawn garden and still likely have a 25+% reduction in units sold. I am very active in the lawn and garden space and one major brand is down over 40% on units made this year. Transactions are extremely important and are a big part of the sales story.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 07:50:53 AM
MUFan
There is no doubt the cost of lawn tractor and mowers have skyrocketed. That said, I do not believe the average sales guy at Lowe's fully understands the whole story on record sales. If a tractor doubled in price, they better have record sales. I have mentioned before that my neighbor owns two Culvers and the number one thing he checks is number or transactions. If transactions go down is when he is gets nervous.
He meant the number of units sold, not sales dollars (which is obviously probably up).
I have to wait on my bagger unit (which I don't need until September anyway) because they aren't even available for sale until Toro can put more in inventory. He said Lowe's was out nationwide. (They seemed available Sunday, but yesterday was the first chance I had to buy.)
Just fwiw
The U.S. Lawn Mower Market is projected to grow from USD 6,102.19 million in 2023 to an estimated USD 9,796.06 million by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.40% from 2024 to 2032. This robust growth trajectory is driven by increasing consumer interest in lawn care and landscaping, coupled with technological advancements in lawn mower design and functionality. As homeowners continue to invest in the aesthetic appeal and maintenance of their outdoor spaces, the demand for efficient and innovative lawn mowers is set to rise steadily over the forecast period.
https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/us-lawn-mower-market
I am genuinely curious why a guy who sells lawnmowers doesn't understand the big picture of his industry, but the guy who sells ButterBurgers is an expert on macroeconomics.
Pakuni
I would think a business owner might be a better judge of the economy over a Lowe's sales guy, but I'll follow your lead.
MUFan
I am somewhat skeptical on number of units sold but will take your word on it. Again, our client is a very well know player in lawn and garden and they projected to be down roughly 20% this year and now are forecasting a 40% reduction in units made. Granted they had inventory and their sales at the moment are not down 40%.
Hey, I listen to the idiot the owns two successful Culvers to get some insight on the economy and I should be listening to the guy at Lowe's. Lesson learned.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 09:50:05 AM
Pakuni
I would think a business owner might be a better judge of the economy over a Lowe's sales guy, but I'll follow your lead.
MUFan
I am somewhat skeptical on number of units sold but will take your word on it. Again, our client is a very well know player in lawn and garden and they projected to be down roughly 20% this year and now are forecasting a 40% reduction in units made. Granted they had inventory and their sales at the moment are not down 40%.
Hey, I listen to the idiot the owns two successful Culvers to get some insight on the economy and I should be listening to the guy at Lowe's. Lesson learned.
In summary:
Anecdotal evidence that supports your view = good.
Anecdotal evidence that contradicts your view = bad.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 09:50:05 AM
Hey, I listen to the idiot the owns two successful Culvers to get some insight on the economy and I should be listening to the guy at Lowe's. Lesson learned.
Nobody said or inferred that. It's that you dismiss what the guy from Lowes thinks, but take it for gospel what the guy who owns a Culvers thinks. Even though the two industries aren't all that comparable.
Sultan,
My neighbor is one of many people I talk to about the economy and the consumer in general. We have roughly 40 active clients and the 75% is consumer goods related across countless product categories. Our clients serve every large box store, e-commerce on their own and every major e-commerce platform. Getting an overview of every industry/business I find to be valuable.
For the record, I always ask sales guys at box stores how business is going and appreciate their feedback. That said, I always ask follow up questions. For example, if a guy says we sell every item the minute it arrives to the store, I ask if they are getting enough product delivered and how many people ask for a product and cannot buy it because of out of stock.
So, not dismissing the Lowe's guy, only questioning if he has the full story or not. As for the Culvers guy, I sure hope he does know the whole story at his business.
Culver's just prints money. Personally, I wouldn't use them as bellwether for the economy.
People still go to box stores? Lol
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 13, 2024, 10:53:40 AM
People still go to box stores? Lol
I live 5 min from a Home Depot and the parking lot is almost ALWAYS crowded. On the weekends its a zoo
Goose, serious question: You know lots of business owners and execs; does every single one of them think the economy is no good?
I'm sure I don't know as many as you do, but those I have talked to ... some say the economy is working very well for their industry, and some say the economy's not working all that well for their business right now. The one thing every one of them agrees on is that things are a hell of a lot better now than it was 4 years ago.
But maybe in your case, everyone you deal with is in "look out below!" mode. Interested to know. Thanks.
Quote from: MU82 on June 13, 2024, 11:56:39 AM
Goose, serious question: You know lots of business owners and execs; does every single one of them think the economy is no good?
I'm sure I don't know as many as you do, but those I have talked to ... some say the economy is working very well for their industry, and some say the economy's not working all that well for their business right now. The one thing every one of them agrees on is that things are a hell of a lot better now than it was 4 years ago.
But maybe in your case, everyone you deal with is in "look out below!" mode. Interested to know. Thanks.
I would hope one's business is doing better now than in the middle of Covid.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 13, 2024, 10:53:40 AM
People still go to box stores? Lol
And chain restaurants too, shockingly.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 13, 2024, 11:59:21 AM
I would hope one's business is doing better now than in the middle of Covid.
My neighbor in the mask and ventilator business is getting crushed these days.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 13, 2024, 11:32:37 AM
I live 5 min from a Home Depot and the parking lot is almost ALWAYS crowded. On the weekends its a zoo
What's great about Menards is that if I have questions, which I always do because I am not handy at all, the people there are very helpful at patient.
In addition, I walked a trade show (Mohegan Sun) yesterday and spoke to other wire manufacturers as well as wire equipment manufacturers and industry supply companies and they universally said business was better than 2023 and on a definite and noticeable upward trajectory.
6 months ago it was 2Q2024: you'll see upward increase in orders and in the 2Q everyone is confirming including my new company which has seen the same.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 13, 2024, 12:07:40 PM
My neighbor in the mask and ventilator business is getting crushed these days.
Tell him, hang in there,bird flu is coming
Quote from: Pakuni on June 13, 2024, 12:07:40 PM
My neighbor in the mask and ventilator business is getting crushed these days.
In 2020 and 2021 I talked to everyone who suddenly was getting into the mask business. My company makes aluminum flat wire and we made oodles for the nose wire on masks.
Automotive companies, Milwaukee Tool - Walmart was actually my biggest customer and despite reputation they couldn't be easier to work with.
A lot of these companies contracted with Curt G Joa in Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin.
I knew everything was dead in early 2022 when a potential customer (worlds largest mask manufacturer) wanted the nose wire less than the cost of the aluminum raw material.
82
Our clients are across the board on the economy and their specific business conditions. Our business is up a good deal this year and I happy with that. If I had to sum up the overall sentiment of our clients, it would be cautiously optimistic. Almost all of them say they are shocked by the strength of the consumer but concerned that it cannot last forever.
I can 1000% say that I have never asked or been told on the economy being better or worse than four years. While I do not talk politics with my clients as a rule, I would estimate the owners/C Suite guys are 70% R's. Not sure if they would agree on the year argument, but have not discussed. Will add, virtually every client has complained about higher interest rates, higher labor cost, higher trucking costs, higher insurance cost and tighter margins. Right now shipping container costs are rising like crazy again and that has some clients concerned.
Wags
Not disputing HD stores being a zoo, but revenues and sales are down in 2024. They are a great success story, but revenues are down, even with an increase in price for many products.
Whenever Goose posts on the economy, this is what I see:
(https://ipseprism.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/tumblr_no7c1hrxpe1td2pdjo1_250.gif?w=720)
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 12:30:39 PM
82
Our clients are across the board on the economy and their specific business conditions. Our business is up a good deal this year and I happy with that. If I had to sum up the overall sentiment of our clients, it would be cautiously optimistic. Almost all of them say they are shocked by the strength of the consumer but concerned that it cannot last forever.
I can 1000% say that I have never asked or been told on the economy being better or worse than four years. While I do not talk politics with my clients as a rule, I would estimate the owners/C Suite guys are 70% R's. Not sure if they would agree on the year argument, but have not discussed. Will add, virtually every client has complained about higher interest rates, higher labor cost, higher trucking costs, higher insurance cost and tighter margins. Right now shipping container costs are rising like crazy again and that has some clients concerned.
Thanks for your response, Goose. I was genuinely worried that everyone you know was in the dumper based on your responses in this and previous economy-related threads.
"Cautiously optimistic" is a darn good thing to be - no matter which "side" is proclaiming whatever they're proclaiming.
One thing I know will end up being true is that unemployment rates will go up and the economy will slow. The Fed will have it no other way; dual mandate apparently includes higher unemployment this time. I think they needed to raise rates higher, but that lever won't get pulled. So current rates persist longer than expected for the Fed to achieve its goals, is my very uneducated hunch.
I understand that historically the Fed waits too long to lower rates. This time could be different, I have no idea and we shall see, but history tends to be a guide that says they will get it wrong. But we are not starting with high rates to begin with so maybe not.
I know psychologically people will not understand that they pay more and earn more (for most people). They will just see that a bag of chips goes for $5.99 and it used to cost $3.50. And they will talk about that $3.50 bag of Doritos for decades. But will instead buy the Meijer brand and pay $2.99 and realize it's just as good (oh wait, that's me, sorry)
One odd thing is that rates are pretty much at historical norms, so the Fed thinks they can achieve a slower economy and thus higher unemployment at what is pretty normal rate levels. That is interesting and I don't know what that means. Except maybe the bond play won't have as MUCH bang even if the economy slows. So buying longer term bond funds might not be the right move even though history says it is. And with the deficits, there are a lot of bonds to sell, so maybe 10 year bonds don't fall as much as they should even with a mild recession. And add in if the election goes the way it appears it will, we could end up with lower taxes longer and continued high spending and thus even bigger deficits to fund. More pressure on bond prices and rates stay higher. But history says allocate more to longer duration treasuries, so personally that's what I've started doing with an etf. I'm very heavy equity for my age, intentionally, and will so continue, but history says to fatten up on bonds.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 13, 2024, 12:09:51 PM
Tell him, hang in there,bird flu is coming
I like your optimism, lawdog
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 13, 2024, 12:41:03 PM
Whenever Goose posts on the economy, this is what I see:
(https://ipseprism.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/tumblr_no7c1hrxpe1td2pdjo1_250.gif?w=720)
Not to ride in like a white knight for Goose, but knowing the business he is in and contrasting his economic gloominess with otherwise positivity, I actually get it. A large number of people I know in very global/international facing businesses and roles can be pretty gloomy. There is A LOT of information and data out there, and unless its a superstar success story in an emerging economy or industry, often times the negative noise is what is the loudest. It doesn't necessarily mean that a disaster is coming, but it makes you a bit overly cautious to others. Add to that his expertise and exposure to China, and it makes even more sense cause there are so many toxic pits of danger there and even less transparency/outlook than you'd normally expect.
Amusingly enough, globally focused people I know from developing or struggling/chaotic economies (India, some African countries, parts of SE Asia) are actually the opposite. The negativity and headwinds in their own country get washed out to some extent by the success and upside they see in better markets (yes, even like the US) so they have a more positive outlook than their peers.
Some of you live in a very different world than I do. Pretty interesting how different everyone's experience is.
There are very few big box stores around me these days. I figured they went the way of the dinosaur everywhere in the US.
Business owners I work with all have very aggressive growth goals that they're hitting. The ones in Europe are hitting them by targeting the US, but it's a global economy so you just sell where there's an outsized economic boom. Makes sense, though, that some sectors struggle.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 13, 2024, 11:59:21 AM
I would hope one's business is doing better now than in the middle of Covid.
Exactly.
The vast majority are doing better, obviously, but some lie for political reasons.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 13, 2024, 03:24:07 PM
Not to ride in like a white knight for Goose, but knowing the business he is in and contrasting his economic gloominess with otherwise positivity, I actually get it. A large number of people I know in very global/international facing businesses and roles can be pretty gloomy. There is A LOT of information and data out there, and unless its a superstar success story in an emerging economy or industry, often times the negative noise is what is the loudest. It doesn't necessarily mean that a disaster is coming, but it makes you a bit overly cautious to others. Add to that his expertise and exposure to China, and it makes even more sense cause there are so many toxic pits of danger there and even less transparency/outlook than you'd normally expect.
Amusingly enough, globally focused people I know from developing or struggling/chaotic economies (India, some African countries, parts of SE Asia) are actually the opposite. The negativity and headwinds in their own country get washed out to some extent by the success and upside they see in better markets (yes, even like the US) so they have a more positive outlook than their peers.
Nobody with a brain would dispute any of that Wags.
My overriding point has been that's the way it's been for a long, long time, regardless of which party has occupied the White House or Congress.
Wags
Our business in India is growing like crazy, as well as Cambodia and Pakistan. While 82 and others like to point out that I am gloomy, I am simply offering my perspective. While I think things are less rosy than others, does not mean I think the sky is falling. That said, I do think there have been warning signs for quite some time that give me reason to watch and listen closely.
In all seriousness, I could not be happier that 82 has done great with his AAPL and MSFT holdings, I am not sure that is great barometer of the overall economy. Whatever the case, I appreciate your post.
Quote from: MU82 on June 13, 2024, 04:40:26 PM
Nobody with a brain would dispute any of that Wags.
My overriding point has been that's the way it's been for a long, long time, regardless of which party has occupied the White House or Congress.
Of course, I guess I didn't necessarily see anything overwhelmingly political to his "gloominess" specifically.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 13, 2024, 04:09:59 PM
Business owners I work with all have very aggressive growth goals that they're hitting. The ones in Europe are hitting them by targeting the US, but it's a global economy so you just sell where there's an outsized economic boom. Makes sense, though, that some sectors struggle.
Ive said it a few times, but its a fairly bizarre economy right now, very sector by sector. Higher cost items that a very irregular purchases (aka every few years, if not longer) are struggling due to a lot of demand getting gobbled up by COVID money/lack of places to spend over the last few years. So you have people who are getting whacked a decent bit by that, even if the overall economy is good.
Then I think looking at only sales/revenue can be tricky given then inflationary environment recently, as well as logistical supply chain challenges the last 18-24 months. I know people who have had sales grow of 15-20% from 2022 now, but had margins slashed by a third or more. Contrary to what people think, you can't always just jack up prices immediately cause your costs have increased, especially in a B2B environment.
I know none of this is new or abnormal to you, but I find an annoying amount of people who think "rising tide lifts all boats" in a
hot economy means people are crushing it or else they suck at business.
Purely anecdotal, but I know a mid sized retail chain who filed for bankruptcy in Q1 who actually had sales growth from 2022-2023 and similar to start 2024. But their supply chain was torched, a majorly supplier left the market they supplied and others were raising prices AND doubling lead times, plus some staffing issues. They made a few mistakes and probably leaned on some suppliers too much (due to 10 year+ relationships) but it wasn't simple gross negligence or mismanagement that did them in.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 13, 2024, 05:19:50 PM
Of course, I guess I didn't necessarily see anything overwhelmingly political to his "gloominess" specifically.
Nor was I suggesting there was. If it looked like that's what I was suggesting, I apologize. For many others, however, politics do enter into it. Plenty of people are actively rooting for the economy to fail right now.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 13, 2024, 05:19:50 PM
Ive said it a few times, but its a fairly bizarre economy right now, very sector by sector.
And what I've said a few times is that this isn't that bizarre. Pretty much always there are sectors doing better or worse than other sectors.
What would be bizarre would be if there actually was a recession despite the employment data and consumer activity we've had.
Quote from: Goose on June 13, 2024, 05:10:15 PM
In all seriousness, I could not be happier that 82 has done great with his AAPL and MSFT holdings, I am not sure that is great barometer of the overall economy.
The subject of AAPL came up, and I mentioned that I'm glad I've been a shareholder - and that I wasn't dissuaded years ago by at least one other Scooper calling AAPL doomed.
In general, I think the stock market is a rather poor barometer of the economy, and I've never said otherwise.
Of course, anecdotes aren't the greatest barometer of the overall economy, either. That's obvious just in today's posts, where one Scooper has pointed to anecdotes suggesting that the economy might be very good and another has pointed to anecdotes suggesting that the economy might be struggling.
Thanks for the kind words, Goose, and I wish you and yours good fortune, too.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/07/biden-has-an-economic-story-to-tell-and-yet-00162338#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%20the%20nation%20got,housing%20and%20high%20interest%20rates.
The economy is great! Voters are just dumb!
QuoteInside Biden's orbit, the fear is that there's little new the administration can do to change the perceptions of a stubborn electorate that's living through an upswing — yet simply refusing to believe it.
I'm wrong
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 15, 2024, 08:44:16 AM
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/07/biden-has-an-economic-story-to-tell-and-yet-00162338#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%20the%20nation%20got,housing%20and%20high%20interest%20rates.
IMO, the reality is that inflation over the last 4 years has significantly outpaced wage growth - especially for the bottom 50%.
That might be perception, but not reality
Fastest wage growth over the last four years among historically disadvantaged groupsLow-wage workers' wages surged after decades of slow growth
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/#:~:text=Real%20wages%20of%20low%2Dwage,the%20prior%20four%20business%20cycles.
"Real wages of low-wage workers grew 12.1% between 2019 and 2023. Wage growth among low- and middle-wage workers over the pandemic business cycle has outpaced not only higher wage groups over the same period, but also its own growth compared to the prior four business cycles.
Wage rates remain insufficient for individuals and families working to make ends meet. Nowhere can a worker at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution earn enough to meet a basic family budget.
Black men, young workers, and working mothers experienced particularly fast wage growth over the last four years. After growing for many groups in the prior forty years, key wage gaps narrowed between 2019 and 2023, but still remain large."
(https://images2.imgbox.com/97/c7/uTU9Wvq2_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/uTU9Wvq2)
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 15, 2024, 09:44:42 AM
That might be perception, but not reality
Fastest wage growth over the last four years among historically disadvantaged groups
Low-wage workers' wages surged after decades of slow growth
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/#:~:text=Real%20wages%20of%20low%2Dwage,the%20prior%20four%20business%20cycles.
"Real wages of low-wage workers grew 12.1% between 2019 and 2023. Wage growth among low- and middle-wage workers over the pandemic business cycle has outpaced not only higher wage groups over the same period, but also its own growth compared to the prior four business cycles.
Wage rates remain insufficient for individuals and families working to make ends meet. Nowhere can a worker at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution earn enough to meet a basic family budget.
Black men, young workers, and working mothers experienced particularly fast wage growth over the last four years. After growing for many groups in the prior forty years, key wage gaps narrowed between 2019 and 2023, but still remain large."
(https://images2.imgbox.com/97/c7/uTU9Wvq2_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/uTU9Wvq2)
12% wage growth 2019-23
What's the inflation on various categories important for daily living (housing, food, gas, utilities) in that same time?
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/apr/how-big-mac-index-relates-overall-consumer-inflation
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 15, 2024, 09:56:32 AM
12% wage growth 2019-23
What's the inflation on various categories important for daily living (housing, food, gas, utilities) in that same time?
No, 12% real wage growth, i.e., net of inflation
Quote from: rocky_warrior on June 15, 2024, 10:34:29 AM
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/apr/how-big-mac-index-relates-overall-consumer-inflation
Yeah, I have anecdotally noticed all fast food prices have skyrocketed far faster than general inflation
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 15, 2024, 10:42:40 AM
Yeah, I have anecdotally noticed all fast food prices have skyrocketed far faster than general inflation
Right, but other than the 2013 and 2016 big mac jumps (I know, you can't actually take those away), it's pretty even with CPI. Perhaps a lagging inflation indicator though.
Hellofa lot more to da Presidency dan weather da rich get richer and da pour get pourer, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 15, 2024, 12:24:50 PM
Hellofa lot more to da Presidency dan weather da rich get richer and da pour get pourer, hey?
If you can point to any presidency where the rich didn't get richer and the poor poorer, please direct me to that miracle
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 15, 2024, 03:31:59 PM
If you can point to any presidency where the rich didn't get richer and the poor poorer, please direct me to that miracle
FDR?
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on June 15, 2024, 10:40:17 AM
No, 12% real wage growth, i.e., net of inflation
Interesting.
There's been about 22% of cumulative inflation since 2019.
So does that mean low wage earners have seen their paychecks rise 34% over that same time?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 16, 2024, 08:38:02 PM
Interesting.
There's been about 22% of cumulative inflation since 2019.
So does that mean low wage earners have seen their paychecks rise 34% over that same time?
Yes. That is all in the article, which is pretty detailed. Here's a break down hourly wages, explaining some of their terms:
> Between 2019 and 2023, hourly wage growth was strongest at the bottom of the wage distribution. The 10th-percentile real hourly wage grew 12.1% over the four-year period. To be clear, these are real (inflation-adjusted) wage changes. Overall inflation grew nearly 20%, or about 4.5% annually, between 2019 and 2023. Even with this historically fast inflation, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic recession, low-end wages grew substantially faster than price growth. Nominal wages (i.e., not inflation-adjusted) rose by roughly 34% cumulatively since 2019.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 16, 2024, 09:19:15 PM
Yes. That is all in the article, which is pretty detailed. Here's a break down hourly wages, explaining some of their terms
Socialists will never be happy. Thankfully we don't adopt their ways
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 16, 2024, 09:19:15 PM
Yes. That is all in the article, which is pretty detailed. Here's a break down hourly wages, explaining some of their terms:
> Between 2019 and 2023, hourly wage growth was strongest at the bottom of the wage distribution. The 10th-percentile real hourly wage grew 12.1% over the four-year period. To be clear, these are real (inflation-adjusted) wage changes. Overall inflation grew nearly 20%, or about 4.5% annually, between 2019 and 2023. Even with this historically fast inflation, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic recession, low-end wages grew substantially faster than price growth. Nominal wages (i.e., not inflation-adjusted) rose by roughly 34% cumulatively since 2019.
A big chunk leaving the workforce/dying probably helped push this I imagine
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 17, 2024, 01:15:24 PM
A big chunk leaving the workforce/dying probably helped push this I imagine
I agree. Add to that, anyone that could remove themselves from an "essential worker" position did (or currently is shifting, burnout is real). From servers to nurses and teachers. It's a wild shift in the economy away from once desirable positions, beyond just minimum wage workers. I'm interested in seeing more studies in the coming years, and the rising wages soon to try to attract talent.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 17, 2024, 04:32:28 PM
I agree. Add to that, anyone that could remove themselves from an "essential worker" position did (or currently is shifting, burnout is real). From servers to nurses and teachers. It's a wild shift in the economy away from once desirable positions, beyond just minimum wage workers. I'm interested in seeing more studies in the coming years, and the rising wages soon to try to attract talent.
Hiring in finance has certainly been fascinating both local and nationally. That isn't even remotely close to what I would consider essential either. I can only imagine what it is like to be working in talent acquisition in healthcare right now.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 17, 2024, 05:38:25 PM
Hiring in finance has certainly been fascinating both local and nationally. That isn't even remotely close to what I would consider essential either. I can only imagine what it is like to be working in talent acquisition in healthcare right now.
Finance is a weird one, in my limited experience, because of the extreme return to office policies at most of the major firms. My friends at Citi and JP moved into tech when the CEOs tried to pull that crap.
Remote-first companies have a distinct hiring advantage for individual contributors, but it introduces a hiring challenge for leadership because not all of them are capable of managing a distributed team.
I work at early stage companies, though, so I live in a bubble on some of this stuff.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 17, 2024, 05:47:31 PM
Finance is a weird one, in my limited experience, because of the extreme return to office policies at most of the major firms. My friends at Citi and JP moved into tech when the CEOs tried to pull that crap.
Remote-first companies have a distinct hiring advantage for individual contributors, but it introduces a hiring challenge for leadership because not all of them are capable of managing a distributed team.
I work at early stage companies, though, so I live in a bubble on some of this stuff.
We were hybrid 2-3 times a week earlier than most but have not changed that policy since others corrected back the other way and hemorrhaged employees as a result. Our last couple new people took positions with our company because of the flexibility it offers.
Back to office is a convenient way to do layoffs without paying severance though. Couple big firms here pretty obviously did it for that reason because they announced layoffs a few months after return to office
I've been told raising wages would spell doom for restaurants.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/waffle-house-increasing-pay-u-154925379.html
Quote from: Pakuni on June 17, 2024, 06:33:40 PM
I've been told raising wages would spell doom for restaurants.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/waffle-house-increasing-pay-u-154925379.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-industry-claims-california-181056511.html
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 17, 2024, 06:42:35 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-industry-claims-california-181056511.html
No way!
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 17, 2024, 06:42:35 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-industry-claims-california-181056511.html
You might want to read the comments section to this article. Lots of interesting stuff.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 17, 2024, 11:57:16 PM
You might want to read the comments section to this article. Lots of interesting stuff.
I mean, what could go wrong trusting a bunch of anonymous internet commentators on a message board.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 17, 2024, 11:57:16 PM
You might want to read the comments section to this article. Lots of interesting stuff.
First rule of keeping one's sanity:Don't read, or at the least, don't believe comments under an internet article.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 17, 2024, 11:57:16 PM
You might want to read the comments section to this article. Lots of interesting stuff.
Which comments did you find interesting?
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 18, 2024, 04:43:10 AM
First rule of keeping one's sanity:Don't read, or at the least, don't believe comments under an internet article.
I second this.
Quote from: reinko on June 18, 2024, 04:24:38 AM
I mean, what could go wrong trusting a bunch of anonymous internet commentators on a message board.
I think what Lenny means is, ya don't have to believe everything you read, but it sort of gives you a pulse to what the sentiment may be.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 18, 2024, 06:28:09 AM
I think what Lenny means is, ya don't have to believe everything you read, but it sort of gives you a pulse to what the sentiment may be.
I guess if you believe that anecdotes and feelings are more important than actual data.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 18, 2024, 08:26:37 AM
I guess if you believe that anecdotes and feelings are more important than actual data.
Feel free to accept everything in the article as unvarnished fact. Or feel free to read comments that point out some of the article's inaccuracies. I read both the article and many of the comments. Found both interesting, but whatever floats your boat or fits your preferred notions.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 18, 2024, 08:44:04 AM
Feel free to accept everything in the article as unvarnished fact. Or feel free to read comments that point out some of the article's inaccuracies. I read both the article and many of the comments. Found both interesting, but whatever floats your boat or fits your preferred notions.
You making this statement is the most ironic of ironies. You have shown no ability to separate actual facts from "your preferred notions."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 18, 2024, 08:44:04 AM
Feel free to accept everything in the article as unvarnished fact. Or feel free to read comments that point out some of the article's inaccuracies. I read both the article and many of the comments. Found both interesting, but whatever floats your boat or fits your preferred notions.
A data-driven article written by a Pultizer-winning author and published by a major newspaper, and anonymous Yahoo! comments probably don't deserve equal consideration.
Unless, of course, one needs the latter to validate a preferred notion
Quote from: Pakuni on June 18, 2024, 09:12:26 AM
A data-driven article written by a Pultizer-winning author and published by a major newspaper, and anonymous Yahoo! comments probably don't deserve equal consideration.
Unless, of course, one needs the latter to validate a preferred notion
Bingo.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 18, 2024, 08:44:04 AM
Feel free to accept everything in the article as unvarnished fact. Or feel free to read comments that point out some of the article's inaccuracies. I read both the article and many of the comments. Found both interesting, but whatever floats your boat or fits your preferred notions.
Lmao
I suppose it does say something though about people's perception of the economy vs data. There are a lot of conflicting forces trying to tell people what they should interpret the current state of things as. The Vibecession is a real thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibecession
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 10:27:23 AM
I suppose it does say something though about people's perception of the economy vs data. There are a lot of conflicting forces trying to tell people what they should interpret the current state of things as. The Vibecession is a real thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibecession
1. People don't understand the economy, so they seek out people to tell them what's happening
2. People are bad at selecting authoritative sources of information
I mean, most people on Scoop went to Marquette, so they're smarter than the average American. That's scary.
I think the biggest issue is that people treat inflation as something that happens *to* you, but any increase in wages is something that you *earned.*
Can't remember whose post it was a week or two ago, but the perceptions of what's going on in the economy vs. what's actually going on in the economy were diametric opposites.
People thought unemployment was at an all-time high vs near an all-time low, that the stock market was down this year vs way up, etc.
It's easy to laugh and say, "silly knuckleheads" ... but those people vote, too.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 18, 2024, 08:26:37 AM
I guess if you believe that anecdotes and feelings are more important than actual data.
no, it gives one(maybe not you sally) a pulse of what others(either side of the aisle) are thinking or feeling about the issue at hand. it doesn't mean that is correct or incorrect...i guess
Quote from: MU82 on June 18, 2024, 10:57:29 AM
Can't remember whose post it was a week or two ago, but the perceptions of what's going on in the economy vs. what's actually going on in the economy were diametric opposites.
People thought unemployment was at an all-time high vs near an all-time low, that the stock market was down this year vs way up, etc.
It's easy to laugh and say, "silly knuckleheads" ... but those people vote, too.
This is the case for many/most basic facts of our current reality. There is no consensus about what is true, and no way to form consensus. It's a real problem!
For example, when discussing unemployment, Person A might say "unemployment is historically low," but Person B who is marinated in a reality that believes that unemployment is high will simply say something like "they're not actually measuring the *true* unemployment rate, because people who drop out of the labor force aren't counted." This is something that is actually accounted for in official statistics, but there's no use pointing it out because Person B has reached a conclusion about what he believes reality to be based entirely on vibes.
It's a vibecession, It's all vibes. It's the kind of thing that allows people to say something like "well, sure I have a job, and my portfolio/retirement is up, but <vague non-specific negative perception X> so the *real* world is in a recession." Some variant of this mantra is cited on this message board several times a day.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 18, 2024, 11:18:34 AM
This is the case for many/most basic facts of our current reality. There is no consensus about what is true, and no way to form consensus. It's a real problem!
For example, when discussing unemployment, Person A might say "unemployment is historically low," but Person B who is marinated in a reality that believes that unemployment is high will simply say something like "they're not actually measuring the *true* unemployment rate, because people who drop out of the labor force aren't counted." This is something that is actually accounted for in official statistics, but there's no use pointing it out because Person B has reached a conclusion about what he believes reality to be based entirely on vibes.
It's a vibecession, It's all vibes. It's the kind of thing that allows people to say something like "well, sure I have a job, and my portfolio/retirement is up, but <vague non-specific negative perception X> so the *real* world is in a recession." Some variant of this mantra is cited on this message board several times a day.
Similarly, climate change isn't real until someone's own house gets wiped out with water. Many people cannot or will not quantify it mentally until it happens to them.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 11:21:57 AM
Similarly, climate change isn't real until someone's own house gets wiped out with water. Many people cannot or will not quantify it mentally until it happens to them.
Just wait until Soroism and Communism hits them
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 11:21:57 AM
Similarly, climate change isn't real until someone's own house gets wiped out with water. Many people cannot or will not quantify it mentally until it happens to them.
Like politics, all economics is local.
If you are out of a job, the unemployment rate is 100% as far as you are concerned.
Quote from: warriorchick on June 18, 2024, 11:59:41 AM
Like politics, all economics is local.
If you are out of a job, the unemployment rate is 100% as far as you are concerned.
Absolutely. American individualism does not help the phenomenon of empathy.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 11:23:34 AM
Just wait until Soroism and Communism hits them
I thought it was already here
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 11:23:34 AM
Just wait until Soroism and Communism hits them
Already hit with Obamism, hey?
Quote from: jficke13 on June 18, 2024, 12:29:58 PM
Sounds like onanism.
I was thinking embolism but yours is good too
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 12:38:17 PM
Kenyan Islam
Beats watching the economy crater like it did under Bush. What a disaster that presidency was for the country. He let 9-11 happen, saw his armed services committed war crimes, ignored Katrina and then cratered the economy on his way out.
But he didn't commit any felonies at least
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 12:49:53 PM
But he didn't commit any felonies at least
That's because he's a RINO.
Sadly, y'all ain't seen nothin' yet. Hold on to your tuchus, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 18, 2024, 12:56:28 PM
Sadly, y'all ain't seen nothin' yet. Hold on to your tuchus, hey?
Fear and control.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 18, 2024, 12:58:58 PM
Fear and control.
Imagine believing what 4elder believes? Hard to believe someone could be that colossally stupid, but here we are. Decades of Fox News and Burnin' in Hell Rush Limbaugh do the mind great harm.
Anyway, the first cries America was turning to communism began during the Rutherford B. Hayes presidency back in the late 1870's. I'm sure it'll happen any day now, 150 years after the great red panic began
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 01:04:38 PM
Imagine believing what 4elder believes? Hard to believe someone could be that colossally stupid, but here we are. Decades of Fox News and Burnin' in Hell Rush Limbaugh do the mind great harm.
Anyway, the first cries America was turning to communism began during the Rutherford B. Hayes presidency back in the late 1870's. I'm sure it'll happen any day now, 150 years after the great red panic began
Exactly, I mean any day now, the Supreme Court super majority is gonna pull off their masks Scooby-Doo style, and underneath its gonna be Obama, a trans youth with purple hair, and some dude named Boris ready to plunge the USA into a socialist nightmare.
Quote from: reinko on June 18, 2024, 01:11:19 PM
Exactly, I mean any day now, the Supreme Court super majority is gonna pull off their masks Scooby-Doo style, and underneath its gonna be Obama, a trans youth with purple hair, and some dude named Boris ready to plunge the USA into a socialist nightmare.
The boogeyman, Soros, plan is all coming together. Is that anti-Semitic? Suppose not. Good.
I have a recurring nightmare. These are in it:
(https://developer-blogs.nvidia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image6.png)
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 01:14:57 PM
The boogeyman, Soros, plan is all coming together. Is that anti-Semitic? Suppose not. Good.
The two individuals most responsible for creating this dystopian hellscape are a black guy and an old Jew.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 18, 2024, 01:22:00 PM
The two individuals most responsible for creating this dystopian hellscape are a black guy and an old Jew.
I bet he's anti-zionist, so he's not even one of the good ones
So ignorance really is bliss, aina?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 18, 2024, 02:02:22 PM
So ignorance really is bliss, aina?
So Biden who is half dead, and droolz all over himself, a Senate that will be 51/49 in either direction, an R house, and Supreme Court that has super majority of people on the right are poised to end our country as we know it?
Please tell me how this happens. I'm genuinely curious
Quote from: reinko on June 18, 2024, 02:06:37 PM
So Biden who is half dead, and droolz all over himself, a Senate that will be 51/49 in either direction, an R house, and Supreme Court that has super majority of people on the right are poised to end our country as we know it?
Please tell me how this happens. I'm genuinely curious
Well, Obama is running the country with the financial help of Soros who is part of a global cabal whose goal is to make America socialist and unleash hordes of Palestinians into our country which will allow Biden to have the Supreme Court declare martial law and then pass laws written by the Stonecutter's whose membership includes all of Silicon Valley, the oil industry, China and the Rothschilds. After this happens, all guns will be collected and melted down to make flying cars that run on bullets that have been turned into fuel.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
Well, Obama is running the country with the financial help of Soros who is part of a global cabal whose goal is to make America socialist and unleash hordes of Palestinians into our country which will allow Biden to have the Supreme Court declare martial law and then pass laws written by the Stonecutter's whose membership includes all of Silicon Valley, the oil industry, China and the Rothschilds. After this happens, all guns will be collected and melted down to make flying cars that run on bullets that have been turned into fuel.
Reasonable.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 18, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
Well, Obama is running the country with the financial help of Soros who is part of a global cabal whose goal is to make America socialist and unleash hordes of Palestinians into our country which will allow Biden to have the Supreme Court declare martial law and then pass laws written by the Stonecutter's whose membership includes all of Silicon Valley, the oil industry, China and the Rothschilds. After this happens, all guns will be collected and melted down to make flying cars that run on bullets that have been turned into fuel.
you forgot pronouns tattooed on each conservative's arm.
We won't need pronouns in our new world, comrade
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 18, 2024, 05:21:09 PM
We won't need pronouns in our new world, comrade
In new world, pronouns will answer to us, comrade.
(https://images.app.goo.gl/JHpNAoeXcHoEyDxi6)
Quote from: reinko on June 18, 2024, 05:28:49 PM
In new world, pronouns will answer to us, comrade.
(https://images.app.goo.gl/JHpNAoeXcHoEyDxi6)
You're right, everything will be "We"
Except for those who view everyone as a 'they' to be feared and hated.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 05:49:55 PM
You're right, everything will be "We"
Not enough Zamyatin references on this site.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 18, 2024, 06:31:12 PM
Not enough Zamyatin references on this site.
Can't spell Bolsheviks without libs
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 18, 2024, 11:21:57 AM
Similarly, climate change isn't real until someone's own house gets wiped out with water. Many people cannot or will not quantify it mentally until it happens to them.
what?? a house gets "wiped out with water" and it's,,,climate change?? speakin of mental...whoooeee, now this is where the problem is folks...exhibit A, B & C
ya see water was never a problem back in stone ages because they didn't build their caves near flood zones and the glaciers weren't melting, right?? plus they didn't have smoke belching factories, right?
there is so much fun we could have with this one. your brain has been hit with too much water i see
go look up topographical maps of what the world might have looked like over the different "ages" or did all you global blah blah freaks burn all those, wait, sorry, compost is better for the environment, eyn'a?
WTF are you even saying here?
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 19, 2024, 05:45:57 AM
WTF are you even saying here?
Trust me Google translate is no help either.
Quote from: Spotcheck Billy on June 19, 2024, 08:28:12 AM
Trust me Google translate is no help either.
You have to wade into the Yahoo comments section to translate. Long live Scoop!
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 05:29:50 AM
what?? a house gets "wiped out with water" and it's,,,climate change?? speakin of mental...whoooeee, now this is where the problem is folks...exhibit A, B & C
ya see water was never a problem back in stone ages because they didn't build their caves near flood zones and the glaciers weren't melting, right?? plus they didn't have smoke belching factories, right?
there is so much fun we could have with this one. your brain has been hit with too much water i see
go look up topographical maps of what the world might have looked like over the different "ages" or did all you global blah blah freaks burn all those, wait, sorry, compost is better for the environment, eyn'a?
Let me help you out a little here, rocket. Let's assume your position that human's actions do not affect the climate. Even if that were true, shouldn't we be doing all we can to protect the environment, forests, natural habitats, clean air, etc? How does it affect you negatively if we have things like the Clean Air Act, etc?
A Portrait of Roqqet...
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5c/7f/DExwrIfs_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/DExwrIfs)
...with less incoherent word salad
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 05:29:50 AM
what?? a house gets "wiped out with water" and it's,,,climate change?? speakin of mental...whoooeee, now this is where the problem is folks...exhibit A, B & C
ya see water was never a problem back in stone ages because they didn't build their caves near flood zones and the glaciers weren't melting, right?? plus they didn't have smoke belching factories, right?
there is so much fun we could have with this one. your brain has been hit with too much water i see
go look up topographical maps of what the world might have looked like over the different "ages" or did all you global blah blah freaks burn all those, wait, sorry, compost is better for the environment, eyn'a?
I was giving an example of people needing personal impact in order to care about a problem.
Why are you so much more often an unhinged dip$hit at 5 am?
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 19, 2024, 11:06:35 AM
I was giving an example of people needing personal impact in order to care about a problem.
Why are you so much more often an unhinged dip$hit at 5 am?
Despite the name, sundowning also can occur in the early morning.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 18, 2024, 11:18:34 AM
This is the case for many/most basic facts of our current reality. There is no consensus about what is true, and no way to form consensus. It's a real problem!
For example, when discussing unemployment, Person A might say "unemployment is historically low," but Person B who is marinated in a reality that believes that unemployment is high will simply say something like "they're not actually measuring the *true* unemployment rate, because people who drop out of the labor force aren't counted." This is something that is actually accounted for in official statistics, but there's no use pointing it out because Person B has reached a conclusion about what he believes reality to be based entirely on vibes.
It's a vibecession, It's all vibes. It's the kind of thing that allows people to say something like "well, sure I have a job, and my portfolio/retirement is up, but <vague non-specific negative perception X> so the *real* world is in a recession." Some variant of this mantra is cited on this message board several times a day.
Ha bingo, I think earlier this year I described perceptions of the economy as 'vibes' based.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 19, 2024, 11:06:35 AM
Why are you so much more often an unhinged dip$hit at 5 am?
Please don't sell roQQet short - he's also quite often an unhinged dip$hit at every other time of day, too.
(https://y.yarn.co/70d843d0-3a95-4556-bd09-aa38ad7903ff_text.gif)
Quote from: MU82 on June 19, 2024, 01:23:58 PM
Please don't sell roQQet short - he's also quite often an unhinged dip$hit at every other time of day, too.
(https://y.yarn.co/70d843d0-3a95-4556-bd09-aa38ad7903ff_text.gif)
Vote counts just the same as ours 🙏
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 19, 2024, 01:33:11 PM
Vote counts just the same as ours 🙏
Possibly more, depending on what state you live in.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 19, 2024, 11:06:35 AM
I was giving an example of people needing personal impact in order to care about a problem.
Why are you so much more often an unhinged dip$hit at 5 am?
so, if i am impacted by water flooding my house, i'm going to start joining the global warming crowd? nope!
unhinged at 5 am?? you guys are unhinged 24/7 and that's ok. i don't have the time to stand guard here at scoop as most of you do
let me be clear, global warming/climate change the way you guys understand it and try to force it upon others as science is a big hoax. climate change has literally been occurring since the beginning of time, NOT because of man's activities. do you realize when a volcano blows, it creates climate change? the algores et.al. have been so wrong about this stuff for years, but continue to flaunt this crap. how much money do we continue to throw at this and what have the results been?
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
so, if i am impacted by water flooding my house, i'm going to start joining the global warming crowd? nope!
unhinged at 5 am?? you guys are unhinged 24/7 and that's ok. i don't have the time to stand guard here at scoop as most of you do
let me be clear, global warming/climate change the way you guys understand it and try to force it upon others as science is a big hoax. climate change has literally been occurring since the beginning of time, NOT because of man's activities. do you realize when a volcano blows, it creates climate change? the algores et.al. have been so wrong about this stuff for years, but continue to flaunt this crap. how much money do we continue to throw at this and what have the results been?
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
You're an idiot. Your opinion is wrong, and ignores all scientific fact.
Stick to teeth.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on June 19, 2024, 02:01:40 PM
You're an idiot. Your opinion is wrong, and ignores all scientific fact.
Stick to teeth.
And pray for his patients.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
so, if i am impacted by water flooding my house, i'm going to start joining the global warming crowd? nope!
unhinged at 5 am?? you guys are unhinged 24/7 and that's ok. i don't have the time to stand guard here at scoop as most of you do
let me be clear, global warming/climate change the way you guys understand it and try to force it upon others as science is a big hoax. climate change has literally been occurring since the beginning of time, NOT because of man's activities. do you realize when a volcano blows, it creates climate change? the algores et.al. have been so wrong about this stuff for years, but continue to flaunt this crap. how much money do we continue to throw at this and what have the results been?
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
This guy whistles at the john to remember which end it comes out
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
so, if i am impacted by water flooding my house, i'm going to start joining the global warming crowd? nope!
unhinged at 5 am?? you guys are unhinged 24/7 and that's ok. i don't have the time to stand guard here at scoop as most of you do
let me be clear, global warming/climate change the way you guys understand it and try to force it upon others as science is a big hoax. climate change has literally been occurring since the beginning of time, NOT because of man's activities. do you realize when a volcano blows, it creates climate change? the algores et.al. have been so wrong about this stuff for years, but continue to flaunt this crap. how much money do we continue to throw at this and what have the results been?
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
The amount of money the US govertment throws at climate issues is pocket change.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
Yep, there are many more flat-earthers out there. Many more who think that the world is only 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode dinosaurs.
I will say that I have modestly modified my thoughts on climate change over the past few years and am not opposed to doing research. That said, l will say that is based off of the pocket change lawdog noted. I have compared that spending to me throwing a couple of rolls of nickels out my car window on my way to work.
I am not anywhere near thinking this should be top priority or crazy high expenditure by the government, but doing honest research at a reasonable spend is fine by me.
I had an outstanding science teacher in 7th and 8th grade and he made watching weather into a 50 year hobby for me. Five or six years ago I thought climate change was 100% a scam and I will say that my stance was moderated to still too early to tell, but I'm fine throwing nickels out the car window to get more data.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 05:45:25 PM
I will say that I have modestly modified my thoughts on climate change over the past few years and am not opposed to doing research. That said, l will say that is based off of the pocket change lawdog noted. I have compared that spending to me throwing a couple of rolls of nickels out my car window on my way to work.
I am not anywhere near thinking this should be top priority or crazy high expenditure by the government, but doing honest research at a reasonable spend is fine by me.
I had an outstanding science teacher in 7th and 8th grade and he made watching weather into a 50 year hobby for me. Five or six years ago I thought climate change was 100% a scam and I will say that my stance was moderated to still too early to tell, but I'm fine throwing nickels out the car window to get more data.
See the thing is, it's not really up for debate to throwing "a few nickels to get more data". The data's there. It's scientific consensus. 91% of all scientists and 98.7% of climate scientists.
"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated."
Sowing doubt in it is either financial beneficial astroturfing or pseudoscience. Or maybe denial of humanity's faults? I dunno.
I think the debate resides with what we should be doing about it now, not whether it exists. (Unless you're a dentist?)
PLM
If that is your belief, every politician that does not support righting the ship as being a top, top priority should be banned from political office. If they have data that indicates flat out proof that the climate and world is in trouble, there should be no other agenda for them.
If you are correct, why are they only throwing nickels out of their limousines?
The oil companies pay more.
tower
That is a cop out. I cannot believe there is not one person of character that has true inside info that would not be a real whistleblower. I agree data indicates there are changes, but I do not see anyone betting their political career to save the planet.
There's far bigger fish to fry than da Buffoon's Green Energy nonsense, hey?
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 06:53:10 PM
tower
That is a cop out. I cannot believe there is not one person of character that has true inside info that would not be a real whistleblower. I agree data indicates there are changes, but I do not see anyone betting their political career to save the planet.
What's the average age of the politician you are referring to vs the timeline of climate impacts?
Did Exxon scientists in the 1970s not predict this sort of thing but was withheld?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Perhaps everyone is just betting either someone else will take care of the problem or they'll make enough money to be shielded from the effects.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 19, 2024, 06:53:39 PM
There's far bigger fish to fry than da Buffoon's Green Energy nonsense, hey?
Yeah the fish are getting fried themselves in the gulf these days
Goose, nobody in America. Look at what is being done with solar in China, in Europe. In America, even baby steps are demonized. California has reached the point that many days they are producing 100 % of their energy via nuclear and renewables. This is pointedly ignored or criticized. How many EV companies in China supplying the rest of the world? BYD selling more EVs than Tesla.
The revolution is happening elsewhere. The opportunity awaits America. Here, instead of seizing it, the games continue to be played. The inconvenient truth that the rest of the world accepts gets mocked.
In short, the whistle is being blown constantly.
Quote from: tower912 on June 19, 2024, 07:05:18 PM
Goose, nobody in America. Look at what is being done with solar in China, in Europe. In America, even baby steps are demonized. California has reached the point that many days they are producing 100 % of their energy via nuclear and renewables. This is pointedly ignored or criticized. How many EV companies in China supplying the rest of the world? BYD selling more EVs than Tesla.
The revolution is happening elsewhere. The opportunity awaits America. Here, instead of seizing it, the games continue to be played. The inconvenient truth that the rest of the world accepts gets mocked.
In short, the whistle is being blown constantly.
Not if we invade them
tower
If there is not one person with inside info willing to risk their political career with the risk of being demonized, we are doomed. I do not, and will not believe, that there is not one person with conviction to bet their career to save the world, unless not one person truly believes mankind is at risk.
I do hope you are joking about China leading the way? If not, I think you are delusional.
Al Gore. Now a punchline. John Kerry, the Paris treaty. Punchline.
Tower
They sounded an alarm. Betting your career to saving mankind would be a mission, not sounding an alarm. If they had conviction of their beliefs, they should be sounding the alarm 24/7. Fact is, they did not.
There are kookson both sides that beating a crazy drum all of the time and risk their careers being a kook.I would hope saving mankind would be worthwhile drum for Kerry and Gore to shout out every day on the topic if they believed it is dire. They are wealthy men and have nothing to lose, yet only throw out talking points at a paid speaking gig.
Just because you quit listening does not mean that Gore and Kerry don't continue to this day to talk about climate change.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 07:24:26 PM
There are gooks on both sides that beating a crazy drum all of the time and risk their careers being a gook.
You realize that "gook" is a slur right? Do you mean "kook"?
Quote from: tower912 on June 19, 2024, 07:26:21 PM
Just because you quit listening does not mean that Gore and Kerry don't continue to this day to talk about climate change.
Every time they deplane from their private jets.
And? That wasn't the question.
tower
I have not stopped listening, I started listening. Not going to argue this, but if I knew mankind was real danger I would make that a mission to get that message out 24/7.
Hell, I back Ben Gold every week on here and get ridiculed. If I knew the clock was ticking on the planet, it would be an obsession to get that message out.
I will say, the day I see a person willing to be zealot on this topic and risk being demonized and rideable, I'm joining that person's bandwagon.
Fluff
Don't acknowledge you often, but thinks for the correction. Trust me, it was unintentional.
Fahrenheit, back in yo fire fightin' daze, did ya ride a bike to da blaze? Those fire engines sure guzzle petro, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 19, 2024, 07:37:53 PM
Fahrenheit, back in yo fire fightin' daze, did ya ride a bike to da blaze? Those fire engines sure guzzle petro, hey?
Living embodiment of this meme
(https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg)
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 19, 2024, 07:29:06 PM
You realize that "gook" is a slur right? Do you mean "kook"?
That's quite the autocorrect
They do. The first generation of electric powered fire trucks are starting to come on line.
Used foam with PFAS. Used bunker gear with PFAS. Firefighting cancer studies indicate time is not on my side. Lessons are being learned and new fabrics and foams are coming on line.
So, yes, as with all things, we should all strive to always keep learning, to seek better ways in order to do the most good for the most people. I have no doubt you do the same thing.
Of course, the transition to PFAS free gear and electric powered fire apparatus will cost taxpayer money. I am sure Mequon FD can count on your vote.
PLM
Unlike some on here, I take ownership. That was a fuxk up, not autocorrect. Typing on my phone and talking to my daughter who is home for my son's wedding.
If you know anything about me, that likely is not a slur that I would use intentionally. That said, believe what you want.
Quote from: tower912 on June 19, 2024, 07:33:30 PM
And? That wasn't the question.
? What question? You made a statement, I responded with one of my one. It's how discussion goes sometimes.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 07:49:26 PM
PLM
Typing on my phone and talking to my daughter who is home for my son's wedding.
Congratulations on the wedding. I walked my daughter down the aisle 3.5 weeks ago.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 07:49:26 PM
PLM
Unlike some on here, I take ownership. That was a fuxk up, not autocorrect. Typing on my phone and talking to my daughter who is home for my son's wedding.
If you know anything about me, that likely is not a slur that I would use intentionally. That said, believe what you want.
I believe you, it was a humorous blunder
Appreciate it. Congrats to your daughter and family.
PLM
Again owning up to things, while not intentional, I did laugh pretty hard after fluff pointed out my blunder.
Buncha old coots.
My dad said to me a while ago that when he was a young man raising kids he didn't really anticipate the feeling of contentedness standing around the kitchen with a bunch of 40 year olds having a nice chat on a summer day.
Quote from: tower912 on June 19, 2024, 07:58:40 PM
Congratulations on the wedding. I walked my daughter down the aisle 3.5 weeks ago.
Same here. My son was married May 11th in Oconomowoc.
Ok, I'll bite.
I agree with an earlier poster. We have, if we're lucky, about 150 years of solid climate data. Drill the polar ice caps, the ice in Greenland or Iceland and other places around the world, and you get, if you're lucky, 10,000 years of climate trend. Throw in the study of rock layers in parts of the world and you might go back 100,000 years. Maybe, there's evidence out there to give us an idea of the Earth a million years ago.
Folks, the planet is estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. Under the best of circumstances, we have reasonably reliable data on about 0.0029 percent of the history of the earth, or about 100,000 years. To put it another way, if the average human lives to be 72 years of age, that's like making conclusions and "establishing facts" about humanity by studying a baby that's 0.75 days old.
Another interesting fact to consider: Between 1973 and 1979, the Midwest and Northeast had some of the coldest winters ever. Trust me, it was fricking cold! Learned people were coming up with theories about global cooling. Obviously that didn't last either.
Our peninsula that makes up much of the State of Florida expands and contracts based on the polar ice cap. The more water frozen "up north", the less water is lapping against our shores, thus pushing the peninsula further into the ocean. Where I live, 10,000 or so years ago, once was a dry spot in the swamp 50 miles or so from the coast of then-Florida. You have to ask, "what's normal?" Should the major cities in the eastern United States "normally" be underwater? Fair question!
I'm an environmentalist and I'm a believer in the concept we should protect our environment. For ourselves and for our children. If we can find a substitute good that's less polluting, global warming or not, then go for it. If we can cut down on what we're pumping into the atmosphere without reducing people's quality of life, all the better. But I'm not about to live in a cave or give up a substantial part of what is the highest standard of living in the world because of scientific guesses -- no matter how learned the guesser might be.
P.S. -- I live in a house on a barrier island about 800 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. As Alfred E. Newman once said, "What me... worry?"
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 06:47:23 PM
PLM
If that is your belief, every politician that does not support righting the ship as being a top, top priority should be banned from political office. If they have data that indicates flat out proof that the climate and world is in trouble, there should be no other agenda for them.
If you are correct, why are they only throwing nickels out of their limousines?
It isn't a belief, there's the issue.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 19, 2024, 06:53:39 PM
There's far bigger fish to fry than da Buffoon's Green Energy nonsense, hey?
Maybe for you, but your grand children will have to deal with it.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 07:34:54 PM
tower
I have not stopped listening, I started listening. Not going to argue this, but if I knew mankind was real danger I would make that a mission to get that message out 24/7.
Hell, I back Ben Gold every week on here and get ridiculed. If I knew the clock was ticking on the planet, it would be an obsession to get that message out.
I will say, the day I see a person willing to be zealot on this topic and risk being demonized and rideable, I'm joining that person's bandwagon.
Greta Thunberg is arrested constantly for being a zealot about climate change. She is demonized constantly.
Kroger just reported an outstanding quarter for earnings and sales. The company also reaffirmed its full-year forecast, showing its best year ever for profits and revenue.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4117421-kroger-beats-top-line-and-bottom-line-estimates-reaffirms-fy24-outlook?
This on the heels of similarly positive reports from Costco and Walmart.
Inflation should be hurting these companies, but they not only are passing along their own rising costs to customers - which is expected - but they are keeping prices high to bolster their own already high profits. Classic "greedflation."
Hards
I guess I was suggesting a major US politician to lead the way. If a truly dire situation, I would hope someone would make it their mission, not talking points.
As for my feelings, I have gone from scam to unsure. To be honest, it is not one of my top concerns. IMO, the world is a mess and global warming is way down the list of concerns.
Quote from: Goose on June 20, 2024, 07:30:14 AM
Hards
I guess I was suggesting a major US politician to lead the way. If a truly dire situation, I would hope someone would make it their mission, not talking points.
As for my feelings, I have gone from scam to unsure. To be honest, it is not one of my top concerns. IMO, the world is a mess and global warming is way down the list of concerns.
AOC wrote the legislation for the Green New Deal (With Ed Markey). I think we can easily both agree she is demonized.
World is largely fine, you should read about the acidification of our oceans and what it means for the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Al Gore has made it his life's work. He has been satirized, criticized and ostracized, some of which he has brought on himself. But he's a pretty major U.S. politician - a 2-term vice president who was a few hanging chads and a questionable SCOTUS decision away from being president - who has dedicated himself to the cause.
Don't understand why people can't think for themselves. Sheep, sheep, sheep, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 20, 2024, 08:23:31 AM
Don't understand why people can't think for themselves. Sheep, sheep, sheep, hey?
Using information from peer reviewed articles from scientists whose life work is climate science is normal.
"Common sense" from some random guy on the internet is not normal.
nm
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 19, 2024, 06:19:35 PM
See the thing is, it's not really up for debate to throwing "a few nickels to get more data". The data's there. It's scientific consensus. 91% of all scientists and 98.7% of climate scientists.
"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated."
Sowing doubt in it is either financial beneficial astroturfing or pseudoscience. Or maybe denial of humanity's faults? I dunno.
I think the debate resides with what we should be doing about it now, not whether it exists. (Unless you're a dentist?)
I had read that in every country in the world the conservative and liberal parties universally agree that climate change is man made. And the only country this isn't true is the United States where climate change denial is part of the conservative platform.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 20, 2024, 08:23:31 AM
Don't understand why people can't think for themselves. Sheep, sheep, sheep, hey?
Man, this is something, hey?
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 20, 2024, 08:47:44 AM
Man, this is something, hey?
Yep, he's Mr. Self-Aware.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 19, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
btw, there are many more who think like me but just so happen to not want to put up with the backlash of you "smart" guys
No, you don't think, you regurgitate whatever Fox tells you.
Quote from: Goose on June 19, 2024, 05:45:25 PM
I had an outstanding science teacher in 7th and 8th grade and he made watching weather into a 50 year hobby for me. Five or six years ago I thought climate change was 100% a scam and I will say that my stance was moderated to still too early to tell, but I'm fine throwing nickels out the car window to get more data.
Eh, the problem is that this has been a scientifically known issue for 4 decades, but one side has put great effort into discrediting it. Pretending it wasn't real was very useful in consolidating money and power.
By the time the evidence is obvious enough to convince you, when even more of the country is ablaze, more and more people are dying of the heat, when insurance becomes impossible to afford due to extreme weather losses, when mass migration due to climate change becomes overwhelming (it is already happening here and in Europe), it will be too late.
It may already be too late, there is a very real chance we've already hit the tipping point. And we have the fuckwits at the petroleum companies and people like Rupert Murdoch, who profited from discrediting climate change, to blame.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 20, 2024, 08:47:44 AM
Man, this is something, hey?
Kinda like Jonestown, aina?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 20, 2024, 09:09:57 AM
Kinda like Jonestown, aina?
Yeah, the cult of Trump is ALOT like Jonestown. For once, you're correct
I'm really trying to be nice and not ban people. But if ya'll keep it up I'll just start banning people until the start of hoops season.