Unemployment thread

[Harbingers]

1 hour ago, Tbe said:

There’s not enough national guard to keep everyone indoors.

I think the politics around the quarantine order are going to change rapidly when the average person starts to fear long term unemployment and/or any kind of food insecurity.

Like everything, no one really cares if low income people get the shaft. When middle and higher income people start feeling the pain, opinions and policy will change fast.

Frankly, the senate and congress should be already working on the next stimulus package. I know some are trying. The fuging idiots in Washington are like “We did a thing! Now we’re done.” I don’t mean to bring partisan poo into the main forum again but this is why 2K a month for 4-6 months continuing was the right way to go if people wanted a one and done solution.

[rayzor]

33 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Jesus man.

I think, if I were to be forced to take out college loans, that I would 100% start my career at CC, then transfer to a state school...or right now, I would probably go into the trades if I'm being completely honest.

Good luck buddy and Keep Pounding.

I'm definitely encouraging my kids and others to take a different route, more closely to what you were suggesting. Choosing a trade is the direction I'm pushing.

[thefuzz]

Just now, rayzor said:

I'm definitely encouraging my kids and others to take a different route, more closely to what you were suggesting. Choosing a trade is the direction I'm pushing.

If I were to do it over, I would have gone to HVAC school, bought a van at 20, hired one guy, and gone into business.  I promise you that I would be a millionaire a couple times over had I done that.

I'm happy, but man, that would have been a good run.  

[Harbingers]

2 minutes ago, rayzor said:

I'm definitely encouraging my kids and others to take a different route, more closely to what you were suggesting. Choosing a trade is the direction I'm pushing.

Skills are earned. College is given. 

[Davidson Deac II]

I still think College is a good thing, and it gives people a leg up on others.  30 grand or less in college debt is no more debt than buying a car.  But if you are going to rack up six figure college debt, then you should ensure that you choose a profession that will allow you to pay off that debt.  100 grand for a dr or lawyer probably isn't a big deal.  For a teacher or similar profession, its a big problem.  

[Wes21]

37 minutes ago, rayzor said:

I'm definitely encouraging my kids and others to take a different route, more closely to what you were suggesting. Choosing a trade is the direction I'm pushing.

I want my daughter to think about college, but mainly for the experience.  It really was a wonderful experience.  But I'm also going to let her know she really needs to make connections while she is there.  That's one of the really good things about college, and how many people end up with lucrative careers after college.  It wasn't the classes, it was the connection to other successful people or people who are connected to successful people.  In short, as I said earlier, a lot of successful people would have been successful whether they went to college or not...based on who they are and the connections they have.

[mc52beast]

My daughter said the local paper in Elizabeth City just laid her off, said she filed her unemployment the same day and is just waiting. 
 

One thing that will help is the “stimulus” bill which says people will get an extra 600 more in their checks and you can collect an extra 14 weeks

[kass]

On 3/28/2020 at 2:09 PM, 45catfan said:

High tax rates never worked either.  Why?  Politicians spend it quicker than it can be budgeted.  I was very young when Carter was in office, but my older siblings told be the horror stories of gas lines and how hard it was to buy a house with interest rates around 20%.  Matter of fact there wasn't even a federal income tax until 1911 and somehow didn't incur a ton of debt.  Odd, right? Yet, our national debt was low despite having fought WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam...so it wasn't the military causing the debt to skyrocket.

Yes, social programs DO blow a hole in the deficit.  You can't give nearly everyone in a country the size of America a piece of the pie and not expect it to add up fast.  People love to site much smaller countries as a model where certain social programs work, but in a country this size with our very high standard of living, you can't do these types of programs and not incur a ton of debt.

Do you think this is the right time to make jokes?

[Bytes]

5 hours ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

No, but we aren't comparing apples to apples either.  The US was in a period of intensely rapid expansion from 1913 -1971, vs, 1971 to now, and we also had the federal reserve act and the war effort mixed in to bring the average up drastically.  

Not really, here  are stats. And clearly you are wrong regarding rapid expansion from 1913 to 1971. What about the great depression of the 30s? 
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

[DeAngelo Beason]

49 minutes ago, Bytes said:

Not really, here  are stats. And clearly you are wrong regarding rapid expansion from 1913 to 1971. What about the great depression of the 30s? 
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

A for effort, but you're laughably wrong.  US population growth percentage by decade below.  You can clearly see the decline beginning in the 70s.  Only exception of course is the 40s which we can obviously attribute to tens of millions dying in war.  Expansion is literally directly tied to population.  There is no greater metric to define expansion than population growth, as they are intrinsically related.  

1900	76,212,168	21.01%
1910	92,228,496	21.02%
1920	106,021,537	14.96%
1930	123,202,624	16.21%
1940	132,164,569	7.27%
1950	151,325,798	14.50%
1960	179,323,175	18.50%
1970	203,211,926	13.32%
1980	226,545,805	11.48%
1990	248,709,873	9.78%
2000	281,421,906	13.15%
2010	308,745,538	9.71%
2020a	332,639,000	7.74%

 

Here's a chart to simplify the inflation debate.  As you can see, and as I mentioned, severe deflation caused by the depression, severe inflation caused by the war.  You can see how things leveled off after world turmoil started to slow down, then, in the 70s, as I mentioned, inflation skyrocketed.

 

 

 

[Bytes]

44 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

A for effort, but you're laughably wrong.  US population growth percentage by decade below.  You can clearly see the decline beginning in the 70s.  Only exception of course is the 40s which we can obviously attribute to tens of millions dying in war.  Expansion is literally directly tied to population.  There is no greater metric to define expansion than population growth, as they are intrinsically related.  

1900	76,212,168	21.01%
1910	92,228,496	21.02%
1920	106,021,537	14.96%
1930	123,202,624	16.21%
1940	132,164,569	7.27%
1950	151,325,798	14.50%
1960	179,323,175	18.50%
1970	203,211,926	13.32%
1980	226,545,805	11.48%
1990	248,709,873	9.78%
2000	281,421,906	13.15%
2010	308,745,538	9.71%
2020a	332,639,000	7.74%

 

Here's a chart to simplify the inflation debate.  As you can see, and as I mentioned, severe deflation caused by the depression, severe inflation caused by the war.  You can see how things leveled off after world turmoil started to slow down, then, in the 70s, as I mentioned, inflation skyrocketed.

 

 

 

Uggg... OK... This conversation is all over the place. First inflation, then rapid growth, which it wasnt, 

 

47 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

A for effort, but you're laughably wrong.  US population growth percentage by decade below.  You can clearly see the decline beginning in the 70s.  Only exception of course is the 40s which we can obviously attribute to tens of millions dying in war.  Expansion is literally directly tied to population.  There is no greater metric to define expansion than population growth, as they are intrinsically related.  

1900	76,212,168	21.01%
1910	92,228,496	21.02%
1920	106,021,537	14.96%
1930	123,202,624	16.21%
1940	132,164,569	7.27%
1950	151,325,798	14.50%
1960	179,323,175	18.50%
1970	203,211,926	13.32%
1980	226,545,805	11.48%
1990	248,709,873	9.78%
2000	281,421,906	13.15%
2010	308,745,538	9.71%
2020a	332,639,000	7.74%

 

Here's a chart to simplify the inflation debate.  As you can see, and as I mentioned, severe deflation caused by the depression, severe inflation caused by the war.  You can see how things leveled off after world turmoil started to slow down, then, in the 70s, as I mentioned, inflation skyrocketed.

 

 

 

Ugg.. first it was inflation, now its population. and no there is not a direct corrolation between 

 

2 hours ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

A for effort, but you're laughably wrong.  US population growth percentage by decade below.  You can clearly see the decline beginning in the 70s.  Only exception of course is the 40s which we can obviously attribute to tens of millions dying in war.  Expansion is literally directly tied to population.  There is no greater metric to define expansion than population growth, as they are intrinsically related.  

1900	76,212,168	21.01%
1910	92,228,496	21.02%
1920	106,021,537	14.96%
1930	123,202,624	16.21%
1940	132,164,569	7.27%
1950	151,325,798	14.50%
1960	179,323,175	18.50%
1970	203,211,926	13.32%
1980	226,545,805	11.48%
1990	248,709,873	9.78%
2000	281,421,906	13.15%
2010	308,745,538	9.71%
2020a	332,639,000	7.74%

 

Here's a chart to simplify the inflation debate.  As you can see, and as I mentioned, severe deflation caused by the depression, severe inflation caused by the war.  You can see how things leveled off after world turmoil started to slow down, then, in the 70s, as I mentioned, inflation skyrocketed.

 

 

 

Wrong? I only posted data from the the federal government. Secondly there is no direct correlation between PERCENTAGE population growth and PERCENTAGE GDP growth. West Virginia had the highest DGP growth by percentage in 2019 and LOST population. And the premise is just archaic and dumb to begin with when you consider to top 3 (THREE) people have more wealth than the bottom 162,000,000! And its way more complicated than that. The way consumer goods variables used to calculate inflation now are considerable different than they were just 50 years ago. Examples: communication expenses should be weighted for more now than they were in the 1960s. Its next to impossible to have a job without a phone now. Not so in the 1960s. Medical cost are almost impossible to compare now than they were 50 years ago simply because the way people consume medical cost is way different. And on top of all that in the 1930s - 1970s you had whole swaths of the U.S. citizens that werent even considered in this data. 

 

[Davidson Deac II]

3 hours ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

A for effort, but you're laughably wrong.  US population growth percentage by decade below.  You can clearly see the decline beginning in the 70s.  Only exception of course is the 40s which we can obviously attribute to tens of millions dying in war.  Expansion is literally directly tied to population.  There is no greater metric to define expansion than population growth, as they are intrinsically rhelated.  

 

Tens of millions of Americans didn't die in WWII. Might be due to a few million of our young men being deployed, and away from home.  

[DeAngelo Beason]

14 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Tens of millions of Americans didn't die in WWII. Might be due to a few million of our young men being deployed, and away from home.  

Who said tens of millions of Americans died in WWII?  Not me.  The point is people aren't chomping at the bit to start families when the world is at war.

[DeAngelo Beason]

14 hours ago, Bytes said:

Uggg... OK... This conversation is all over the place. First inflation, then rapid growth, which it wasnt, 

 

Ugg.. first it was inflation, now its population. and no there is not a direct corrolation between 

 

Wrong? I only posted data from the the federal government. Secondly there is no direct correlation between PERCENTAGE population growth and PERCENTAGE GDP growth. West Virginia had the highest DGP growth by percentage in 2019 and LOST population. And the premise is just archaic and dumb to begin with when you consider to top 3 (THREE) people have more wealth than the bottom 162,000,000! And its way more complicated than that. The way consumer goods variables used to calculate inflation now are considerable different than they were just 50 years ago. Examples: communication expenses should be weighted for more now than they were in the 1960s. Its next to impossible to have a job without a phone now. Not so in the 1960s. Medical cost are almost impossible to compare now than they were 50 years ago simply because the way people consume medical cost is way different. And on top of all that in the 1930s - 1970s you had whole swaths of the U.S. citizens that werent even considered in this data. 

 

Referencing GDP growth is not working in your favor, as rate of GDP growth in the years I referenced from the chart coincide with the FACT that population increase is intrinsically tied to economic growth, the only exception being the early 40s when we were building up the war machine.  Economies exist only to service a population of consumers.  The more consumers, the more need for economic activity.  This is basic, econ 101.  "Human wants and needs are unlimited..."  Nitpicking one outlier (West Virginia over the course of one year) is statistically irrelevant and not worth addressing.  There are thousands of reasons they could have had a blip in GDP growth, and I won't waste my time finding out what that blip was because it is, as I said, irrelevant statistically speaking.

Your comment about the top 3 having more wealth than the bottom 162,000,000 further cements the fact that I'm correct.  GDP growth in the US has stagnated at a rough average of 2% per year since 2000, despite there being more millionaires than ever.  Point being, the GDP is not growing because money is simply changing hands.  The economy is expanding minimally because population is expanding minimally.

We live in the Charlotte area.  We of all people should know that population growth spurs economic expansion.  That's why every industry in the area is booming.  People are moving here in droves.  

 

PS - I won't bother addressing your other points because they are unrelated to the discussion, not really sure where you're going with all that.