Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

here we go guys

El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

personally I'm applying for a civil servant position ASAP

El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Just FYI, during the 1930s depression, many civil servants were paid with vouchers rather than cash, because local governments were unable to collect property taxes and their receipts fell into the shitbin.

Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Economy's doing poorly enough as it stands, why do we deliberately want to roll it into the shitbin?

Abbott, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Because that way Hillary can rescue us all.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol property taxes

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

shitbin's a great word, BTW.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

you been loving my thread titles lately

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

i came to this country some time ago with little more than a crippling debt burden in GB Pounds and the shirt on my back. i used to have to send back $1,200 each month to pay off my UK debt, and now I'm sending back over $1,400 to cover the same amount of debt repayment. that's two and a half thousand dollars disappearing from my tiny disposable income every year, for no explicable reason. i *heart* the decline of the US economy.

Roberto Spiralli, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

anyway why start this thread now because the bit where ritholtz points out that domino's pizza can't print new menus fast enough to keep up with inflation was pretty fucking amazing

I wish rasheed wallace was still around to show us the latest and greatest exploding bubble blogs

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

wow Roberto that was some shitty timing, that sucks

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

This was in the paper today:

Mortgage defaults

Hit an annual rate of 1.5 million in September. That compares with 900,000 last year from fewer than 800,000 in 2005. At the current rate, more than one million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure, making this the worst housing recession since the Second World War.

Housing starts

Sank to a 14-year low of 1.19 million in September. Starts are a vital economic engine, creating jobs and growth as people stuff their homes with sofas and TVs. Starts peaked at 2.3 million in early 2006, and the decline will be a drag on the rest of the economy until the slide stops.

Mortgages

A quarter of the roughly 50 million U.S. home mortgages are subprime. That's seven times the number of high-risk mortgages there were in 2001. That means that many more marginal homeowners have mortgages, making it far more likely they'll wind up in default.

House prices

Fell 3.2 per cent in the second quarter. Prices are falling faster and more broadly than they have in decades, according to the closely watched Case-Shiller index.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071018.IBUSECONOMY18/TPStory/Business

everything, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

where the hell is rasheed anyway?

economic blogs I read (they're all fairly liberal):

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/
http://www.janegalt.net/

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

In regard to inflation, in the USA during the past three years inflation has been soaring - but almost entirely in the housing sector. The fact that people are encouraged to see their houses as investments rather than as expenses doesn't mean that skyrocketing housing costs weren't inflationary. They were.

As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008. As it has for the past 30 years, the official CPI will understate the real inflation rate. It was rigged under Reagan so that government entitlement programs indexed to the CPI would not increase at the true pace of inflation.

If Bush continues to shovel shit on the dollar right up to the end of his term in January 2009, the inflation rate could hit 15%-20% by 2010.

Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

There are some good economics articles put up here as well:
http://www.VoxEU.org

stet, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Which shit on the dollar are you referring to?

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008.

lol

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Friday, 19 October 2007 06:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is why i live in canada!

J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh wait.

J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

Guys, this is a good time stay in academia right?

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's a good time to learn a European language.

Nubbelverbrennung, Friday, 19 October 2007 13:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Prime shit examples:

When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down. Had this state of affairs continued, as projected, it would have led both to lower interest rates and a strong dollar, together. Instead, Bush submitted a series of enormous tax cuts to the Republican-controlled Congress and lobbied them through. Immediately, the CBO's projected budget surpluses turned to projected deficits for the next decade.

Bush also initiated a war of choice, not necessity, in Iraq. This war has already cost well over $700 billion. Yet, Bush insisted on making his tax cuts permanent. Overall, the national debt has increased under Bush by about $2 trillion in seven years. This represents a difference of about $3 trillion of debt from what was projected at the start of his first term.

Because, due to Bush's tax cuts and other policies, the Federal government was in a far weaker position to stimulate the economy when the recession started after 9/11, almost the entire stimulus was delivered via lower interest rates. Because these rate cuts were artificial, and not based on a stronger dollar, this stimulus not only inflated the current housing bubble, but it also undercut the dollar even more than the ballooning national debt did.

Now the dollar is at an all-time low against the euro and the canadian dollar. However, the incomes of the top 10% of American households have increased at a good clip, while the lower 50% of households have seen a decrease in income after inflation. This is largely thanks to Bush's shitty policies. I expect more of the same mismanagement until he is gone.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

I agree with everything you've just said. You're predictions still seem a tad extreme on the downside though, if I may so.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

i wonder if income inequality will ever arrive as a political issue in this country. americans tend to not begrudge the rich - so it'll have to be more of a "for everyone's good" type of angle. no?

jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

I remember the 1970s and early 80s quite well. Back then people couldn't belileve it, either. Bush has done a bangup job of recreating many of the same policy errors under Johnson and Nixon that led to raging stagflation back then, except the underlying economy is now weaker than it was in the 1970s and the oil shocks we are likely to get are not political, as when OPEC was formed, but structural.

Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.

I hope I am wrong.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

Anyone want to join my modern-day James Gang? We shall ride across the lower Midwest, robbing and pillaging.

milo z, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

sounds fun

jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sorry, I don't want to relocate. But this scheme sounds ripe for franchising.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.

I hope I am wrong.

-- Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (14 minutes ago) Link

The coming of $100/barrel oil is not Bush's fault. It's yours and mine and everyone else's for using too damned much energy. I agree Bush could and should have done a lot more with policy to encourage energy efficiency, but there's little he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.

Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

Part of the pricing of oil represents the weakness of the dollar. This hurts the USA more than it does other countries. US citizens are paid in dollars and the US government collects revenue in dollars, so they are stuck. EU countries can use euros to buy increasingly cheap dollars, so they don't see the same rise in prices as we do. The weakness of the dollar is mainly Bush's fault.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

The US also uses way more oil than other countries.

Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.
Not starting a war in Iraq would definitely have helped here.

stet, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

arrgh, if that won't work then
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/imf-mortgage-reset-chart.html

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

tombot u r freakin me out

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

i hope my small apartment + modest savings plan + job in "information services" is enough to weather the shitstorm, if it comes. i got myself out of credit card debt a few months ago, at least

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

well if you can hold down a job and don't have to worry about an ARM reset you should be okay, it's the homeowner with kids and a subprime loan and two cars who ought to be shitting themselves

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

apart from some student loans and binging on credit cards over a few years, i'm kind of debt phobic.

which has actually made me lose out over the past several years, i realize, since i pay for EVERYTHING with a debit/check card... i could have just paid that balance on a credit card with some rewards scheme and has some air miles or something

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

rolling gff personal finances into the shitbin thread, ha

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

This will give you a boner Tombot

http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39952/

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

the economy increased by 3.9% this quarter! bull market forever, baby. economy's better than ever. golden age.

yet me and so many people I know are getting laid off next month. granted we're all in the writing/design field, but urhhhhh. gggg.

burt_stanton, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:58 (eight years ago) Permalink


^^^ lol

most of that guy's scenario is not really news to regular bigpicture/CR readers I don't think. But #5, the "we don't pay attention" thing, yeah, well, evidently the awareness campaign is underway, but hell if the big players are paying attention.

He also leaves out the approaching demographic catastrophe as millions of inexperienced thirtysomethings and even some late-twenties kids are forced to move into arguably tougher jobs that the boomers have been holding for two decades. Beyond the social security and healthcare costs associated with mass retirement, I don't really know if this generation has the work ethic and definitely not the rolodex to just start filling in and not fuck up royally. too busy updating their linkedin pages.

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

can someone explain what "being upside down on your mortgage" means, in plain English?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 16:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

essentially, owing more than your home is worth.

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

also Tombot I'm not going to blame this generation as much as I blame their parents.

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

isn't that the way people buy homes? by paying for the privilege of a loan?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

When you enter into a contract with a bank for a mortgage, both you and the bank assume that the property value will not plummet. The bank doesn't want you to default any more than you want to default. But if for whatever reason you need to sell your home, and you can't get what you owe on it, then you will owe the difference to the bank. And the bank knows that when that happens, you probably will not have enough assets to cover the difference.

Predatory-type loans (which seems like a nebulous description to me) typically compound the problem because they have higher transaction rates (points, etc.)

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh certainly! well played baby boom letting healthcare slide for the 20 years you've owned the electorate

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah Tracer it's also called "negative equity"

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://fortune.com/silicon-valley-tech-ipo-market/

been trying to follow alphaville's discussion of capital-flows reversing but its pretty impenetrable to me.

Option ARMs and de Man (s.clover), Saturday, 23 January 2016 02:13 (eight months ago) Permalink

who are these frightful people good god

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 23 January 2016 02:18 (eight months ago) Permalink

lol

https://twitter.com/ObsoleteDogma/status/691452952939204608

flopson, Monday, 25 January 2016 17:39 (eight months ago) Permalink

tee hee

service desk hardman (El Tomboto), Monday, 25 January 2016 21:19 (eight months ago) Permalink

weird - is that just a coincidence?

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, 5 February 2016 18:01 (seven months ago) Permalink

i feel like it's two not amazing earnings reports plus the SV bubble

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 5 February 2016 18:23 (seven months ago) Permalink

Yeah looks like a lot of big tech stocks are taking sizeable hits today -- FB, TWTR, YELP, although nothing close to that.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, 5 February 2016 18:26 (seven months ago) Permalink

ah don't worry they'll be fine

https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/697431928551526400

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 10 February 2016 21:53 (seven months ago) Permalink

WE HAVE TO CONTROL THE DEFICIT, PEOPLE, IT IS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO THE NEXT GENERATION BECAUSE THE BOND WOLVES ARE AT THE DOOR AND INFLATION - wait 10-year- bonds are yielding 1.7% err never mind

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 22 February 2016 20:28 (seven months ago) Permalink

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/

The “labor force participation rate” — the share of adults who are either working or actively looking for work — is near a three-decade low, which might seem to suggest that there are lots of people waiting to return to the job market. But a big part of that decline is due to the retirement of the baby boom generation. And even controlling for the aging population, labor participation was falling long before the recession, for reasons that are only partly understood.

The White House, in its report, estimates that the combination of demographics (“aging trends” in the chart below) and other long-term trends (“residual”) together account for the vast majority of the decline in labor force participation since 2009. Only the small sliver in the middle of the chart is due to the state of the economy. In the Obama administration’s estimation, there are about half a million Americans who should be in the labor force but aren’t. If they were counted as unemployed, the jobless rate would be about 5.2 percent, only a few ticks higher than the official rate.

The White House, of course, has an incentive to make the economy look as good as possible. So as a check on their number, I built my own simple model (an updated version of the one I used in this story a few years ago) to estimate how many people are still missing from the official unemployment rate. (I’ll put the details in a footnote,1 but essentially I just assumed that prerecession trends held steady.) My model estimates there are as many as 1.5 million people who should be included in the unemployment rate. That’s triple the White House’s estimate, but it still implies the “real” unemployment rate is down to 5.8 percent.

The difference between 4.9 percent and 5.8 percent is small but significant. Many economists consider 5 percent to be a rough long-term floor for the unemployment rate (other economists think the floor is lower); unemployment can’t drop much below that threshold without triggering inflation. But if there are really hundreds of thousands or even millions of willing workers just waiting to get back into the labor market, that means there is room for job growth to continue without driving up inflation. The participation rate has edged up in recent months, suggesting that the stronger economy is drawing workers off the sidelines. Next week’s jobs report will give the latest sign of whether that trend is continuing.

Mordy, Friday, 26 February 2016 23:27 (six months ago) Permalink

three months pass...

WHAT DOES BREXIT MEAN FOR THE US GAZ COOMBES

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Friday, 24 June 2016 13:28 (three months ago) Permalink

It means stock up on your Amazon UK purchases now!

There must be some magic clue inside these gentle walls (Old Lunch), Friday, 24 June 2016 14:03 (three months ago) Permalink

two months pass...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/

Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago, was delivering a speech at the Booth School of Business this June about the rise in leisure among young men who didn’t go to college. He told students that one “staggering” statistic stood above the rest. "In 2015, 22 percent of lower-skilled men [those without a college degree] aged 21 to 30 had not worked at all during the prior twelve months,” he said.

"Think about that for a second,” he went on. Twentysomething male high-school grads used to be the most dependable working cohort in America. Today one in five are now essentially idle. The employment rate of this group has fallen 10 percentage points just this century, and it has triggered a cultural, economic, and social decline. "These younger, lower-skilled men are now less likely to work, less likely to marry, and more likely to live with parents or close relatives,” he said.

So, what are are these young, non-working men doing with their time? Three quarters of their additional leisure time is spent with video games, Hurst’s research has shown. And these young men are happy—or, at least, they self-report higher satisfaction than this age group used to, even when its employment rate was 10 percentage points higher.

j., Wednesday, 14 September 2016 02:39 (one week ago) Permalink

The Atlantic is so bad

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 02:45 (one week ago) Permalink

happier playing video games than working. some invaluable research there.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 04:37 (one week ago) Permalink

It's like everyone is so acclimated to this "counterintuitive" freakonomics way of thinking about things now that they analyze obvious things backwards. The economy is not providing good employment opportunities to people in a certain category is like 95% of what's important here, the video games are peripheral. Plus you get the classic Chicago school ruling-class-pseudomorality-disguised-as-economics in statements like "The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening," and "It is a relief to know that one can be poor, young, and unemployed, and yet fairly content with life; indeed, one of the hallmarks of a decent society is that it can make even poverty bearable," and "Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 14:28 (one week ago) Permalink

I'd love to see a study like this that looks at shut-ins who spend all their time posting on internet forums

Al Moon Faced Poon (Moodles), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 15:00 (one week ago) Permalink

didn't read the rest of the article there's nothing freakonomics about that quote, the guy is just reporting stats from time-use surveys, interpret them how you wish

flopson, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 15:43 (one week ago) Permalink

"The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening," and "It is a relief to know that one can be poor, young, and unemployed, and yet fairly content with life; indeed, one of the hallmarks of a decent society is that it can make even poverty bearable," and "Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”

lmao i thought u made these quotes up until i read this stupid article

marcos, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 15:59 (one week ago) Permalink

"The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening,"

when the author says 'meant to have', they mean according to "Chicago-school" assumptions about how people choose their leisure. How is the opposite of the chicago school models' prediction also chicago school?

flopson, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:02 (one week ago) Permalink

Yes, and Chicago school always has an implicit and unacknowledged moral dimension, so the word choice was at least amusing.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:09 (one week ago) Permalink

the atlantic is awful now

marcos, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:11 (one week ago) Permalink

"We thought the rich would get the most leisure time and the poor would get the least. But that's not happening, because shiftless poors, especially blacks, would rather live in their parents' basements and play video games, while elite MEN take pride in working long, grueling hours to power the economy that pulls everyone else along. One partial reason might be the incentive structure of jobs that aren't as much fun as video games while not providing enough financial incentive to make up the fun differential. But that's not the whole story."

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:16 (one week ago) Permalink

i say if the Elite men can only have fun through "building wealth", that counts as leisure time.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:21 (one week ago) Permalink

That's part of the point and the author makes it explicitly in the piece; skilled work is becoming more 'rewarding' and also has more leisure leaking into it (fairly certain that at the very least Hurting, marcos and I all reading this thread from work) while unskilled work has stayed as grueling and repetitive or gotten even moreso. also Hurting he explicitly says black men are discriminated against by retail employers, it's unclear that just having less Keynesian unemployment would fix this

flopson, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:42 (one week ago) Permalink

unrelated but interesting that this of all threads was bumped the day after that census report

flopson, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:43 (one week ago) Permalink

i can't speak about an entire demographic, but i know a few men who work in chicago, are well-off, they really are workaholics, and, i swear to you, they actually love working and think it is so creative. the problem with these dudes is that this is all they want and can talk about. i go to dinner with them and they love talking business and most of their knowledge/expertise is in that area they work in

F♯ A♯ (∞), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:55 (one week ago) Permalink

That's most of DC. "What do you do?" isn't so much because it's how we size each other up, in my experience. It's a significant part of our identity. In that sense, it also effectively substitutes for "what things do you care about?" in a lot of ways.

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 19:22 (one week ago) Permalink

Flopson otm btw that is kinda funny

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 14 September 2016 19:23 (one week ago) Permalink

That's most of DC. "What do you do?"

Hasn't this cliché about a certain class of people in DC existed for a long time now.

Meanwhile is Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago reference above, sure that the unemployed black men of DC are asking one another what video games they are playing? I hope someone is giving Hurst grief to his face

curmudgeon, Thursday, 15 September 2016 13:54 (one week ago) Permalink

unrelated but interesting that this of all threads was bumped the day after that census report

I don't know, maybe it's not so weird. As Morbs (Morbs!) quipped:

@JimPethokoukis
"This is the first statistically significant annual increase [in real median household income] since 2007" - IHS Global

and man, that one sure led to memorable things

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 15 September 2016 14:00 (one week ago) Permalink

I've come to have this cynical, knee-jerk reaction to news like this that if things are actually improving for the little guy, the shit must be ready to hit the fan.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 15 September 2016 14:11 (one week ago) Permalink

I think you guys are reading some malicious intent into Erik Hurst that's not there, imo. also Chicago booth is not Chicago Econ, and Chicago econ is not what it was in the 70's and 80's. also this is pretty atheoretical statistical research, you can disagree with his hypothesis but the basic facts are just like averages from surveys

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 14:51 (one week ago) Permalink

"We thought the rich would get the most leisure time and the poor would get the least. But that's not happening, because shiftless poors, especially blacks, would rather live in their parents' basements and play video games, while elite MEN take pride in working long, grueling hours to power the economy that pulls everyone else along. One partial reason might be the incentive structure of jobs that aren't as much fun as video games while not providing enough financial incentive to make up the fun differential. But that's not the whole story."

This seems to read an absurd amount of malice into the text

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 14:52 (one week ago) Permalink

let's say the Atlantic article was just the following bullet points

- long term unemployment among low-skilled men has increased from almost zero to 20%
- long-term unemployed report surprisingly high subjective well being in surveys, and in time use surveys report spending a lot of time playing videogames
- high-skilled men reduced leisure more than any other demographic in the last 20 years

would you be mad at that? I think you're reading a malicious interpretation into the stats that's I don't see

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 15:00 (one week ago) Permalink

Like i don't think there is an implied moral judgment on the long-term unemployed (even if some right wing economists have m/l explicitly made such a judgment: Tyler Cowen this week said that "Maybe employers just aren't that keen to hire those males who prefer to live at home, watch porn and not get married. Is that more of a personal failure on the part of the worker than a market failure?" and got swiftly and justly roasted for it), imo it's completely a failure of government and society that they are unemployed in the first place. but it seems paradoxical from a social science perspective that they report high life satisfaction; we all imagine the stigma related to unemployment, stuff about 'work gives you purpose' would all weigh in the other direction. it's a statistic so obvs there are a lot of miserable unemployed in there, but it's interesting the average would go in the direction counter to our inuition, no?

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 15:40 (one week ago) Permalink

isnt this a positive development for the 'end of work'? keep these unemployed young men sedated with their video games since the robots took all their jerbs!

carthago delenda est (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 15 September 2016 15:44 (one week ago) Permalink

I've come to have this cynical, knee-jerk reaction to news like this that if things are actually improving for the little guy, the shit must be ready to hit the fan.

I can't help but feel the same way. I think it's the imperative of pattern recognition based on generalizing from the known to the unknown, even when the thing I'm observing is complex far beyond my ability to know or understand its patterns.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:31 (one week ago) Permalink

I can't exactly come up with a logical justification of that reaction, but it just feels like our economy is so stacked to send all the benefits to the top that it's only at the peak of the bubble that you get a bit of trickle-down, and then the whole thing collapses.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:33 (one week ago) Permalink

median income increased for 6 years from the trough of 1993 to peak in 1999, then increased for four years from 2004 to 2007, and increased for at least 5 years from 1984 to 1989. we probably have a couple years of growth ahead of us (fingers crossed)

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:39 (one week ago) Permalink

As far as the pattern of 'things getting good just presage things being about to get bad', that's a tautology in any cyclical thing. You may as well say, the sun rising is just a sign that it's about to get dark soon

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:41 (one week ago) Permalink

Honestly before Monday I had begun to suspect we would never see median income increase again

flopson, Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:42 (one week ago) Permalink

Are there any sector by sector stats (people in retail earning X% more, people in manual occupations earning Y% more) or is it bare household income across salary bands? I'm slightly suspicious of median household income as an indicator on its own, particularly in the lower bands, in the context of the current shift towards supplementing core income with casualised labour (driving for Uber in evenings and at weekends, etc).

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Thursday, 15 September 2016 17:49 (one week ago) Permalink

had a quick look and couldn't find anything but here is the actual report: http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html

F♯ A♯ (∞), Thursday, 15 September 2016 18:13 (one week ago) Permalink

isnt this a positive development for the 'end of work'? keep these unemployed young men sedated with their video games since the robots took all their jerbs!

www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=67&threadid=104035

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Thursday, 15 September 2016 18:38 (one week ago) Permalink

how do I shot web

Everybody on ILG complains about Twitch

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Thursday, 15 September 2016 18:39 (one week ago) Permalink

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/book-review/locked-up-and-locked-out-of-the-u-s-labor-market.htm

Didn't read the Atlantic article, but does it mention mass incarceration issues and how that now influences getting a job?

curmudgeon, Thursday, 15 September 2016 19:39 (one week ago) Permalink

'eight' rhymes with 'great'!

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 20 September 2016 21:17 (five days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.