here we go guys
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:44 (7 years ago) Permalink
personally I'm applying for a civil servant position ASAP
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:45 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
Because that way Hillary can rescue us all.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:17 (7 years ago) Permalink
lol property taxes
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
shitbin's a great word, BTW.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:20 (7 years ago) Permalink
you been loving my thread titles lately
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:26 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
wow Roberto that was some shitty timing, that sucks
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (7 years ago) Permalink
This was in the paper today:
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.
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.
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.
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.
― everything, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (7 years ago) Permalink
where the hell is rasheed anyway?
economic blogs I read (they're all fairly liberal):
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:37 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
There are some good economics articles put up here as well:
― stet, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (7 years ago) Permalink
Which shit on the dollar are you referring to?
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (7 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.
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Friday, 19 October 2007 06:11 (7 years ago) Permalink
this is why i live in canada!
― J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (7 years ago) Permalink
Guys, this is a good time stay in academia right?
― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
It's a good time to learn a European language.
― Nubbelverbrennung, Friday, 19 October 2007 13:33 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
― jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:13 (7 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, I don't want to relocate. But this scheme sounds ripe for franchising.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:14 (7 years ago) Permalink
-- 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
The US also uses way more oil than other countries.
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:33 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
― El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (7 years ago) Permalink
arrgh, if that won't work then
tombot u r freakin me out
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:50 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
rolling gff personal finances into the shitbin thread, ha
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:01 (7 years ago) Permalink
This will give you a boner Tombot
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:30 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
essentially, owing more than your home is worth.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:10 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink
yeah Tracer it's also called "negative equity"
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:19 (7 years ago) Permalink
not necessarily a large proportion. let's say significant number of people.
― i ain't allergic i just sneeze a lot (Hunt3r), Friday, 28 February 2014 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
allowing Walmart to employ people even full time without meeting their cost of living, with government forced to pick up the difference makes the current min wage law itself a subsidy (kinda analogizing to "tax expenditure" concept here)
― anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
raise the minimum wage
Yes. As soon as possible. This is would help millions of working poor, not just WalMart employees. I'd say $10/hr. should be the lowest amount even considered as proper compensation for any paid work of any description.
― Aimless, Friday, 28 February 2014 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I question the logic in this guest editorial:
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow, the number of elisions (e.g. not mentioning that Douglas Holtz-Eakin was the head economic advisor for the McCain campaign and heads some right wing think tank), omissions (a single unlinked Texas A&M study that contradicts nearly all other available research on the minimum wage) and bad-faith logical fallacies (it's not the best way so let's not use it at all/it doesn't help everyone so we shouldn't help anyone) in that article are staggering.
― bi-polar uncle (its OK-he's dead) (Phil D.), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, doesn’t think so. In fact, he doesn’t think the federal government should have a minimum wage at all."
I mean do you need to read any further
― anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
a single unlinked Texas A&M study
it's MOUNTING EVIDENCE, dude. totally mounting.
― i ain't allergic i just sneeze a lot (Hunt3r), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
No minimum wage is a deeply randian opinion. So is eating babies.
― Aimless, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd be down w questioning the value of the minimum wage if we weren't living in an age of all-time high corporate profits and stock markets. But we are.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
how does this apply to amazon mechanical turk!
― Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.
It does seem plausible that without government benefits Walmart would be forced to pay slightly higher wages. Same probably goes for other big companies that rely on minimum wage labor (such as the fast food industry). But it's hard to say because reducing government benefits would have lots of indirect effects on demand and such. In any case, the way I see it, that's not an argument for reducing benefits, but rather for raising the minimum wage.
― o. nate, Monday, 3 March 2014 16:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
My life as a retail worker, written by a former political journalist.
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
After recently having one of those bougie "honey I don't know if we're saving enough for retirement" conversations, this was sobering to read:http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Six months of living expenses" is a good lol to all "middle-class" New Yorkers.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Financial advisors have a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that "good financial management" requires meeting a variety of difficult to meet goals through strategies that are more complicated than people would construct on their own. Basically, the hordes of financial 'advisors' out there are peddling watered down, simple-minded versions of how the wealthy manage much larger trusts and estates. In order to make enough work for the ever-increasing numbers of these parasites, these strategies are being pushed at people ever further down the income scale. It is an industry and they sell fear, uncertainty and doubt. Don't buy it.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think the six months' savings things makes a lot of sense if you have a family. Maybe less so if you're single and can easily move to a cheaper rental or crash on a friend's couch or whatever. I agree that a lot of other stuff financial planner types tell you is just ludicrous and beyond imagination, like the amount you're supposed to save for your kids college, the amount you're supposed to save for retirement, etc.
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just having a savings account with as much money as you can wangle into it doesn't require a financial advisor to figure out. Stating flatly that it should contain "six months of living expenses" is more confusing than enlightening.
Very few people can tell you what "one month of living expenses" amounts to. I happen to keep detailed records of what we spend each month, going back to 2008, and the amounts vary so widely I'd have to massage the numbers quite a bit to come up with a number that even vaguely fits "six months of living expenses". As advice, this sounds simple, but as soon as you seriously try to put it to use, it becomes very, very nebulous and more likely to inspire fretting than guide action.
By way of contrast, saying "six months of your rent or mortgage payments" would at least allow a person to quickly and easily calculate a number so they can see what the goal is.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I inherited "a little money" from my mom two years ago, i.e. six months of my rent, pretty much. And rather than keep that as my emergency fund, I'm going to Europe this year.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I hear there's an old saying, "see Naples and die". Have a good time.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp IDK, it seems kind of intuitive to me that "six months of living expenses" means six months of the things you couldn't or wouldn't want to cut even in an emergency -- food, rent/mortgage, basic utilities, etc.
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
student loans - the new burden of failure
― Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Thursday, 13 March 2014 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
student loans - the price of growing up in america without family money
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 13 March 2014 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
student loans = graduate groans!
― Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Thursday, 13 March 2014 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
student loan (interest) = yacht owner gas money!
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 13 March 2014 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― j., Monday, 24 March 2014 03:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha as soon as I got to the part with the Thomas Friedman quote I was like "say no more, I would like to sign up for your newsletter"
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 03:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
most terrifying part is buried way in
I'm essentially competing for every hour of my employment.
― j., Monday, 24 March 2014 03:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
buried but kind of implied at other points I think. Chilling piece, yeah. Also dovetails nicely with an interview I listened to last night with Jennifer Silvahttp://scholar.harvard.edu/jsilva
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S131121 (Nov 21)
more about the non-tech-savvy In This Economy but some of the themes overlap
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 03:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
the silver lining is that it starts to sound toward the end like these platforms are shitty business models that will either change or fail
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 04:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
3. Half of Americans are "Poor" or "Low-Income"
This is based on the Census Department's Relative Poverty Measure (Table 4), which is "most commonly used in developed countries to measure poverty." The Economic Policy Institute uses the term "economically vulnerable." With this standard, 18 percent of Americans are below the poverty threshold and 32 percent are below twice the threshold, putting them in the low-income category.
The official poverty rate increased by 25 percent between 2000 and 2011. Seniors and children feel the greatest impact, with 55 percent of the elderly and almost 60 percent of children classified as poor or low-income under the relative poverty measure. Wider Opportunities for Women reports that "60 percent of women age 65 and older who live alone or live with a spouse have incomes insufficient to cover basic, daily expenses."
4. It's Much Worse for Black Families
Incredibly, while America's total wealth has risen from $12 trillion to $77 trillion in 25 years, the median net worth for black households has GONE DOWN over approximately the same time, from $7,150 to $6,446, adjusted for inflation. State of Working America reports that almost half of black children under the age of six are living in poverty.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 April 2014 14:28 (11 months ago) Permalink
^^ worst part is how unsurprising it is.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 18:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
time to live in 5th element cubies
― Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Wednesday, 2 April 2014 20:03 (11 months ago) Permalink
charles pierce otm
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 30 May 2014 17:45 (10 months ago) Permalink
nail salons and dog groomers booming
― j., Friday, 6 June 2014 00:23 (9 months ago) Permalink
captain obvious: "a very ugly blame game going on that’s directed — is orchestrated — by people who are doing very nicely at the top to turn the sort of great middle class that itself is feeling squeezed against people at the bottom"
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 30 June 2014 17:01 (9 months ago) Permalink
Bubble Paranoia Setting in as S&P 500 Surge Stirs Angst
― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 July 2014 08:52 (8 months ago) Permalink
I don't want most people to experience the misery of another bubble bursting but I feel like the post-recession gains in the economy have been accumulated by such a relatively small number of people that it wouldn't be as devastating.
― Insane Prince of False Binaries (Gukbe), Friday, 18 July 2014 09:23 (8 months ago) Permalink
I could easily see stocks falling 10% on no news, but to get more than that, I think something would have to happen in the "real" economy.
― o. nate, Friday, 18 July 2014 19:05 (8 months ago) Permalink
on the bright side, enough americans now live in poverty that something/anything must be done (besides cut taxes / deregulate big finance)?
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 19 September 2014 18:39 (6 months ago) Permalink
U.S. Economy Grew 5% in Third Quarter, Its Fastest Rate in More Than a Decade
― Mordy, Tuesday, 23 December 2014 17:10 (3 months ago) Permalink
"As anthropologist David Graeber puts it, 'Whenever someone starts talking about the ‘free market,’ it’s a good idea to look around for the man with the gun.' Despite the endless talk of a 'free market,' our economy is shaped by myriad government policies—and no matter where we look, we see government policies working against everyday workers. Whether it’s letting the real value of the minimum wage decline, making it harder to unionize, or creating bankruptcy laws and intellectual-property regimes that primarily benefit capital and the 1 percent, the way the government structures markets is responsible for weakening labor and causing wages to stay stuck."
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 14:21 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
i agree with konczal but i also feel like wages are gonna start increasing soon. not that that necessarily contradicts anything he's saying here. but the best thing to raise wages is a low unemployment rate. if unemployment were to continue declining and wages not go up, something is definitely up
unionization is weird because the types of industries that are/were unionized tended to pay relatively higher wages so it's hard to figure out what the _actual_ union premium is. it's not empirically clear anymore that there even is a significant premium. people were talking about this paper (https://economics.byu.edu/frandsen/Documents/unioneffects.pdf) a few weeks ago that found a negative premium (for those who don't trust or can't understand economists this is a good explanation of the result & problems with the research design from a credibly left-wing source http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17663/a_recent_study_says_unionized_companies_actually_pay_less._the_truth_is_a_b) (and here's matt yglesias http://www.vox.com/2015/2/3/7966951/frandsen-union-wages)
fancy high skill jobs that already pay a high premium don't really need unions and the industries that employ them benefit from the flexibility, but widespread unionization of service sector could be welfare improving
obama wants to raise the federal minimum wage to 10$. that's obviously not going to happen anytime soon, but citywide MWs seem to be catching on and don't seem to have much effect on employment (although they do increase prices) (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/wp/economicimpacts_07.pdf) a lot depends on what happens in oakland & seattle, if the elasticity is still small around 15$ MW workers in other cities are gonna start making noise
i tend to think there's a limit to how much influence govts have on labor market outcomes for good or bad and that rather than try to chase the dream of higher wages we should just go straight for the jugular and redistribute. USA and sweden have the same pre-tax GINI coefficient etc
― flopson, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 17:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
if unemployment were to continue declining and wages not go up, something is definitely up
this is exactly what's happening in the UK fwiw
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 17:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
real wages are actually _falling_ in the uk. labor productivity is also stalling though:
in the us it's more of a "mystery" since it's been increasing
― flopson, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 17:52 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 28 March 2015 13:00 (4 days ago) Permalink
Is the US economy tanking right now?
― Team Foxcatcherwatcher (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 30 March 2015 14:15 (2 days ago) Permalink
always a healthy question
― Team Foxcatcherwatcher (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 30 March 2015 14:16 (2 days ago) Permalink
I'm confused about all these numbers. Dollar getting stronger, Euro getting weaker - so that's ... bad? Good? And US unemployment falling, but real, invisible unemployment ... rising? Steady? Also, Russia - still collapsing? How's China? I assume we're all in the shitbin (save Germany?), but how shitty, for real?
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 30 March 2015 14:25 (2 days ago) Permalink
Krugman doesn't seem too worried
― curmudgeon, Monday, 30 March 2015 14:27 (2 days ago) Permalink
Krugman probably envisions the European Central Bank pulling a Bernanke out of its hat, which it may not be able to encompass. As Keynes pointed out, the selfishness that drives expansion in a capitalistic economy is also what drives recessions. It all hinges on whether the broad sum of selfish actions are motivated by optimism or fear. That still applies. As for confusion, there is plenty of room for it atm.
― Aimless, Monday, 30 March 2015 16:59 (2 days ago) Permalink