Our So-Called Boom

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Nothing new.



    Highest number in a decade is nothing new? I think you're confused.
  • Reply 22 of 36
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    No, the bias of the LA Times is nothing new.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    No, the bias of the LA Times is nothing new.



    Well, highest number in a decade isn't LA Time bias even if they're a biased news source.
  • Reply 24 of 36
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    No, the bias of the LA Times is nothing new.



    I read the L.A. Times also. The op-ed articles are quite balanced...for every Michael Ledeen, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc etc etc article, there's opposition pieces from the likes of Robert Scheer, Ralph Nader etc. The editorials tend to be centrist...but this is countered by the resident cartoonist Michael Ramirez who is far out on the right. The letters tend to be balanced between liberal and conservative viewpoints.



    The LA Times isn't a "liberal" paper in an absolute sense. However it's relatively more liberal than most of the other dailies on offer.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    The LA Times only seems liberal because most of the news media out there is so biased to the right.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    I read the L.A. Times also. The op-ed articles are quite balanced...for every Michael Ledeen, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc etc etc article, there's opposition pieces from the likes of Robert Scheer, Ralph Nader etc. The editorials tend to be centrist...but this is countered by the resident cartoonist Michael Ramirez who is far out on the right. The letters tend to be balanced between liberal and conservative viewpoints.



    The LA Times isn't a "liberal" paper in an absolute sense. However it's relatively more liberal than most of the other dailies on offer.




    How do you explain it burying a story about Gray Davis being an explosive abusive a-hole at work while simultaneously declaring all out war on Schwarzenegger campaign? Walking in lock step with the CA Democratic party. That's pure bald faced bias.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    This thread is particularly amusing.



    1) I personally have never said the economy is booming. It's in a "strong recovery" mode. The job market is still not fully recovered...and I've never said anything different.



    2) Unemployment is low. Very low. The historical average is about

    8.5%. I keep posting that...but of course, few hear it.



    3) The LA times is ridiculously liberal and biased.



    4) Read this:



    Quote:

    There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed "discouraged," their number has surged 20% in a year.



    I mean, christ almighty! I know finding work can be hard...my father in law is in that boat now at the age of 59....because is company pulling out of the US. But really..."depressed", "discouraged"....WTF is that? That's a bullshit "statistic" if I ever saw one. Either one is employed or he isn't. That's like answering the question "Do you have a job" with the answer: "I have prospects".



    The numbers haven't been massaged. They're from the BLS for god's sake. It's the way the unemployment number is calculated and always has been. And once again, it's like some of you are LOOKING for bad news instead of good news...which is exactly, EXACTLY why your boy Dean is not going to fare well. It's a question of optimism vs. pessimism....and voters choose the former rather than the latter in most cases.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Boom???!!!! Strange kind of boom...

    from an article in yeatserdays LA Times, revealing how the unemployment statistics are massaged to make the situation look better than reality:







    Remainder of article here:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tskipsmillions










    It's known as part of "frictional unemployment" and, no, it's nothing new---discouraged workers are not counted, etc.



    Again, when Dole went after Clinton in '96 he used the same arguments. Has anything changed from then to now---not really.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    There is no boom. Has anyone really siad there has been? I know I've heard about a recovery, and people debate over how much we've seen and how much we're going to see, but I didn't think any sane person would qualify any improvements to the US economy as a "boom."



    My 401K is up 27.9% for the year. As far as the equities markets are concerned it feels like a boom to me. (My best investment this year was in the Fidelity Diversified Investment Fund - up 41.91% on the year.)
  • Reply 30 of 36
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    My 401k is also way up, but it's been so depressed, it's still making up ground and has a ways to go. The jobs simply aren't there, and more businesses around me continue to cut costs, people, and go belly up. I do wonder why large companies' bottom lines are improving so well, but smaller companies and many people I know are still struggling to stay afloat? Part of it is certainly the market and particular company I work in, which will probably not survive the year.
  • Reply 31 of 36
    Quote:

    quote:Originally posted by BuonRotto

    My 401k is also way up, but it's been so depressed, it's still making up ground and has a ways to go. The jobs simply aren't there, and more businesses around me continue to cut costs, people, and go belly up. I do wonder why large companies' bottom lines are improving so well, but smaller companies and many people I know are still struggling to stay afloat? Part of it is certainly the market and particular company I work in, which will probably not survive the year.




    Someone once said, "All politics is local." You could say the same thing about economics. There's another old chestnut: "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job." Basically, it's all about perspective. The last few years have been good to you if you owned real estate. It's been hell if you owned stock in WorldCom.



    My best friend is a mortgage broker. This year was his best year ever. The deal he made with the credit union paid him $40K plus 25 basis points. By the end of October he had made $120K. He got laid off just before Thanksgiving. They replaced him with someone who will get $25K plus 10 basis points. He already has another job, though.
  • Reply 32 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    But really..."depressed", "discouraged"....WTF is that? That's a bullshit "statistic" if I ever saw one. Either one is employed or he isn't. That's like answering the question "Do you have a job" with the answer: "I have prospects".





    No, it's like answering the question "Do you have a job" with the answer "No, and I have no prospects of getting one". That's what 1.5 million people think, and that number has increased 20% in the last year. Just what you'd expect in a 'boom', no?
  • Reply 33 of 36
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Oh no more terrible news.



    Jobless claims lower again



    I think a few of you watch a little too much cable news. What is with all this instant gratification. Most things don't chart straight up or down. They don't do so instantly. However you can see trends. I've seen SDW point this out, and I've seen several others use any little bit of bad news they can find anywhere to discredit a trend.



    One bit of info isn't going to discredit a trend though. Likewise the entire country isn't linked, nor are all market segments. The unemployment rate is standing under 6% (5.9%) and is improving. This economic downturn, which would have happened regardless of who was president, is the shallowest I can recall. Does that mean that some people didn't lose their jobs or suffer harm? No. But to declare the sky is falling over a little rain is just such nonsense.



    This economic downturn hasn't even been bad enough to beat some spending and financial planning sense into many of my friends, even the one who lost his job in tech. If I see another fleet of SUV's with DVD's, LCD's and 20 inch rims while hearing everyone complain about how terrible it is, I'm going to puke.



    My own area of investment interest, Real Estate has done profoundly well. I'm up about quite a bit and just waiting until about March to either start investing in stocks for the first time, or start looking for another multi-unit building.



    Companies are squeezing every bit of productivity they can from their workers, and soon are going to hire again. But like most trends it doesn't just trickle, it bursts. Housing sat stagnant for YEARS here in California. The apartment building I bought in 2001 was sold to me for the same price it had been purchased at in 1993. Now there is all this appreciation and soon it will end. We will likely have about 5-8 years of stagnant real estate prices, then again with the zoom. It averages out to about 5% a year but you have half decade stretches where there is no growth.



    Lots of markets are the same way. I will say that there are always new variables to consider, but as a general trend things are trending up.



    Consider the past when if the company folded, your 401k wasn't up or down, it was gone. (pension) Likewise consider that if you still have a 401k during downtimes, that is still really doing quite well.



    My wife and I have argued about this in the past because we try very hard to live well below our means. We all have comfort levels and adjust them for the good and bad times. During these not so good times, we have still gotten by on one income. Others get by on two, but there are so many adjustments you can make. Some work but don't contribute to their 401k for a while. Some take a second job, make a car last longer, take a roommate, etc.



    For such a terrible downturn (supposedly) I have seen fewer of these adjustments than in the past. I had a friend lose a tech job, go to private consulting and his own software based company. His wife went to work for about 16 more hours a week and they still redecorated the house, and bought a hot tub. I didn't see his loss hurt him in this "downturn."



    I've yet to see someone even take a second job because of this downturn or alter their housing arrangement.



    Maybe it is just because I am in California but this downturn has seemed at worst, like people are missing the easy money that was coming during the late 90's when every other week we were reading about a 20 something multimillionaire thanks to an IPO. However having to live like an average Joe or Jane (or even Juan) doesn't constitute financial distress or suffering.



    I had a friend in the late 90's heyday who's job was basically playing golf. He was in the loan department of a bank and had so many loans coming in for things that he didn't have to work to get any and could just golf all day. During the "downturn" he actually had to come back to the office and work. Do I think this guy thinks the economy is terrible because he can't hit the golf park? No he is average working joe again.



    To top it off, North begins the article with an example of his boss buying his daughter a Lexis. OMG, the economy is so terrible that teens are driving luxury cars.



    If we were in a depression just think, she might have to drive a Honda instead of a Lexis. If we were in an economic freefall she might even have to buy...(shudder) a used car or worse yet... get a ride...



    North, if the economy were truly terrible you wouldn't be the creative director, you would be the creative department. Likewise if the economy were truly terrible the last thing your company would be worrying about is whether their products are displayed online with flash.



    But that is the point isn't it. This terrible downturn means the art department has to get by with fewer flash animators than it might need while still keeping the art department/website/etc.



    I mean listen to you. No bonus = bad times. How about no job = bad times. We've had it all so good for so long, that down is up. We live in a world where kids get toys for eating food that makes them fat. Teens get new Lexis cars, you have to work with no bonus and this is the "worst of times."



    Well if it is the worst of times, then I guess when the best of times occurs, you will again have multiple job offers so you can toss the boss that didn't give you your Christmas bonus and demand more from the other multiple employers who want your services.



    Nick
  • Reply 34 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    I am the creative director here and I've desperately needed at least two new artists/flash animators. Because all the economic indicators show that business is improving and the outlook looks good, I put in my request for additional help. I was flat out denied. When I asked why, I was told that things were running just fine as it is. Running fine as it is? I'm doing to the job of three employees, wage increases have been permanently frozen, our 401K has been disabled and, after kicking ass this last quarter, NO CHRISTMAS BONUS!





    I share your frustration. Because in my neck of the woods I see positions described as graphic designer that fit YOUR position. They want a 3-in-one person. One that handles the job of many and less compensation.



    The term graphic designer is not only associated with print (Quark, Illustrator, Photoshop)...it will forever now include: web design (this also includes programming such as Java, PHP, ASP and Xhtml), Flash (again, programming within too) and Multimedia (this runs the gamut -- Director, Final Cut Pro, 3D Design and programming).



    I just sent a resume to an Apple reseller for a "Graphic Designer/Receptionist" position...RECEPTIONIST?



    Another thing. Since finding a job in my field has turned up nothing I have been working in retail. Its the same as usual. Lotsa work for SHIT pay. Oh, I got my benefits...and it's taken another cut out of my paycheck that taxes have been doing already.



    Corporations/politicians don't care. They love these times. They'll just reap the benefits and export the work elsewhere...and our government will look the other way.



    Vote for change...vote ANARCHY.



  • Reply 35 of 36
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This thread is particularly amusing.



    1) I personally have never said the economy is booming. It's in a "strong recovery" mode. The job market is still not fully recovered...and I've never said anything different.



    2) Unemployment is low. Very low. The historical average is about

    8.5%. I keep posting that...but of course, few hear it.



    3) The LA times is ridiculously liberal and biased.



    4) Read this:







    I mean, christ almighty! I know finding work can be hard...my father in law is in that boat now at the age of 59....because is company pulling out of the US. But really..."depressed", "discouraged"....WTF is that? That's a bullshit "statistic" if I ever saw one. Either one is employed or he isn't. That's like answering the question "Do you have a job" with the answer: "I have prospects".



    The numbers haven't been massaged. They're from the BLS for god's sake. It's the way the unemployment number is calculated and always has been. And once again, it's like some of you are LOOKING for bad news instead of good news...which is exactly, EXACTLY why your boy Dean is not going to fare well. It's a question of optimism vs. pessimism....and voters choose the former rather than the latter in most cases.






    Yes I'm sure the Bush people will try to spin it that way.





    And yes voters will choose optimisim first. Which is why they'll want to get rid of Bush. Too many of them know and feel the truth. Do you really think they'll trust Bush again?



    Optimisim is a good thing. We just have to get there first.



    http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/30/news...umer/index.htm



    Another thing. Don't you find it odd that there are so many threads on this subject that you have feined amusment for? The fact of the matter is if you were to use AO as a cross section measurement of people out there you could see a growing sentiment of anger and distrust for Mr. Bush.



  • Reply 36 of 36
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This thread is particularly amusing.



    Like most of your fanatical pro-party posts. Is your play room covered with Republican senior official pictures wall to wall?
    Quote:

    2) Unemployment is low. Very low. The historical average is about 8.5%. I keep posting that...but of course, few hear it.



    Right, so all the millions of unemployed should feel grateful because even though they don't have a job, historically , and according to you, we're not doing that badly? Yeah!
    Quote:

    3) The LA times is ridiculously liberal and biased.



    Dude,compared to you 97% of the world is ridiculously liberal.



    SammiJo, that's a great qualification to have received money from Enron. After all wasn't Enron one of the biggest (maybe even the single biggest) contributors to Bush ? By the way, I think Scott was actually bragging.
Sign In or Register to comment.