Swing States Get their "Reward"

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

In the 16 U.S. recessions since 1919, the average length has been 13 months, although the recent recessions have been shorter. Thus if the 2008 recession followed the average, the downturn in the stock market would have bottomed around November 2008. The actual US stock market bottom of the 2008 recession was in March 2009.

Wow! Five whole months!

None of the previous recessions was anywhere near this severe, not since 1929, and none were accompanied by the hideously suicidal obstruction that the Republicans are engaging in.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

In the 16 U.S. recessions since 1919, the average length has been 13 months, although the recent recessions have been shorter. Thus if the 2008 recession followed the average, the downturn in the stock market would have bottomed around November 2008. The actual US stock market bottom of the 2008 recession was in March 2009.

This recession is a damn sight closer to the one in 1929 that lasted for ten years - ask me how I know.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

This recession is a damn sight closer to the one in 1929 that lasted for ten years - ask me how I know.

How do you know? See my response above to Erik. Maybe one or both of you have some info that economists, who generally agree that the recession has already ended, should be aware of?

[piece-itpete]

I was gonna say whell, not sour grapes, but partisan obstruction :wrysmile:

Pete

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

The week after the election, unemployment claims spike across the country. So much for unemployment trending down. Sure, some of the claims can be attributable to Hurricane Sandy. However, the two states with the highest number of reported claims last week were PA and OH.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/e...m#.UKUY_uRi6SF

How about a wider focus, Whell? 1.8 million less moochers on the dole ought to warm the cockles on every accountant's cold heart.

"The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending October 27 was 4,977,808, a decrease of 100,423 from the previous week. There were 6,773,260 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2011." From the above link

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

How about a wider focus, Whell? 1.8 million less moochers on the dole ought to warm the cockles on every accountant's cold heart.

"The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending October 27 was 4,977,808, a decrease of 100,423 from the previous week. There were 6,773,260 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2011." From the above link

How 'bout these numbers:

"New figures released by the Census Bureau this week found a spike in poverty numbers last year, going from 49 million in 2010 to 49.7 million last year. The numbers may come as a surprise to Congress, which estimated in September that the poverty rate would drop to 46.2 million. One of the most startling findings showed that almost 20 percent of American children continue to live in poverty."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...cans-affected/

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

How 'bout these numbers:

"New figures released by the Census Bureau this week found a spike in poverty numbers last year, going from 49 million in 2010 to 49.7 million last year. The numbers may come as a surprise to Congress, which estimated in September that the poverty rate would drop to 46.2 million. One of the most startling findings showed that almost 20 percent of American children continue to live in poverty."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...cans-affected/

Because wages for the workers have actually been declining, probably so they can hand out those fat bonuses to Mahogany Row.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Because wages for the workers have actually been declining, probably so they can hand out those fat bonuses to Mahogany Row.

BS. There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to lower average wage growth. Automation, inefficiencies in manufacturing, more women in the workforce, inflation, the shift in the economy over the last 30 years from manufacturing based to services based, etc. I guess if it makes you feel better to have someone to blame for economic trends, then go ahead and blame "Mahogany Row". But you'll be no closer to the truth of the matter for all your efforts.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

BS. There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to lower average wage growth. Automation, inefficiencies in manufacturing, more women in the workforce, inflation, the shift in the economy over the last 30 years from manufacturing based to services based, etc. I guess if it makes you feel better to have someone to blame for economic trends, then go ahead and blame "Mahogany Row". But you'll be no closer to the truth of the matter for all your efforts.

Hmmmm.........

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

BS. There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to lower average wage growth. Automation, inefficiencies in manufacturing, more women in the workforce, inflation, the shift in the economy over the last 30 years from manufacturing based to services based, etc. I guess if it makes you feel better to have someone to blame for economic trends, then go ahead and blame "Mahogany Row". But you'll be no closer to the truth of the matter for all your efforts.

Sorry but you have overlooked a couple of things yourself, why shold women working depress wages? Unless you are a male chauvinist pig, and the other big factor - greed. How else does 1% of the population get 70% of the growth in money.