Recession of 2020? It’s actually a Great Depression

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Job Gains Were Weaker Than Reported, by Half a Million

Job Gains Were Weaker Than Reported, by Half a Million

Image

Hiring in leisure and hospitality was significantly weaker than believed, new government data showed.CreditCreditWill Ellis for The New York Times
By Ben Casselman

• Aug. 21, 2019, 4:33 p.m. ET

Employers added a half-million fewer jobs in 2018 and early 2019 than previously reported, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which survey-based estimates are brought into alignment with more definitive data from state unemployment insurance records. Wednesday’s revision covers the period through March; final updates, which will include the rest of 2019, will be released in February.

The revisions don’t change the overall picture of a healthy job market. But they do mean that 2018, which had ranked among the strongest years of job growth in the decade-long recovery, was weaker than previously believed. After the revision, hiring probably averaged under 200,000 jobs per month last year, down from the 223,000 initially reported and only modestly better than the 179,000 monthly jobs added in 2017.

Wednesday’s update is also the latest evidence that the economy got less of a jolt from President Trump’s tax cuts than it initially appeared. Last month, the Commerce Department lowered its estimate of economic growth in 2018.

The revisions hit consumer-oriented industries particularly hard. Retailers cut nearly 150,000 more jobs than initially reported, while hiring in leisure and hospitality — which includes restaurants, hotels and entertainment — was significantly weaker than believed. But the transportation and warehousing sector, which has been booming because of the rise in online shopping, added nearly 80,000 more jobs than previously reported.

Wednesday’s revision was the largest in recent years, but it didn’t come as a total surprise. Many economists had expected job growth to level off in 2018 as the unemployment rate fell and employers struggled to find workers.

“The pace of job growth in 2018 was a significant upside surprise,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist of Amherst Pierpont Securities, an investment firm. “The revision kind of brings things back into line with what the original thought process had been.”

Investors in recent weeks have become increasingly concerned about the possibility of a recession, and the Federal Reserve last month cut interest rates in an effort to stave off a downturn. Guy Berger, chief economist for the career-focused social network LinkedIn, said the recent revisions were a reminder that official statistics often struggle to pick up turning points in the economy until it is too late.

But Mr. Berger added that the evidence so far suggested that growth was cooling, not grinding to a halt.

“I don’t look at any of these things and say, ‘Wow, we’re on the tip of a recession,’” he said.

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

Tank the economy brehs.. seems like that’s the only way to get trump up out the paint...

 

[Json]

Tank the economy brehs.. seems like that’s the only way to get trump up out the paint...

Bush Sr. lost support for raising taxes based on the facts on the ground but these Republicans now will try to drag Trump and his deficit/recession across the finish in 2020.

 

[Robbie3000]

So, I don't understand any of this.....should I move my 401K away from stocks? Let me google what all this means but I'd appreciate some feedback. Specifically on what to do with your 401K and IRA's. Most of my money is in a 401K but I transferred money from my last job into a IRA. Its just been sitting. I dont even know how much is in there at this point.

Good question and would be interested in what others think.

From my research, unless you are close to retirement, financial planners recommend not transferring from stocks, but to keep buying.

 

[phcitywarrior]

From my research, unless you are close to retirement, financial planners recommend not transferring from stocks, but to keep buying.

Pretty much this. Only way I’d pull out is if I was heavily leveraged in a company on a company about to go bust. But if you have a diversified portfolio, you should be good.

 

[wire28]

Good question and would be interested in what others think.

From my research, unless you are close to retirement, financial planners recommend not transferring from stocks, but to keep buying.

so many mixed messages

Spoiler

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Blame that imposter, Milton Friedman! Shareholder Value if not has to surely rank up there with one of the worlds most unchecked idiotic ideas to plague this planet. Him and his believers nothing but idiots!

Any other country, that shareholder doctrine woulda be laughed at and outta the room.


But no not in the usa.

explain brehs

 

[ExodusNirvana]

explain brehs

Little to no regulations and the idea that the free market will take care of most demands

Minimal government involvement except money creation

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Little to no regulations and the idea that the free market will take care of most demands

Minimal government involvement except money creation

I get that concept, but I don't understand why it's called shareholder value or shareholder doctrine? Are we saying that the concept of maximizing profits is the shareholder doctrine?

 

[ExodusNirvana]

I get that concept, but I don't understand why it's called shareholder value or shareholder doctrine? Are we saying that the concept of maximizing profits is the shareholder doctrine?

Basically...a company's only obligation is to it's shareholders

That's what makes it so batshyt crazy... without regulations, there would be a sweatshop on every block as long as the money kept coming in

We're literally seeing the result of that crazy shyt in real time and people still believe in that free market bullshyt

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I get that concept, but I don't understand why it's called shareholder value or shareholder doctrine? Are we saying that the concept of maximizing profits is the shareholder doctrine?

Friedman doctrine - Wikipedia

 

[---]

explain brehs

Shareholder value is smart dumbness at it's finest! Milton Friedman is like an NFL coach that won a playoff game and was able to make it into a career. He pioneered this stupid idea more than anyone else.

Shareholder value theorem helped changed the definition of what business was before the late '70s. The notion that a primary business goal is to maximize investors return before anything else. So before taking care of its employee, or it's a community, this theorem gives psychopaths a legal reason to destroy everything for short term profits.

A business is supposed to enrich the community, fill a need that is missing from the market place. After all, that is done, and when the company's get everything right than shareholder value is created — shareholder value is designed as a result of a well-oiled business that services the masses first.

Every 30 years or so, the capitalism model needs to be upgraded as human behaviour gets increasingly complex, and a sleuth of new financial products are created. So a software upgrade is required. Milton promoted one of the upgrade features for the last upgrade. The problem is that the latest update got so many things wrong. Plus the primary function of the upgrade was "shareholder value." But instead of being the gold star feature, it was the main bug in the system. 2008 was the year of the update, but we missed that as well.

So because of this theorem that has turned into a doctrine, that turned into a god damn law, you have businesses trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Quarter to quarter maximization of profit is the only thing they care about. Running a business in this climate is just insane! I could go on and on about the problems that this dumb idea has caused. I'll say this damn near every single problem of the current economy can be traced back to Milton shareholder bs and maximization of shareholder value.

I am capitalists but certain things can't be left to capitalism.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

explain brehs

Shareholder value is smart dumbness at it's finest! Milton Friedman is like an NFL coach that won a playoff game and was able to make it into a career. He pioneered this stupid idea more than anyone else.

Shareholder value theorem helped changed the definition of what business was before the late '70s. The notion that a primary business goal is to maximize investors before anything else. So before taking care of its employee, or it's community gives psychopaths a legal realize to destroy everything for short turn profits.

A business is supposed to enrich the community, fill a need that is missing from the market and at the end when the company's get everything right shareholder value is created — shareholder value is created as a result of a well-oiled business.

Every 30 years or so, the capitalism model needs to be upgraded as human behaviour gets increasingly complex, and a sleuth of new financial products are created. So a software upgrade is required. Milton promoted one of the upgrade features for the last upgrade. Problem is the latest update got so many things wrong. Plus the primary function of the upgrade was shareholder value. But it was the main bug in the system. 2008 was the year of the update, but we missed that as well.

So because of this theorem that has turned into a doctrine, you have business trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Quarter to quarter maximization of profit is the only thing they care about. Not customer satisfaction, not employee satisfaction and the sleuth of other essential things that a business needs to run. Running a business in this climate is just insane! I could go on and on about the problems this dumb idea has caused. Damn near every ill of the current economy can be traced back to Milton shareholder bs and maximization of shareholder value.

Capitalists can't be left to be governed by a capitalist; we can't help ourselves. To ensure capitalism thrives it needs to be for the benefit of society.

speaking of the devil...

 

[Piff Perkins]

Lots of mis-characterizations going around. A recession is likely to happen...the signs were there well over a year ago when the yield curve first started signalling something was up. But there are no signs that this is going to be as bad as the 2008 recession, and anyone claiming there's going to be a "revolution" after this is just exposing the fact that they don't pay attention. The 2008/9 recession was literally the worst recession since the Great Depression. Previous to that, the US economy has typically had a recession once a decade. We're within that range right now.

I expect there to be job losses and poor growth, but it won't be utterly terrible. Will it be bad enough to kick Trump out of office? Sure, since a lot of this has been sped on by his terrible policies on trade. I'm just curious how the administration will react to an actual recession. I'd expect Trump to blame the Fed and start firing people...which will make the market tank further.

This also complicates the next administration. If you think any president is going to enter office during a recession and raise taxes, you're delusional. If a democrats sweeps into office with the House and senate in his/her pocket...I think we get a major spending/stimulus bill. Infrastructure or something. Basically a repeat of 2009. Followed by financial regulations.

 

[Oville]

Lots of mis-characterizations going around. A recession is likely to happen...the signs were there well over a year ago when the yield curve first started signalling something was up. But there are no signs that this is going to be as bad as the 2008 recession, and anyone claiming there's going to be a "revolution" after this is just exposing the fact that they don't pay attention. The 2008/9 recession was literally the worst recession since the Great Depression. Previous to that, the US economy has typically had a recession once a decade. We're within that range right now.

I expect there to be job losses and poor growth, but it won't be utterly terrible. Will it be bad enough to kick Trump out of office? Sure, since a lot of this has been sped on by his terrible policies on trade. I'm just curious how the administration will react to an actual recession. I'd expect Trump to blame the Fed and start firing people...which will make the market tank further.c
This also complicates the next administration. If you think any president is going to enter office during a recession and raise taxes, you're delusional. If a democrats sweeps into office with the House and senate in his/her pocket...I think we get a major spending/stimulus bill. Infrastructure or something. Basically a repeat of 2009. Followed by financial regulations.

I think the thing you may be underestimating is the amount of debt corporations and individuals have right now. That's what may cause this recession to be exasperated along with the trade war with china being the wild card.