The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: Mr. Green on December 26, 2018, 02:05:00 PM
-
Probably not but I am having a hard time figuring out what everyone is so worried about that they're dumping stocks. Just saw an article that businesses just saw the best holiday spending by consumers I six years. Off the top of my head I can't really come up with one piece of solid economic data that indicates a recession is on the horizon. A dip in home or oil prices don't indicate anything, given the other factors in both sectors (rising rates and booming US oil production). Call me a contrarian but I think it would be humorous if the current market gyration ended up being another head fake, like the last couple corrections over the past couple years that had people screaming, "this is it! The Drop is upon us!"
-
or is it?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmWyQRqYKTL6yypagRhoKC34wKwXAJgtoG2KPoqGZKxeWc/deadcatbounce.png)
-
Mehhh.... a good individual day, but we've still got a long way to go for a full recovery. I'm down about 3 1/2 years of retirement.
-
The market couldn't have waited 6 days for 2019 IRA money, could it...
-
The "Top Is In" post is dead. Mr. Green has replaced thorstach as our almighty ruler. Bottom is in!!
-
Ding dong! The Bear Market is dead! The wicked Bear Market is dead!
-
I have always been a contrarian and more than likely continue to be one. The market is looking forward into an unknown future, however (almost) every company in my area is hiring and help wanted signs are everywhere you look. The S&P p/e ratio seems a bit high but not extreme when compared to other years, no?
Have we hit a plateau? IMO, probably but I don't see a big bad bear lasting very long. Lower expected returns? Probably, so try to save a little more going forward.
-
Dammit! At least wait til January 3rd.
-
Ha, this was only the first leg down of this multi legged wicker bear.
-
And I was hoping it would be blood in the streets, bulls being slaughtered and the end of the world till I get my bonus in mid February.
-
Ooof! Down 600 points around mid-day only to close up 250. That's some whiplash right there. I pity the pour soul stressing over these wild swings.
-
(https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4951882.jpg)
-
The market is quite good at schooling people. That makes it hard to decide which group will be schooled next:
1) optimists who are using leverage to buy in (as margin loan rates cost more...), because they know it's over soon
2) pessimists who say the bull market is dead, and haven't decided if 2019 or 2020 will be worse.
But there is a much easier prediction to make by changing the time frame: it's very likely the recent market drops will be erased by market gains within several years - because historically, that's very likely (but not certain).
-
Top > Bear
-
You know that the Top is In when everyone including the shoeshine boy is making fun of Thorstach / market ever having a down year again.
You know the Bear Market is Over when everyone laments that the bear will never end and can't find any good news to share. I'm guessing that we still have a ways to go. Won't mind if I'm pleasantly surprised though, I was down 200k from my all time high before the bounce. Not updating NW or doing much of anything other than a thought experiment about what I want my AA to be when I ER. I've become more risk averse, even though I can 'afford' to lose more and maintain FI.
-
Everyone will always be making fun of Thorstach, regardless of Bear or Bull. Mockery Top will never be In.
-
My recession indicator is the unemployment rate. When it drops below about 4.75% there has always been a recession shortly afterward, and a spike in unemployment.
-
We just got a much stronger than expected jobs growth report and better than expected year over year wage growth. I continue to be lost as to what tea leaves people are reading that indicate a coming recession.
-
The China slowdown may get us there, I guess we'll see.
-
The China slowdown may get us there, I guess we'll see.
Or the shutdown, if it persists.
-
Ha, this was only the first leg down of this multi legged wicker bear.
No! Not the octo-bear!
-
I think this will end up being a bear market without a recession. It used to happen more often, but not as much since the late 80s. There will be some scares as we normalize to regular interest rates and it might be two years before we see another top.
The trade negotiations with China are good for the economy long term, I'm of the opinion the intellectual property theft has been hosing US companies for years.
There were some screaming deals in December on certain stocks.
Immigration politics will be interesting but I'm optimistic there too. The way to keep this economy cooking without massive wage inflation is reform legal immigration.
I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to investing
-
or is it?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmWyQRqYKTL6yypagRhoKC34wKwXAJgtoG2KPoqGZKxeWc/deadcatbounce.png)
Look at today's trading volume. Tiny compared to the last wave of downward pressure.
-
or is it?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmWyQRqYKTL6yypagRhoKC34wKwXAJgtoG2KPoqGZKxeWc/deadcatbounce.png)
Look at today's trading volume. Tiny compared to the last wave of downward pressure.
Are we saying... the Top is in?
-
Marketwatch has an article on "panic buying": https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04)
We've heard of panic selling, of course, but panic buying? I think they're just making up terms now.
-
Marketwatch has an article on "panic buying": https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04)
We've heard of panic selling, of course, but panic buying? I think they're just making up terms now.
As long as we're panicking no matter what, econ pundits are happy!
-
Marketwatch has an article on "panic buying": https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04)
We've heard of panic selling, of course, but panic buying? I think they're just making up terms now.
I like to panic-dollar-cost-average
-
Marketwatch has an article on "panic buying": https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-on-the-verge-of-panic-like-buying-as-dow-surges-nearly-700-points-2019-01-04)
We've heard of panic selling, of course, but panic buying? I think they're just making up terms now.
I like to panic-dollar-cost-average
I play around with 5-10% of my assets, got to unwind some of the "buy low" stuff. Would still like another 5-10% before the next drop, would unwind it all at a nice profit and get my cash allocation back
-
As luck would have it I purchased about $6k of VTI in my IRA yesterday at $124.80 ( closed at $128.90 today).
Of course this could prove to be unlucky by next month, or 6 months or a year from now. It will probably prove a very good call 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
I may be a market timing wizard, should probably get invited to a TV financial show and tell people about what I "see the market doing".
Of course maybe just the fact that I always fill my IRA as soon as possible is more relevant, way less likely to get on TV though.
-
or is it?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmWyQRqYKTL6yypagRhoKC34wKwXAJgtoG2KPoqGZKxeWc/deadcatbounce.png)
Look at today's trading volume. Tiny compared to the last wave of downward pressure.
Are we saying... the Top is in?
No need to say. It's always in. ALWAYS
-
This guy literally says the Bottom Is In (now where did that thread go...).
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-will-climb-15-in-2019-heres-what-to-buy-now-2019-01-07
I just love the talking heads, I've never received so much amusement from people reading tea leaves.
-
I agree with the OP there is no reason for a sell off and its been a good and much needed adjustment but who knows with this market. All i could do is what i did and added a little extra on the bigger dip.
-
Markets can always get out of sync with economic fundamentals. The ~20% drop we just experienced shows that. But eventually cold, hard facts take back over and the market returns to some valuation reflecting reality. So I'm not really surprised by a bear market. A recession, on the other hand, is a reflection of cold, hard economic data. I'm definitely glad I'm FIREd and don't pay attention to the day-to-day market news. It's enough to drive you crazy. I suppose that's what they want, so they get your money when you buy and sell.
-
The most probable tea leave is that investors have priced in a certain amount of assumed government subsidy, and the Federal Reserve and Trump have taken some steps which indicate that the level of subsidy will be less than that.
For example: Suppose I think that the "true value" of S&P companies is probably about 1800, and the other ~700 of current valuation is the value of government subsidy. (Partly direct subsidy, partly the knowledge that if we see another >350 drop then interest rates can be expected to go down and stay down until things come back up). Therefore, any indication of decreased market subsidy that changes my expectations about the goverment's level of commitment or competency will see me shorting until the S&P hits 1900, and starting to buy if it falls under 1800, or until something else happens to change my mind.
-
One thing, especially of note to contrarians, is that the beliefs of the majority often turn into self-fulfilling prophesy. Half of economics is sociological. A side note to that is that people are really fickle; the market may be blindingly optimistic again next week. Or it may not. Who knows.
-
Perhaps round 2 will occur in February when the easily panicked start hearing more on the news about the coming hard Brexit.
The cat has bounced so many times I'm not sure it's dead.
-
My recession indicator is the unemployment rate. When it drops below about 4.75% there has always been a recession shortly afterward, and a spike in unemployment.
There have been a number of reports that in some states there are more jobs available than job seekers.
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
-
Regarding Brexit I honestly don't think it will matter after it's done. It is priced in that there will be chaos, because British and European politics are just mad people running in circles.
One if: If after some more agony there is a second vote, and the second vote would end with remain, that would be a huge catalyst for European stocks. But I think that is very unlikely.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wages may have to increase to get people to fill those roles. Then prices will rise. Then we get the effect of Tariffs and prices could really go up. We could end up with hyper-inflation.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wages may have to increase to get people to fill those roles. Then prices will rise. Then we get the effect of Tariffs and prices could really go up. We could end up with hyper-inflation.
[/quote
All because of Politicians on both sides of the aisle that are crooks, have there agendas only in mind, and don't have to live by the laws they pass . Not to mention there life time long overextended terms.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
There are also a lot of jobs available in skilled labor right now. Because everyone went to college and no one is going into trades.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
-
You know that the Top is In when everyone including the shoeshine boy is making fun of Thorstach
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR4u1VerPYVIW8p8gZq32aiPPHVbCfyg3VtQtKv8LRIk1bfoOjv)
-
Perhaps round 2 will occur in February when the easily panicked start hearing more on the news about the coming hard Brexit.
The cat has bounced so many times I'm not sure it's dead.
Well they do have 9 lives.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor dissappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
You are right though that cutting off immigration is short sighted in that we need that population growth for the economy. Affluent people aren't having kids at a high enough birth rste to sustain the population growth our economic model has been built around.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
You are right though that cutting off immigration is short sighted in that we need that population growth for the economy. Affluent people aren't having kids at a high enough birth rste to sustain the population growth our economic model has been built around.
Illegal immigration is very costly. Even most Americans are net takers, but it's worse for illegals.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
-
Doesn't matter, that still misses the bigger picture. Bodies drive the engine of capitalism. You want to know what the economics of a declining population looks like, just look at Japan awhile back. A growing population creates a solid economic base at the most basic levels. People require things to live. That means things get made. Start decreasing the amount of things made every year for 15 years and it gets ugly for capitalism. Short of prolonged war consuming substantial resources, there is no bigger domino effect.
-
Even most Americans are net takers, but it's worse for illegals.
Your understanding of economics is considerably flawed. You really think that everyone who does work is a taker, and rich people who live off investments or business ownership are actually contributing? Taxes paid are NOT the right way to gauge economic productivity.
I assure you that if every "taker" in your definition were to suddenly evaporate, our economy would collapse. Labor is the source of all wealth, remember? Those people WORK, for you and for me, and their work is what keeps this country running. We need people who work hard, and the fact that they make so little money that they pay no taxes does not make them takers. Quite the contrary, I would argue that every CEO and celebrity athlete and trust fund kid is a taker, because they consume enormous resources without doing any meaningful work.
The rich are the parasites of society, not the poor. Poor people work, and produce, and create. Rich people just consume, mostly while doing nothing. They're vital parasites, don't get me wrong, but they're still parasites. Living off the hard work of others. Taking advantage of lenient tax laws that preserve their privileged position in society. Lounging by the pool, complaining on the internet about all of the people who mow their lawns for them.
And since you're so stuck on the supposed cost of illegal immigration, I'm sure you're aware that these people pay taxes without being eligible to receive social services, right? They're the exact opposite of takers. They give and get nothing back.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor dissappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
The luxury condos that are being built next to my house are a mix of white and Hispanic labor.
-
Even most Americans are net takers, but it's worse for illegals.
Your understanding of economics is considerably flawed. You really think that everyone who does work is a taker, and rich people who live off investments or business ownership are actually contributing? Taxes paid are NOT the right way to gauge economic productivity.
I assure you that if every "taker" in your definition were to suddenly evaporate, our economy would collapse. Labor is the source of all wealth, remember? Those people WORK, for you and for me, and their work is what keeps this country running. We need people who work hard, and the fact that they make so little money that they pay no taxes does not make them takers. Quite the contrary, I would argue that every CEO and celebrity athlete and trust fund kid is a taker, because they consume enormous resources without doing any meaningful work.
The rich are the parasites of society, not the poor. Poor people work, and produce, and create. Rich people just consume, mostly while doing nothing. They're vital parasites, don't get me wrong, but they're still parasites. Living off the hard work of others. Taking advantage of lenient tax laws that preserve their privileged position in society. Lounging by the pool, complaining on the internet about all of the people who mow their lawns for them.
And since you're so stuck on the supposed cost of illegal immigration, I'm sure you're aware that these people pay taxes without being eligible to receive social services, right? They're the exact opposite of takers. They give and get nothing back.
Well said sol
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor dissappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
So what exactly makes you think that those Hispanics that you see building houses are illegal immigrants? Do you think that most Hispanics are here illegally?
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor dissappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
So what exactly makes you think that those Hispanics that you see building houses are illegal immigrants? Do you think that most Hispanics are here illegally?
I didn't say they were illegal. But it's obvious the current administration would prefer no immigration, based on policy changes made that limit legal immigration. Immigration has always beenone of this country's great drivers of growth. It's simply not intelligent to turn that off because you don't like the percentage of white people you see in a crowd anymore.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor dissappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
So what exactly makes you think that those Hispanics that you see building houses are illegal immigrants? Do you think that most Hispanics are here illegally?
I didn't say they were illegal. But it's obvious the current administration would prefer no immigration, based on policy changes made that limit legal immigration. Immigration has always beenone of this country's great drivers of growth. It's simply not intelligent to turn that off because you don't like the percentage of white people you see in a crowd anymore.
I definitely agree with you on that point. We'll have to disagree on whether or not immigration reduction would tighten or loosen availability of new housing. For what it's worth, the US Dept. of Labor reports that about 30% of the construction labor force is Hispanic (https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm). I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are citizens or legal immigrants/visa holders. Meanwhile, Pew estimated in 2015 that, between 2015 and 2065, immigrants and their descendants will account for 88% of U.S. population growth (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/). Perhaps you can see why people in the wood products industry are far more concerned about a lack of immigration reducing long-term housing starts that they are about labor shortages in the construction industry.
I will note that labor shortages are real as well - and currently affecting our industry as well as all others - but those tend to be short-term effects that will resolve themselves in the next recession at the latest. A significant, long-term reduction in demand for wood products, on the other hand, is an existential crisis.
-
At risk of getting drawn into political discussions I have to point out something I often see locally. The majority of home builders are small locally owned businesses. To reduce taxes the owners of these small businesses often pay the majority of their labor under the table with cash. The legal laborer (by immigration status,White or Hispanic doesn't matter) earns $25+ per hour working 60 hours/week while a job is active but Uncle Sam thinks he is making $0.
Those laborers then go home and do what most people do, they procreate. They then apply for WIC benefits, food stamps, and subsidized healthcare for themselves and their children. They go out and buy $60,000 vehicles because, hey, they've sweated and earned it (their thought process, we all know it's not Mustachian). The problem is, they then load that 60k vehicle with the groceries they(WE) just paid for with their SNAP benefits (food stamps). This can happen anywhere of course but I find it to be occurring disproportionately in construction and restaurants. The restaurants are less of an issue in my eyes anyway due to cook wages being substantially lower than construction worker wages. A minimum wage cook wouldn't be paying much/anything for taxes anyway. I suppose my next question is this, who is worse? The rich trust fund baby, the welfare abuser, or the small business owner avoiding taxes? The trust fund baby is most legit legally, but one could argue they are all a drain on the system.
I personally feel from an economic viewpoint (disregarding the safety issues of drug cartels, human trafficking, etc) people get way too caught up pointing their fingers at our southern border when they should really be focusing on simplifying our tax code and enforcing it.
The arguments about taxes and government becoming too large and using its dollars inefficiently are different discussions.
-
At risk of getting drawn into political discussions I have to point out something I often see locally. The majority of home builders are small locally owned businesses. To reduce taxes the owners of these small businesses often pay the majority of their labor under the table with cash.
How does under the table with cash reduce their taxes?
Wages to employees and payments to independent contractors are legitimate business expenses that reduce the business owners tax liability. Paying under the table with cash does not.
-
At risk of getting drawn into political discussions I have to point out something I often see locally. The majority of home builders are small locally owned businesses. To reduce taxes the owners of these small businesses often pay the majority of their labor under the table with cash.
How does under the table with cash reduce their taxes?
Wages to employees and payments to independent contractors are legitimate business expenses that reduce the business owners tax liability. Paying under the table with cash does not.
No FICA and no state unemployment tax. And if they pay under market in recognition of the fact that the employee also won't pay FICA or income tax that could also reduce costs.
You're right that they'll have to pay more income tax themselves by not writing the wages off as an expense though.
-
The point I was trying to make is that the economic value of the taxes the government collects, or doesn't collect, on anyone pales in comparison to the money engine they drive by simply being alive. Assuming they aren't Mustachians. :) They buy goods and use services in an economy whose cornerstone is the growth of people buying goods and services. Everyone gets hung up on taxes, and it's not even worth talking about if they aren't looking at the bigger picture
-
ppl without documentation in the US pay alot of taxes, via tax ID #s
-
ppl without documentation in the US pay alot of taxes, via tax ID #s
The amount of taxes that illegals pay into the system is FAR less than they suck out of the economy. Illegals will literally cost us in the TRILLIONS of dollars over the next generation when you factor in what they cost us vs. the small amount they contribute.
See this study.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
-
ppl without documentation in the US pay alot of taxes, via tax ID #s
The amount of taxes that illegals pay into the system is FAR less than they suck out of the economy. Illegals will literally cost us in the TRILLIONS of dollars over the next generation when you factor in what they cost us vs. the small amount they contribute.
See this study.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Garbage in, garbage out when it comes to studies. As I'm sure you know, the source of the study you linked to is a hard-right conservative think tank, but one not need leave the right side of the political spectrum to find damning critiques of the study's methodology and conclusions:
From the right-leaning Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flawed-immigration-analysis
"I criticized an earlier version of this report in 2007, arguing that their methodology was so flawed that one cannot take their report’s conclusions seriously...The new Heritage report is still depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue. It explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes."
And among a litany of criticisms from Americans for Tax Reform which has a banner of Trump's face plastered across each page on their website: https://www.atr.org/conservative-critiques-heritage-immigration-study-a7674
"The authors write that unlawful immigrant households generate annual earnings of $38,988. Tim Kane notes that "unless they expect readers to believe all this household income (a) generates no productive work and (b) is 100 percent remitted abroad, consuming nothing in the U.S. macro economy, then the report is misleading...The study includes 4.5 million U.S.-born children - American citizens - in its calculation of 12.7 'illegal immigrants.' Children born here are citizens. They are already eligible for public benefits and will be regardless of their parents’ status."
Also of note is that the study was released while Jim DeMint was the president of the Heritage Foundation. He was removed from that post in 2017 because his approach towards steering the organization was "too bombastic and too political to the detriment of its research and scholarly aims." Imagine that - being too bombastic and too political for the freakin' Heritage Foundation...
-
Thanks for saying it better than I could, aspiringnomad.
Produce some studies from some reputable sources and you’ll get a lot more traction in the debate around here.
-
It cracks me up when people try to attack the messenger just because they don't like the message or otherwise conflicts with their own misguided viewpoint.
Read the study I posted and come to your own conclusion. But don't cry about it just because it's not from some far left website that you typically follow.
-
It cracks me up when people try to attack the messenger just because they don't like the message or otherwise conflicts with their own misguided viewpoint.
Read the study I posted and come to your own conclusion. But don't cry about it just because it's not from some far left website that you typically follow.
I don't see how you were personally attacked in those responses to that study. Also, just because someone judges the fairness of a study based on the political nature of the organization behind it doesn't mean they only trust studies from the opposite end of the spectrum, it means at least for me, that I prefer research and study to be non-political in origin or bias.
-
Even most Americans are net takers, but it's worse for illegals.
Your understanding of economics is considerably flawed. You really think that everyone who does work is a taker, and rich people who live off investments or business ownership are actually contributing? Taxes paid are NOT the right way to gauge economic productivity.
I assure you that if every "taker" in your definition were to suddenly evaporate, our economy would collapse. Labor is the source of all wealth, remember? Those people WORK, for you and for me, and their work is what keeps this country running. We need people who work hard, and the fact that they make so little money that they pay no taxes does not make them takers. Quite the contrary, I would argue that every CEO and celebrity athlete and trust fund kid is a taker, because they consume enormous resources without doing any meaningful work.
The rich are the parasites of society, not the poor. Poor people work, and produce, and create. Rich people just consume, mostly while doing nothing. They're vital parasites, don't get me wrong, but they're still parasites. Living off the hard work of others. Taking advantage of lenient tax laws that preserve their privileged position in society. Lounging by the pool, complaining on the internet about all of the people who mow their lawns for them.
"And since you're so stuck on the supposed cost of illegal immigration, I'm sure you're aware that these people pay taxes without being eligible to receive social services, right? They're the exact opposite of takers. They give and get nothing back."
I would disagree with you there. In my line of work I will come across illegals. They generally seem to have, for lack of a better term, welfare debit cards and driver's licenses. No matter what the law or administrative policy says, they get them.
-
Even most Americans are net takers, but it's worse for illegals.
Your understanding of economics is considerably flawed. You really think that everyone who does work is a taker, and rich people who live off investments or business ownership are actually contributing? Taxes paid are NOT the right way to gauge economic productivity.
I assure you that if every "taker" in your definition were to suddenly evaporate, our economy would collapse. Labor is the source of all wealth, remember? Those people WORK, for you and for me, and their work is what keeps this country running. We need people who work hard, and the fact that they make so little money that they pay no taxes does not make them takers. Quite the contrary, I would argue that every CEO and celebrity athlete and trust fund kid is a taker, because they consume enormous resources without doing any meaningful work.
The rich are the parasites of society, not the poor. Poor people work, and produce, and create. Rich people just consume, mostly while doing nothing. They're vital parasites, don't get me wrong, but they're still parasites. Living off the hard work of others. Taking advantage of lenient tax laws that preserve their privileged position in society. Lounging by the pool, complaining on the internet about all of the people who mow their lawns for them.
"And since you're so stuck on the supposed cost of illegal immigration, I'm sure you're aware that these people pay taxes without being eligible to receive social services, right? They're the exact opposite of takers. They give and get nothing back."
I would disagree with you there. In my line of work I will come across illegals. They generally seem to have, for lack of a better term, welfare debit cards and driver's licenses. No matter what the law or administrative policy says, they get them.
Welfare benefits like what? Are you talking about SNAP the food assistance program? You can't get these benefits without a huge amount of proof and documentation.
You'd better hope we have lots of immigrants coming to this country if you want to FIRE.
YOu have two choices, you can either have no more immigration to this country, or you can have your FIRE goal met, but you can't have both.
-
It cracks me up when people try to attack the messenger just because they don't like the message or otherwise conflicts with their own misguided viewpoint.
Read the study I posted and come to your own conclusion. But don't cry about it just because it's not from some far left website that you typically follow.
It cracks me up when people replace their intelligence with their ideology. I posted criticism from the right and you still somehow think I read far left websites. In any case, I look forward to you posting the next great study by QAnon.
-
It cracks me up when people try to attack the messenger just because they don't like the message or otherwise conflicts with their own misguided viewpoint.
Read the study I posted and come to your own conclusion. But don't cry about it just because it's not from some far left website that you typically follow.
It cracks me up when people replace their intelligence with their ideology. I posted criticism from the right and you still somehow think I read far left websites. In any case, I look forward to you posting the next great study by QAnon.
It is like we are here debating what color the sky is outside. DreamFIRE is looking at the sky from inside a house that has green-tinted windows. It is possible that his conclusion about the sky color is correct, but I’d much rather get my info from someone with clear windows.
-
It cracks me up when people try to attack the messenger just because they don't like the message or otherwise conflicts with their own misguided viewpoint.
Read the study I posted and come to your own conclusion. But don't cry about it just because it's not from some far left website that you typically follow.
It cracks me up when people replace their intelligence with their ideology. I posted criticism from the right and you still somehow think I read far left websites.
That's the ironic part. I'm not ideological. I'm a free thinking independent. I don't let a single party or the mainstream media brainwash or otherwise manipulate my thinking. My views on illegals and border security predates Trump by a long ways. It's something I've followed for years and learned a great deal about. It's not about Trump to me - I even oppose him on other matters such as the ACA.
-
That is totally fine. Your position would be better supported quoting articles from sources that look at the world through clear windows, not colored windows. That is all we are trying to say.
-
Back to the thread topic, looks like we're out of Correction territory with the S&P as well!
-
So much for the sky falling. I really thought it was different this time. The global economy would collapse and everyone would go bankrupt. Really surprised it was just more empty noise.
-
So much for the sky falling. I really thought it was different this time. The global economy would collapse and everyone would go bankrupt. Really surprised it was just more empty noise.
It all happened so quickly you're still within the return policy period to return all the guns and canned food I assume you stocked up on :)
-
So much for the sky falling. I really thought it was different this time. The global economy would collapse and everyone would go bankrupt. Really surprised it was just more empty noise.
It all happened so quickly you're still within the return policy period to return all the guns and canned food I assume you stocked up on :)
So quickly that thor didn't have time to start a "Bottom is in" thread.
-
So much for the sky falling... it was just more empty noise.
It's almost like you can't time the market. Who would have thought?
-
So much for the sky falling. I really thought it was different this time. The global economy would collapse and everyone would go bankrupt. Really surprised it was just more empty noise.
It all happened so quickly you're still within the return policy period to return all the guns and canned food I assume you stocked up on :)
So quickly that thor didn't have time to start a "Bottom is in" thread.
In fairness, when you're over 1000 years old monthly market swings seem really quick
-
So much for the sky falling. I really thought it was different this time. The global economy would collapse and everyone would go bankrupt. Really surprised it was just more empty noise.
It all happened so quickly you're still within the return policy period to return all the guns and canned food I assume you stocked up on :)
So quickly that thor didn't have time to start a "Bottom is in" thread.
I don't think he plays for that team.
-
I'd just like to point out, that the rich, particularly shareholders in, and owners of, large businesses and farmers, consume much more in government services than they pay compared to an illegal immigrant. The poor, and illegal immigrants, are subsidizing the rich and not the other way around. I would venture to say that the vast majority of folks on this forum are in this rich "taker" class, including myself.
I have no idea how the real takers (us) have successfully painted the poor and illegal immigrants as the takers when it's not the case if you just open up the federal and state government budgets. Virtually all expenditures in the departments of defense, state, the courts, treasury, interior, agriculture, commerce, labor, transportation, energy, homeland security are for services consumed only by the rich. The same is true for state expenditures. Poor people simply don't consume the most expensive government services.
Poor people don't travel, don't have a military protecting their business interests, or police forces protecting their properties, don't use transportation and infrastructure as much, don't benefit directly from trade deals or get bailed out by the federal debt or the interest on that debt compared to corporations (and therefore their owners). Poor people don't really use the courts at all (unless they're being convicted by them) etc. etc. They basically consume no government resources.
A TL;DR way to look at it is this: If the government went away today,who would be worse off? It's not going to be the guy picking avocados for less than min wage.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
I think the big problem here is that he had republicans controlling everything and couldn't get money for a wall. Why didn't he shut down the government in the first year to do it? or the second? Why now? Why do it when he's least likely to have it happen? The democrats got elected on not funding the wall! They have no reason to do it.
Anyway, i was just responding to the earlier conversation about illegal immigrants and the cost to us the taxpayer.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
For two years the Democrats had zero power to prevent the wall. Defiant??? Congress is an equal, not lesser, branch of government. The Republicans didnt give him the wall either.
Negative effects? Billions of wasted dollars. Our national debt is massive. Billions of dollars on a completely ineffective project absurd. And it's environmentally catastrophic.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
For two years the Democrats had zero power to prevent the wall. Defiant??? Congress is an equal, not lesser, branch of government. The Republicans didnt give him the wall either.
Negative effects? Billions of wasted dollars. Our national debt is massive. Billions of dollars on a completely ineffective project absurd. And it's environmentally catastrophic.
We are seeing the negative effects of equality in making decisions, nothing getting done and worse things happening due to that indecision.
At least it seems practical - people are crossing the borders illegally and building a wall helps with that crime. I don't know how it can be deemed ineffective if it hasn't been implemented yet it seems straghtforward. I don't see how a wall more environmentally catastrophic then building a long highway or a city but I havnen't looked into it.
All decisions are going to have consequences.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
For two years the Democrats had zero power to prevent the wall. Defiant??? Congress is an equal, not lesser, branch of government. The Republicans didnt give him the wall either.
Negative effects? Billions of wasted dollars. Our national debt is massive. Billions of dollars on a completely ineffective project absurd. And it's environmentally catastrophic.
We are seeing the negative effects of equality in making decisions, nothing getting done and worse things happening due to that indecision.
At least it seems practical - people are crossing the borders illegally and building a wall helps with that crime. I don't know how it can be deemed ineffective if it hasn't been implemented yet it seems straghtforward. I don't see how a wall more environmentally catastrophic then building a long highway or a city but I havnen't looked into it.
All decisions are going to have consequences.
I think you are overlooking the very specific campaign promise that he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That’s like saying you’re going to fuck someone up the ass and make the person getting fucked pay for the lube. It was an absurd promise to make.
Nobody in the republican controlled congress was willing to allocate money for a wall and other than a couple of short temper tantrum shutdowns, trump yielded on it. He had a a spending bill that did not include funds for a wall over a month ago when the the republicans still controlled congress. Now that the democrats have control of the house, he has manufactured a crisis to get simpletons riled up over nothing. It’s a vanity project at this point.
Also, the cost of a wall isn’t just going to be the cost to build it. You would still have to maintain it and patrol it. It’s another money suck. You don’t just build a structure, clap the dust off your hands, walk away, and never pay attention to it again.
If trump had proposed fixing our actual infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewers, water supply line replacement, and communication lines, I would absolutely get behind that and support it. But he’s being a petty asshole and causing chaos so he can “keep the base fired up”.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
For two years the Democrats had zero power to prevent the wall. Defiant??? Congress is an equal, not lesser, branch of government. The Republicans didnt give him the wall either.
Negative effects? Billions of wasted dollars. Our national debt is massive. Billions of dollars on a completely ineffective project absurd. And it's environmentally catastrophic.
We are seeing the negative effects of equality in making decisions, nothing getting done and worse things happening due to that indecision.
At least it seems practical - people are crossing the borders illegally and building a wall helps with that crime. I don't know how it can be deemed ineffective if it hasn't been implemented yet it seems straghtforward. I don't see how a wall more environmentally catastrophic then building a long highway or a city but I havnen't looked into it.
All decisions are going to have consequences.
I think you are overlooking the very specific campaign promise that he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That’s like saying you’re going to fuck someone up the ass and make the person getting fucked pay for the lube. It was an absurd promise to make.
Nobody in the republican controlled congress was willing to allocate money for a wall and other than a couple of short temper tantrum shutdowns, trump yielded on it. He had a a spending bill that did not include funds for a wall over a month ago when the the republicans still controlled congress. Now that the democrats have control of the house, he has manufactured a crisis to get simpletons riled up over nothing. It’s a vanity project at this point.
Also, the cost of a wall isn’t just going to be the cost to build it. You would still have to maintain it and patrol it. It’s another money suck. You don’t just build a structure, clap the dust off your hands, walk away, and never pay attention to it again.
If trump had proposed fixing our actual infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewers, water supply line replacement, and communication lines, I would absolutely get behind that and support it. But he’s being a petty asshole and causing chaos so he can “keep the base fired up”.
This. I'm all for a wall if it magically gets paid by Mexico. That was his promise, that's what he was elected on. Renegotiated NAFTA doesn't count.
-
You know the Dow Jones is almost back to 25,000. This is dandy. Maybe, I can FIRE this Spring with no issues.
Looking at a 2018 budget pie chart, interest was 345 billion, Defense was 586 billion. Interest will be higher this year since they gifted the rich with a tax break.
The wall will be about 20 billion. I guess Trump is saying it will be about 15 billion.
If the wall was built the work will be done in the US by US residents and the money will stay in the US unless they subcontract the Chinese. It will be a good pork barrel project for the border states. It should be a good tourist attraction. Portions of it can be dedicated to famous US war heroes. Great art can be spray painted on the wall. The government should be able to rent portions of it as advertisements. (Visit Wall South Dakota and Ron Jon Surf shop) It can be named the Great International Peace Wall or some such and flowers can be planted alongside the wall.
The money to pay for it can be borrowed from Mexican drug dealers and then the president's promise will be kept.
It will be a good jobs program for when the bear market comes back.
-
Regarding your Dec 26, post.
Oh, Mr Green and your crystal ball!
Please tell us the future, long and short.
-
Of course there is 1) a skills gap for the jobs that pay well, and 2) mostly low paying jobs available.
If republicans find a way to stop illegal immigration, there will be TONS of jobs available on farms and ranches, in landscaping and housecleaning companies, and on freelance construction crews standing outside of Home Depot. Tell your kids they don't need to go to college, there's about to be record low unemployment for anyone willing to put in hard labor for below minimum wage.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn of a serious new housing shortage, either, due to lack of labor.
More likely that there would be an excess of housing due to reduced immigration. I work in the forest industry. Aside from the current shortage of blue-collar labor, the primary concern at present is that long-term dampening of immigration, combined with slowing organic population growth, will keep new housing demand well below long-term trends. That doesn't bode well for solid wood product demand (i.e., everything but paper) which is primarily driven by new housing.
I've lived in large, urban areas with big housing growth in two states and I haven't seen a white man on a building crew in almost a decade. If most of that Hispanic labor disappeared overnight new home building would basically grind to a halt. I'm very doubtful the reduction in demand would outstrip the loss of labor.
So what exactly makes you think that those Hispanics that you see building houses are illegal immigrants? Do you think that most Hispanics are here illegally?
I didn't say they were illegal. But it's obvious the current administration would prefer no immigration, based on policy changes made that limit legal immigration. Immigration has always been one of this country's great drivers of growth. It's simply not intelligent to turn that off because you don't like the percentage of white people you see in a crowd anymore.
This week I had three Mexicans doing drywall work at my home, two of the three spoke no English, I don't know if they were illegals or not, but I do suspect they are.
One of them accidentally erased all the Spanish Language music from his phone, so I did my best to show him an app to listen to Mexican Radio stations, I showed him a few on my phone pointed at the app and he did download it. I've had Mexican music in my home for several days now. They plug the phone into a Dewalt speaker amplifier box.
Funny thing, my wife is all of 4'7" tall and the Mexican that speaks English it over well over 6ft and 250lbs, he was stippling the garage ceiling and ask me if it was OK, (we weren't sure what finish we wanted) I said fine with me, let me get my wife, he said no, no, please don't,
she had already given him enough trouble he didn't want anymore input from her ;-).
She's been supervising all the crews doing work.
-
-Trump said he is going to build a wall, gets elected
-Puts a plan together to build the wall
-Democrats are defiant and hate Trump so are doing everything in their power to not allow him to build a wall
-The cost of the wall is far outweighed by the cost government shut down
Trump is giving people the ability to immigrate legally and wants to put a stop to something that is illegal. To me Trump looks like the good guy.
What are the negative effects of a wall? What is the logic behind Democrats not agreeing to fund the wall besides spite? It seems to me like just an emotional response. Enlighten me.
For two years the Democrats had zero power to prevent the wall. Defiant??? Congress is an equal, not lesser, branch of government. The Republicans didnt give him the wall either.
Negative effects? Billions of wasted dollars. Our national debt is massive. Billions of dollars on a completely ineffective project absurd. And it's environmentally catastrophic.
We are seeing the negative effects of equality in making decisions, nothing getting done and worse things happening due to that indecision.
At least it seems practical - people are crossing the borders illegally and building a wall helps with that crime. I don't know how it can be deemed ineffective if it hasn't been implemented yet it seems straghtforward. I don't see how a wall more environmentally catastrophic then building a long highway or a city but I havnen't looked into it.
All decisions are going to have consequences.
I think you are overlooking the very specific campaign promise that he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That’s like saying you’re going to fuck someone up the ass and make the person getting fucked pay for the lube. It was an absurd promise to make.
Nobody in the republican controlled congress was willing to allocate money for a wall and other than a couple of short temper tantrum shutdowns, trump yielded on it. He had a a spending bill that did not include funds for a wall over a month ago when the the republicans still controlled congress. Now that the democrats have control of the house, he has manufactured a crisis to get simpletons riled up over nothing. It’s a vanity project at this point.
Also, the cost of a wall isn’t just going to be the cost to build it. You would still have to maintain it and patrol it. It’s another money suck. You don’t just build a structure, clap the dust off your hands, walk away, and never pay attention to it again.
If trump had proposed fixing our actual infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewers, water supply line replacement, and communication lines, I would absolutely get behind that and support it. But he’s being a petty asshole and causing chaos so he can “keep the base fired up”.
This. I'm all for a wall if it magically gets paid by Mexico. That was his promise, that's what he was elected on. Renegotiated NAFTA doesn't count.
right so its not the wall that is fundamentally opposed, it's the cost and the perception that Trump was going to send Mexico an invoice and they were going to willingly pay it. That was what I assumed as well, but looking back it was a bad assumption given how complex negotiations can be between countries.
and it's not like the cost of the wall and maintenance of the wall will be a sunk cost, there are other areas of our country and economy that may benefit from it. Not to mention saftey and taking measures to uphold the law.
-
Simply the wall won't effectively keep out illegals. Those with expertise on this issue have weighed on this already.
But Trump doesn't care about expertise, he only cares about the optics to try to maintain or gain more power.
The more important immigration issue are those seeking asylum who are fleeing death gangs/warlords in their home countries. And this has nothing to do with a wall.
-
I think you are overlooking the very specific campaign promise that he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That’s like saying you’re going to fuck someone up the ass and make the person getting fucked pay for the lube. It was an absurd promise to make.
Best analogy in quite a while, haha.
-
It will be a good pork barrel project for the border states.
Well, other than the private citizens that own land along the border that's going to be taken by Imminent Domain, but what's a little Big Government Interference when it's a guy with an R behind his name doing it, amirite?
-
I believe I’ve read that most of the support for the wall is from people who live in states that don’t actually lie on the border. Those who are near the border are largely against the wall idea.
Back on the comment of who is the biggest taker, personally my perception is that it is the rich who end up benefiting more from the gov than the poor. In my own example there is the nice tax break for our 401k contributions, mortgage interest deduction, the ridiculously low long term capital gains rate is nothing short of a gift. We are projected to pay no federal taxes in retirement while spending $100k a year. Oh, and we should be able to get ACA subsidies on top of that. And if we spend all of our taxable accounts down to zero by the time my littles are ready to go to college, we could get federal aid for college via FASFA because retirement accounts and hour personal house don’t count towards the calculations of what parents are expected to contribute. That all blows me away.
I can definitely afford to pay 15% tax or soin retirement and pay for a ton of people to not starve via SNAPS.
-
A spokesperson for Andrés Manuel López Obrador denies leaks to the Mexican press of a secret agreement with the U.S. president to have the U.S. pay for a wall to block the flood of Canadian bacon and maple syrup cartels from illegally entering Mexico through the U.S. border. President Obrador said, "Trump is a very strong leader, and we had a very productive meeting," but notes from the meeting are being withheld from the press, and other high level Mexican government officials have not been briefed on the meeting. Reports of Vladimir Putin sightings in the Mexican capitol have not been confirmed.
#FakeReality
-
So...about that stock market. Nice recovery for the first three weeks of the year
-
right so its not the wall that is fundamentally opposed, it's the cost and the perception that Trump was going to send Mexico an invoice and they were going to willingly pay it. That was what I assumed as well, but looking back it was a bad assumption given how complex negotiations can be between countries.
and it's not like the cost of the wall and maintenance of the wall will be a sunk cost, there are other areas of our country and economy that may benefit from it. Not to mention saftey and taking measures to uphold the law.
I'm a supporter of Trump and many of his policies including a boarder wall. I have no problem with immigrants, I'm married to one. But everyone should come in legally, and we should know who they are.
As far as Mexico paying for the wall, I never thought that Mexico was going to write a check, and anyone that did think that just plain forgot to wear there thinking cap.
It was just rhetoric concerning trade policy, plain and apparently not so simple.
-
I think you are overlooking the very specific campaign promise that he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That’s like saying you’re going to fuck someone up the ass and make the person getting fucked pay for the lube. It was an absurd promise to make.
Best analogy in quite a while, haha.
Gees, I think I would want the lube, even if I did have to pay for it!
-
right so its not the wall that is fundamentally opposed, it's the cost and the perception that Trump was going to send Mexico an invoice and they were going to willingly pay it. That was what I assumed as well, but looking back it was a bad assumption given how complex negotiations can be between countries.
and it's not like the cost of the wall and maintenance of the wall will be a sunk cost, there are other areas of our country and economy that may benefit from it. Not to mention saftey and taking measures to uphold the law.
I'm a supporter of Trump and many of his policies including a boarder wall. I have no problem with immigrants, I'm married to one. But everyone should come in legally, and we should know who they are.
As far as Mexico paying for the wall, I never thought that Mexico was going to write a check, and anyone that did think that just plain forgot to wear there thinking cap.
It was just rhetoric concerning trade policy, plain and apparently not so simple.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute $_ Billion to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump administration will not promulgate the final rule...
So anyone that believed what Trump explicitly said in this memo wasn't thinking? Well, actually I would agree with that.
-
right so its not the wall that is fundamentally opposed, it's the cost and the perception that Trump was going to send Mexico an invoice and they were going to willingly pay it. That was what I assumed as well, but looking back it was a bad assumption given how complex negotiations can be between countries.
and it's not like the cost of the wall and maintenance of the wall will be a sunk cost, there are other areas of our country and economy that may benefit from it. Not to mention saftey and taking measures to uphold the law.
I'm a supporter of Trump and many of his policies including a boarder wall. I have no problem with immigrants, I'm married to one. But everyone should come in legally, and we should know who they are.
As far as Mexico paying for the wall, I never thought that Mexico was going to write a check, and anyone that did think that just plain forgot to wear there thinking cap.
It was just rhetoric concerning trade policy, plain and apparently not so simple.
Agreed. Illegal immigration costs the country trillions of dollars over the long run.
We don't even need Mexico to pay for the wall because the wall will pay for itself. I think the shutdown has cost the country more than the $5 billion Trump wants for the wall.
One thing I've noticed from the left is that they always seem to assume that building a wall means all of the other enforcement mechanisms go away. That's illogical. The wall doesn't solve everything by itself, but it's just one important piece of the border security and immigration enforcement pie.
-
right so its not the wall that is fundamentally opposed, it's the cost and the perception that Trump was going to send Mexico an invoice and they were going to willingly pay it. That was what I assumed as well, but looking back it was a bad assumption given how complex negotiations can be between countries.
and it's not like the cost of the wall and maintenance of the wall will be a sunk cost, there are other areas of our country and economy that may benefit from it. Not to mention saftey and taking measures to uphold the law.
I'm a supporter of Trump and many of his policies including a boarder wall. I have no problem with immigrants, I'm married to one. But everyone should come in legally, and we should know who they are.
As far as Mexico paying for the wall, I never thought that Mexico was going to write a check, and anyone that did think that just plain forgot to wear there thinking cap.
It was just rhetoric concerning trade policy, plain and apparently not so simple.
Agreed. Illegal immigration costs the country trillions of dollars over the long run.
We don't even need Mexico to pay for the wall because the wall will pay for itself. I think the shutdown has cost the country more than the $5 billion Trump wants for the wall.
One thing I've noticed from the left is that they always seem to assume that building a wall means all of the other enforcement mechanisms go away. That's illogical. The wall doesn't solve everything by itself, but it's just one important piece of the border security and immigration enforcement pie.
At this point we have all seen the 2009 video of Schumer, he had very good a arguments for immigration reform, and now that Trump is president he wants none of it. Doesn't want Trump to get the credit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8z2L42qedM&t=148s
You can watch all 4 parts with a search of
>Schumer (Part (x) of 4) - 6th Annual Immigration Law and< x= 1, 2,3 or 4.
-
In my humble opinion, this stopped being about the wall last December. It's now all about whether we want to crown Trump king, or whether we wish to remain a democratic republic with separate but equal branches of government.
The last senate voted in a spending bill that the new house has also now passed. The will of the American people has been clearly expressed, whether you personally agree with it or not. Now one executive, and one senate majority leader, stand in the way of the will of the people becoming law; opening up the government, so that the innocent hostages can feed their families, and get paid for work they've already done.
How does forcing federal employees to work for free, perhaps indefinitely, somehow equal the moral high ground? How does their suffering, our fellow citizens, further the cause of border security in whatever form it might take?
Trump is clearly saying, "surrender your democracy, or I will starve your citizens and wreck your economy." You don't negotiate with that. You don't split the difference with that. You fight it like your freedom depends on it, simply because it does depend on it.
If the democrats cave now, you can expect the executive to hold federal employees hostage from here on out in order to force unilateral policy decisions down the collective throats of congress. There is little the Democrats offer on policy decisions that I can agree with. But they now have no choice in this shutdown matter. They can't negotiate policy with a hostage-taker while he still holds the hostages captive; otherwise, the hostage taking will never end.
The debt limit comes up in March. If Trump gets his way with this disgraceful budget tactic, you can bet that Trump will hold all social security recipients hostage for whatever his next vanity project is. Social security doesn't get paid without passing a new debt limit. Any one of you with aged relatives care to explain to them how, next April, the ongoing fight over the wall is somehow more important than them receiving their social security checks and eating?
Full disclosure, I'm a centrist with republican leanings. But I will never forgive the Republican party for forcing me to vote a full Democratic ticket -- for the first time in my life -- in the next election. Last month I converted from a never-Hillary voter to an anyone-but-Trump voter. And if Mitch McConnell doesn't stop licking Trump's boots pretty damn soon, and do his job, I won't be very far at all from becoming a never-Republican voter as well. McConnell is collecting a regular paycheck for not doing his job, while he is perfectly content to support Trump forcing federal employees to work for free, and wrecking the small businesses that depend on those federal employees spending part of their paycheck in those businesses.
</RANT>
#SaveTheDemocracyFirst
#ArgueAboutEverythingElseLater
-
--SNIP--
Full disclosure, I'm a centrist with republican leanings. But I will never forgive the Republican party for forcing me to vote a full Democratic ticket -- for the first time in my life -- in the next election. Last month I converted from a never-Hillary voter to an anyone-but-Trump voter. And if Mitch McConnell doesn't stop licking Trump's boots pretty damn soon, and do his job, I won't be very far at all from becoming a never-Republican voter as well. McConnell is collecting a regular paycheck for not doing his job, while he is perfectly content to support Trump forcing federal employees to work for free, and wrecking the small businesses that depend on those federal employees spending part of their paycheck in those businesses.
</RANT>
So - Who do you really blame? Trump - Let's just say he's more than a bit erratic. Blaming him would be like blaming a piece of furniture for being the wrong color. McConnell - He could bust the dam, get a vote and get the country moving again. He has led the do nothing Senate quite a while. Has he demonstrated a willingness to help the American people? Or - The Democrats; Politics is the art of compromise. Is giving in to a "wall" so bad? I am beginning to wonder if any of them put the people first.
How long would it take to build such a wall? How long would it take to design and plan this wall? Shouldn't this wall be studied well before construction begins? The wall could be approved, sections built and cancelled after Trump is voted out of office in 2020. Far less money would be spent on this wall than was agreed to be given back to the rich in the last tax cut.
-
So - Who do you really blame?
Trump, first, for deciding to take American citizens hostage as a bargaining chit on a policy issue that even his own Republican government couldn't agree on last year. And McConnell, second, for enabling that decision to continue with no end in sight.
And please, let's not dance around the fact that Trump proudly took credit for shutting the government down in front of the whole world. It's a matter of public record, so I'm not willing to debate that fact, if that's where you want to go with this.
How long would it take to build such a wall? How long would it take to design and plan this wall? Shouldn't this wall be studied well before construction begins? The wall could be approved, sections built and cancelled after Trump is voted out of office in 2020. Far less money would be spent on this wall than was agreed to be given back to the rich in the last tax cut.
All good questions that should be decided by the duly elected legislature -- after the government is opened.
Now, a question for you. What do any of your points have to do with wrecking the lives of American citizens, endangering food supply and food safety for all of us (Dept of Agriculture), FDA, Air Traffic Control, DHS, and border security personel, among others, who are not getting paid right now?
How does that "Make America Great Again"?
You don't compromise with someone who insists that you surrender your freedom as a precondition for negotiation. You just don't. That shouldn't be a red vs blue issue. Set Trump's hostages free, and then argue to your heart's content about the wall after doing that.
I am definitely not a Democrat. But my eyes are wide open. Apart from a pitifully few good Republicans, Democrats are the only party standing in opposition of an overthrow of our democracy by a want-to-be dictator right now.
Trump is an existential threat. McConnell is aiding and abetting. Neither one of them are upholding their oath of office. The wall might matter someday, but please agree with me, at the very least, that a wall right now most certainly isn't more important than feeding your elder relatives right now. They will be the next Trump hostages in the not-too-distant future if you don't raise your voice in opposition of Trump's dictatorial demands right now.
-
You don't compromise with someone who insists that you surrender your freedom as a precondition for negotiation. You just don't. That shouldn't be a red vs blue issue. Set Trump's hostages free, and then argue to your heart's content about the wall.
Just imagine the situation if democrats in 2008 had not won a supermajority in the Senate, and Obama had demanded that republicans pass the Affordable Care Act or else he was going to close the United States government and put a few million folks out of work. The howls of derision from Fox would have made the current kerfuffle look like a picnic brunch. Just the mere suggestion that a president might do such a thing would have been called treason.
-
So - Who do you really blame?
Trump, first, for deciding to take American citizens hostage as a bargaining chit on a policy issue that even his own Republican government couldn't agree on last year. And McConnell, second, for enabling that decision to continue with no end in sight.
And please, let's not dance around the fact that Trump proudly took credit for shutting the government down in front of the whole world. It's a matter of public record, so I'm not willing to debate that fact, if that's where you want to go with this.
How long would it take to build such a wall? How long would it take to design and plan this wall? Shouldn't this wall be studied well before construction begins? The wall could be approved, sections built and cancelled after Trump is voted out of office in 2020. Far less money would be spent on this wall than was agreed to be given back to the rich in the last tax cut.
All good questions that should be decided by the duly elected legislature -- after the government is opened.
Now, a question for you. What do any of your points have to do with wrecking the lives of American citizens, endangering food supply and food safety for all of us (Dept of Agriculture), FDA, Air Traffic Control, DHS, and border security personel, among others, who are not getting paid right now?
How does that "Make America Great Again"?
You don't compromise with someone who insists that you surrender your freedom as a precondition for negotiation. You just don't. That shouldn't be a red vs blue issue. Set Trump's hostages free, and then argue to your heart's content about the wall after doing that.
I am definitely not a Democrat. But my eyes are wide open. Apart from a pitifully few good Republicans, Democrats are the only party standing in opposition of an overthrow of our democracy by a want-to-be dictator right now.
Trump is an existential threat. McConnell is aiding and abetting. Neither one of them are upholding their oath of office. The wall might matter someday, but please agree with me, at the very least, that a wall right now most certainly isn't more important than feeding your elder relatives right now. They will be the next Trump hostages in the not-too-distant future if you don't raise your voice in opposition of Trump's dictatorial demands right now.
America has been running downhill for many years before Trump. Trump is just a symptom. He is not the disease. Democrats will oppose Trump until their corporate masters tell them to stop. Why they have allowed it so long is beyond me. There must be money to be made somehow. Same with McConnell.
I guess it is like the big tax cut they did last year. The corporate types make money by not paying taxes and then can loan money to the government to cover the shortfall. And you pay for their windfall. The corporate types will be able to loan the government money to get things on track after this is over. Corporations are probably loaning money to the families that are out of work. I guess the country is presently being run by a sort of Aristocracy who really don't care about the ordinary people. Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth so you can't expect him to understand. McConnell has been bought for a long time.
Will it make the country "great" again? No, but it will certainly help opportunists of some stripe who rub their hands with glee during this type of chaos. The dogs of profit are salivating.
What does making the country "great" really mean? Is it great for short term opportunists? Is it great for the military industrial complex?
It is smart in these days to keep your eyes wide open as you are doing.
We are off track. This is to be about the upcoming bear market. Maybe we've still got 2019.
-
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
-
Agreed. Illegal immigration costs the country trillions of dollars over the long run.
We don't even need Mexico to pay for the wall because the wall will pay for itself. I think the shutdown has cost the country more than the $5 billion Trump wants for the wall.
I don't think that's so clear. According to the GAO, the net cost to American governments collectively (tax receipts- services used) is somewhere between 2 and 20 billion dollars, depending on the assumptions of the source1. But according to the Texas comptroller the undocumented population of Texas (about 1/10th of the nations total) contributed 17.7 billion dollars to the states GDP through the private sector2. So we might estimate that nation-wide, the contribution to the private sector is about 170 billion dollars. Meaning that the undocumented immigrants make America a 150 billion dollar profit.
One thing I've noticed from the left is that they always seem to assume that building a wall means all of the other enforcement mechanisms go away. That's illogical. The wall doesn't solve everything by itself, but it's just one important piece of the border security and immigration enforcement pie.
The source I remember on this I can't find, but here's the perspective of the rest of us on the wall:
You can sort any given mile of US border into one of four categories: Walled and Staffed (there are BP agents there 24-7), Walled but Not Staffed, Not Walled but Staffed, Not Walled or Staffed.
Successful border crossings (movement across the border without arrest or being turned back) occur with basically the same frequency at Walled and Staffed and Not Walled but Staffed locations. This can be attributed to the increased pressure at the locations that have been WaS, which tend to be near cities or major border crossings.
Successful border crossings also occur similar (much lower) frequency at locations that are WNS and NWNS. The lower frequency is related to the fact that these locations tend to be more remote, more difficult to traverse, and more dangerous.
The fact that there is no notable difference between the presence or absence of a wall without staffing can be attributed to the fact that without an active BP presence, it is not particularly risky to take the time to thwart any inhibiting structure: Either tunneling under it, bridging over it, or breaking through it.
So in the absence of guards, a wall makes no difference. We can suppose that the wall makes some difference at the locations barriers already exist, but only due to the presence of BP guards.
The BP itself reports that they are struggling failing to maintain the current number of guards3, with the greatest attrition in exactly the locations that Trump wants to expand the border into. Increasing the BP presence into these areas will be more expensive, per worker, than current staffing needs. Which creates the impression that we're talking about increasing the number of miles of Walls Without Staffing, and as mentioned above, those miles of barrier aren't useful at discouraging illegal immigration.
The place that liberals want to see immigration enforcement expanded is at the source: The companies that use, and the criminal organizations that transport, undocumented immigrants and smuggled goods into the country. And those aren't jobs for Border Patrol, those are jobs for the FBI, ICE, and the Bureau of Labor. If you want bi-partisan cooperation, propose a program that anyone convicted of knowingly hiring an undocumented immigrant have their company permanently shuttered, lose the right to file a business license or be party to a business loan, or sit on any SEC-regulated board. Make the directors of areas of operations criminally, personally liable for hiring decisions in the facilities they oversee. Subject any company found to employ more than 100 undocumented immigrants to a stock moratorium: no one may buy or sell that company's stock for 90 days.
1. https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf
2. https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16102134/Immigration-s-Impact-on-the-Texas-Economy.pdf
3. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/07/05/trump-ordered-border-patrol-hire-agents-instead-losing
-
So we might estimate that nation-wide, the contribution to the private sector is about 170 billion dollars. Meaning that the undocumented immigrants make America a 150 billion dollar profit.
Even THAT is a more complex argument than I think should be necessary to convince a MAGA hat that immigrants are great.
The simple fact is that immigrants come here to work. They want to enter into a voluntary employment contract, to perform services that benefit their US employers and thus the US economy. Look at that hard working young man who uproots his life to go seek a better one through hard work and determination. He has drive and initiative, and he volunteers to do shitty jobs for minimal pay. People like him are the foundation of our economic powerhouse.
Trust fund kids are a drain on society. They consume resources and do no meaningful work. They're the ones dragging our economy down.
paraphrased a little: there is no notable difference between the presence or absence of a wall without (or without) staffing
I find this argument fascinating. So border patrol is saying that if you compare places that have BP staffing, having a wall or not makes no difference. And if you compare places that don't have BP staffing, having a wall or not makes no difference. There is definitely a difference between places that have BP and places that don't, and those BP agents may want a wall in those places, but it's the presence of the BP that restricts border crossing.
If that's all true, then building more wall won't help nearly as much as hiring more BP agents. If there is no wall in a place, building a wall there without staffing it is a waste. If there is a wall in a place, then it is useless without staff. We currently have some unstaffed section of the border, both with and without walls, that would be more secure by adding more BP agents. We do not have any sections of the border where adding an unstaffed wall will help.
-
I have wondered why poor black people are rarely found doing construction, the mix of labor does seem to be as noted.
Probably maybe they aren't there. There are plenty of laborers of all skin color down here in my area. Male and female. See them on construction projects on my daily commutes.
-
I have wondered why poor black people are rarely found doing construction, the mix of labor does seem to be as noted.
Probably maybe they aren't there. There are plenty of laborers of all skin color down here in my area. Male and female. See them on construction projects on my daily commutes.
Yeah, seriously. Come to a construction site in the South. Guarantee you'll see people of all races working on most sites. SMFH. What a ridiculous conversation.
-
What the hell is this thread even about?
-
What the hell is this thread even about?
Ethics in gaming journalism?
-
I saw an article that showed the years after market bottoms are very strong years. If the December downturn was indeed the bottom then 2019 will probably be a very nice year. Earnings are still coming in strong. Long term growth forecasts are being downgraded but I suspect a healthy part of that is just the circle jerk people are doing with the expectation of a recession because "it's time."
I continue to believe that the shock of the Great Recession was so severe that we haven't seen a total recovery from it yet. The recovery from the Great depression ran longer than a decade, and included the early 1940s, which was the greatest time to retire in the history of US equities. It included a short bear market but not recesseion. I think we're experiencing something similar with this bull market. Just my personal opinion
TL,DR; Still not seeing any signs of this imminent recession everyone is talking about.
-
Mr. Green - are you saying the bear market is over?!
-
Mr. Green - are you saying the bear market is over?!
Did you read the thread title? lol
-
TL,DR; Still not seeing any signs of this imminent recession everyone is talking about.
From 2016 to now, the unemployment rate decreased by 1.2%, while the labor force participation rate only increased by 0.4%. For every one unemployed person who got a job, there were two who fell off unemployment and are still jobless. In the final quarter of 2018, inflation-adjusted wages actually decreased, because there was more inflation than wage growth. Inflation-adjusted wages for the year were up only modestly, due to a rate of change that started higher and decreased throughout the year until it was negative. Much of the action in the fall involved trying to stock up inventories in preparation for the Trump tariffs set to go into effect in March, but even if they get delayed again we can expect some decrease in supplier sales as that inventory is wound down. Consumer debt ticked up very, very slightly, but that may suggest that we aren't going to see any more decreases in the debt/income ratio, and it's still at 90% of income.
I don't think that's enough to say that a severe recession is coming, but I would lend more credence than normal that we might see -.1 to -1 gdp change in the next six months.
-
TL,DR; Still not seeing any signs of this imminent recession everyone is talking about.
From 2016 to now, the unemployment rate decreased by 1.2%, while the labor force participation rate only increased by 0.4%. For every one unemployed person who got a job, there were two who fell off unemployment and are still jobless. In the final quarter of 2018, inflation-adjusted wages actually decreased, because there was more inflation than wage growth. Inflation-adjusted wages for the year were up only modestly, due to a rate of change that started higher and decreased throughout the year until it was negative. Much of the action in the fall involved trying to stock up inventories in preparation for the Trump tariffs set to go into effect in March, but even if they get delayed again we can expect some decrease in supplier sales as that inventory is wound down. Consumer debt ticked up very, very slightly, but that may suggest that we aren't going to see any more decreases in the debt/income ratio, and it's still at 90% of income.
I don't think that's enough to say that a severe recession is coming, but I would lend more credence than normal that we might see -.1 to -1 gdp change in the next six months.
Nick: This is a good example of looking beyond the good economic news about employment that is constantly trumpeted. And,..you didn't even mention the government shutdown that could serve as a big hard slam to the economy. Do I hear that bear rustling in the woods?
-
I remember reading a big article more than a year ago discussing why the labor force participation rate percentage may become a less useful statistic. The aging baby boomer population means more elderly people, as a percentage of the population, than we've ever had before, and with the rise in the percentage of women participating in the workforce, we're seeing a tick down in the percentage of men. All of these things don't necessarily have anything to do with economics, just shifting demographics that may simply mean comparing the current number to the old standard might not be as relevant anymore. Of course that's just one number in a sea of economic indicators. The biggest of which standing out to me is that the Christmas retail season was the best in 6 years. As consumer spending goes, so goes the economy.