Is this economy feeling good for you and yours? Or does the headline data just look good?
Is the slogan for 2020 going to be "It's the economy, stupid"?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

just as a new dem president takes office (or early in their term)?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/2020-election-democrat-nightmare-trump-loses-senate-race.html


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

With all the optimistic economic news coupled with where most of these gains are going.

Can't wait to give the big banks a few more trillion in the next recession coming late 2020/early 2021.

Like unless a president can show that SOMETHING they did, any one policy they put into place, SOMETHING, directly led to the surge in the economy, why does everyone just assume that a good economy means a good president ?

There has to be a reason, I've just never found one. Could be because people are really stupid. I don't know. But it's annoying.

Whenever someone is like "the economy's GREAT, Trump's doing great !" I'm like ...... but what'd he do to directly contribute to the booming economy ? ... and no one ever has an answer.

... crashes) but hasn't data shown that the tax bill has already had a negative impact on the economy, even if it's not catastrophic yet ?

I can think of a way that tax cuts without spending cuts would result in negative economic effects in the short term

or are they hoarding cash?

They didn't need the extra money to invest in employees and equipment. That's why I say it was a poorly targeted tax cuts if boosting the economy was the goal.

But it definitely didn't hurt. Business investment is up, just not to the levels Republicans trumped it up to be

which is why you have corporations with record profits...no federal tax payout...and still significant layoffs.

supply side growth (trickle down) doesnt stimulate the economy. the economy is stimulated by consumer spending which spurs increased demand/hiring.

thats why tax cuts for the middle class have historically been more effective (like obama did) than tax cuts for the wealthy who just hoard the money and get wealthier.

While the overwhelming share of tax cuts benefits went to corporations and the wealthy, middle and lower incomes got tax relief too.

And companies didn't lay off employees BECAUSE of the tax cuts. The laid off despite the tax cuts.

I can't think of any channel where the tax cuts worked to slow the economy down.

Could be
>because people are really stupid.
>

And because people are stupid, racist, sexist, and selfish...individual 1 is winning again.


There was a moment in the '16 debates that sticks out to me till this day. Hill said something about Trump dodging taxes, etc. He was able to blame HER. He said something like "you've been in Washington for 30 years, why haven't you fixed it?" cue thunderous applause. Thats the first minute I thought "this jackass could win"

People actually believed that Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for Trump dodging taxes, etc cuz she was an "insider"

We expect these same people to understand the nuances of the economy, and make decisions not solely based on how their 401k is doing?

Hell, even a few folks in this very post seem to be saying those tax cuts helped the economy. Here. On OkayPlayer.

Nah. Individual 1 is getting re-elected. Especially if Biden wins the nom, cuz he'll be able to make the same kind of "insider" argument against Joe...and with a "good" economy to claim/back him up? Shiiit.

I would argue that the economy didn't need the help at the time and it was poorly targeted. But it's silly to think that it's crazy to believe that stimulative fiscal policy stimulated the economy.

Here are some numbers:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-13/trump-s-tax-cuts-had-an-impact-but-not-the-one-backers-hoped-for

>
>Hell, even a few folks in this very post seem to be saying
>those tax cuts helped the economy. Here. On OkayPlayer.
>

and the wife hustled for a new gig.

I’m not giving anyone else credit for our sacrifices and recent success.

Been hustling my ass off for adjunct wages for a half decade now because I love teaching. I was thrilled when my school opened up a full time teaching position in my field (religion) until it slowly (because I'm real dumb about this stuff) dawned on me that they were contracting slowly and choking off adjunct classes. So, I either get this job or I got fired in the most slow-motion way possible.

Then I get to decide whether to continue in this soul-crushing career path or do something normal. So, the economy is possibly working out for me but not in a way that prevents massive, daily heartburn and lack of sleep. Hooray?

My wife was an adjunct and it wasn’t adding up.

She was working just as hard as full time faculty without the pay or benefits.

She is up for a full time position at an hbcu but I’m not sure they can match what she makes since she has years of service and makes more than her colleagues who have been there for 10 years.

Colleges move slow as shit too.

>She was working just as hard as full time faculty without the
>pay or benefits.

Sounds exactly right. Full time course load at the community college I teach at is five classes per semester. I teach four per, plus summer classes. Full-timers also advise and occasionally serve on committee, but our service commitments seem pretty light and I'm asked by my students to informally advise them or write recommendations, etc. all the time. I'm not gonna turn them down.

So yeah, I teach one fewer class and make about 1/3 of full-timers.

>She is up for a full time position at an hbcu but I’m not
>sure they can match what she makes since she has years of
>service and makes more than her colleagues who have been there
>for 10 years.

So she's been in high school for a decade now and that's competitive with a full-time teaching position at a college? That's interesting. Do you mind me asking what she teaches? I'm a bit limited because even though my degree is technically in history, it's History of Christianity so I'm really only viable for teaching religion classes. That limits the pool of places I can work pretty severely, but luckily DC has a pretty thriving catholic school scene. Ditto Chicago, where I'm always prepared to return.

>Colleges move slow as shit too.

Holy shit, no joke.

In NC you can use college teaching towards years of service. She has over 8 years of college teaching so she isn’t coming in on the first rung of the ladder. They also retro pay once they approve your years of service.

She teaches dance so she is also in a niche market with limited options. She doesn’t love dealing with parents and the schedule is more rigid but the money is there.

Definitely look into it. She is still applying for college gigs and even turned one down because of course they came running the moment they found out she was leaving but they half assed her for years as an adjunct and picked some young fresh out of college scrubs over her when everyone at that college knew she was the best candidate.

But she still has summers off, still has spring break and a winter break along with all the same holidays plus some teacher work days.

Another bonus is we get to pick any school in the system for our kids as long as we drive them to the school.

Thanks for sharing all of that. You're right that it's a better analogy for my situation than I initially suspected. So how's it going? I mean, you've made a good case that your wife and your family are better (or at least) as well off because of the switch. But people who decide to go into teaching typically... have some feelings about it. Is she pleased that she made the change?

because the parents ain’t shit. She has moments where she likes it and financially she likes it but she definitely wants to get back into higher learning.

>because the parents ain’t shit. She has moments where she
>likes it and financially she likes it but she definitely wants
>to get back into higher learning.

Yep. All of this. Thanks for sharing and good luck to you and your wife. It's rough out there and I'm happy for you both (strangers, notwithstanding) that you found something stable and close enough. And just in case, I'll keep my fingers crossed. Maybe somebody in highered will realize their mistake and just throw jobs and piles of money at her. Adjunct solidarity. Teacher solidarity. Etc. Etc.

.
.

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

"Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men..."

I was aking for a reason. Anyway.
.
.

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

"Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men..."~ Co

If I'm right about that, I want you to resist that impulse. If I'm wrong, *shrug*.

My education and experience qualifies me to continue advancing in my field, but the academic job market is extremely difficult. I'm either going to find a situation that I want, or keep looking until the sacrifices that entails become intolerable. The latter choice will be made, if ever, through conversation with my informed and supportive network of family and colleagues.

I didn't bring it up because I wanted to workshop my career decisions. I brought it up because the OP asked a question about whether the economy is working for us. The answer for me, personally, is that I'm comfortable financially at the moment but that, like millions of other people, the "at the moment" looms pretty large. I'm aware that I can do other things with my expertise and skillset, but I enjoy what I do and I'd rather not make a big change. Seems pretty simple.

I was coming from a place of genuine support and service, But it's cool and like you said, "...The latter choice will be made, if ever, through conversation with my informed and supportive network of family and colleagues."

I don't bless, advise, or offer anything to folks that say they don't need it.






.
.

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

"Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men..."~ Co

A better way would be average employee pay. Under the current constructs, you can add a shit ton of low wage jobs and it impacts the rate the same. Additionally, people drop off after a certain period of time.

When they publish the unemployment rate they should simultaneously report the under employment rate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's falling along with unemployment.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Monthly-Jobs-Report-01.jpg

But labor force participation isn't improving (it's actually falling a bit). There are a lot of folks that are staying out of work for some reason. Which makes me wonder how people are really feeling out there in the streets.


https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

you can have a job and still be homeless or starving. That stat doesn't tell the whole truth...like #45

My wife’s copay went up to $95 for specialist.

This means anytime she goes to see the gynecologists it’s $100.

I guess it’s the price you pay for wanting decent pay raises for teachers.

Daycare... smh.

and once we add in student loans it’s like we are back at square one.

Under Obama, Labor dept changed the definition of employment to include shit like Uber & Lyft. That's +90% of all "jobs" created last administration.

a year ago...the dhs spokesman resigned because he said they were fabricating stats to push their agenda...and it barely made news.

the attorney general shamelessly lied multiple times in text, audio, and video about something he knew everyone would eventually see for themselves.

these niggas got a doctor to say trump has the same physical profile as jason momoa.

i have no idea why anyone would take the word of anyone working under this admin right now.

Like, of course it is fake news. But it was fake news when they talked about millions of jobs created, without talking about WHAT jobs were created, how many people have to work multiple jobs, and then to also be against raising the minimum wage for the past 10 years - kind of hard for them to balk at Trump when their gripe is mostly that they don't get to be directors of the slant.

thats why this 'trump boom' impression a lot of people have is wrong.

its structurally the same economy that obama guided to the longest job growth streak in history but with slower job growth and widening income inequality.

but that is my point. People's first reaction is "fake stats" and how people are still under employed and the boom isn't real. Then on the flip side people are like "this isn't Trump's economy, its Obama's!"

To which you can point between the 2 and say that Obama owns the fake stats of the economy. However Dems try to argue this against Trump they are going to end up arguing some form of mess back onto Obama, imo.

It really doesn’t matter because both sides will spin the stats.

11 years later Republicans are taking credit for his economic policy.

I give it eight years tops before reality sets in.... You're already seeing it in states with budget deficits.

I doubt we will see the impact of Trumps tax cuts until right before he leaves office

“Sometimes the task of the government is to make incremental improvements or try to steer the Ocean liner two degrees North or South so that 10 years from now, we’re in a very different place than we were. But, at the moment people may feel like we need a 50-degree turn. We don’t need a two degree turn. You say ‘well, if I turn 50 degrees, the whole ship turns. And you can’t turn 50 degrees.”

people want WWE style government but it aint like that, you gotta think far far far ahead of the here and now even though, fact is, the here and now is when the heat is off, no jobs are calling you back and your family is dying from opiods and high blood pressure.

I imagine it depends on the policy/situation. I'm spacing my macro class and that was probably too long ago to be relevant lol.

I just wasn't 100% clear on what he meant exactly. I assumed he was referring to states like Kansas, etc that the GOP fucked...but wasn't sure exactly what he meant.

The tough part about calling it a "good" economy isn't just issues with unemployment, underemployment, etc. Its the % of gains that go to the top, which the tax cuts are going to only make worse.

I think Dems could make that argument depending on the candidate.

I work for a large company that benefited from that cut. Not a nickel went to employees. No new investments. Nothing. In fact, insurance premiums went up. I'm sure that is more common than not. There has to be an argument/case there for dems to make.

LOL at this Thanks Obama foolishness.

https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/07/america-gig-economy-work-bureau-labor-statistics

They WANT you to be poor i.e. ignorant

But this fool announcing tariffs on China might make me eat crow.

Wanted to slap the shit-eating grin off his face.

He was saying "It's so great to have such a full and clear vindication on all these things I've been arguing for fifty years!"

Frederica Whitfield followed up with some lame thing like "Yeah, but a lot of people are still struggling," which was a dumb red herring when people said it over seven years of the Obama recovery, so I can't bring myself to cheer for it as an argument now.

She didn't think to bring up the story of Kansas, which Laffer was behind 100%, and which really DID involve the dramatic economic changes that the supply siders are calling for, and which ended in a fucking calamity.

The fact that a massive unaffordable tax cut will speed up the standard economic indicators (even if just by a little bit) is hardly a supply-side argument. It seems like textbook Keynesian economics. (PTGC is the expert on this stuff around here, of course, so I'd defer to his view.)

And as for deregulation, of course that would help the economy. Regulations aren't meant to help the economy, they're literally meant to rein it in and keep companies from putting their interests ahead of the public good. Of course letting companies set their own rules will be good for the economy. The question is the long-term non-economic cost.

I kinda hope Trump's dumb attempt to take credit for all this helps undermine the naive belief that the President deserves credit or blame for "the economy." Apart from emergency measures, the economy is a lot bigger than politics.

Unemployment is still really low. Wage growth still relatively slow though.

Retail sales were up 3.4% compared to last year's holiday season.

Home building is increasing.
Stock market (401Ks) was way up this year.

Sound like the trade war is cooling down.

(Damn, I sound like a Trump tweet lol).

But again, are all these things real? Are real people feeling secure and prosperous, or are these just numbers?

Is the economy going to propel Trump to a win

this is why people don't know how money or the system really works. its just talking points that sound good.

while many of us know several folks that are doing well, its not because of this latest round of numbers.

I think a better marker would be how many poor people have been able to elevate to not being poor. or show how we have less poor folks overall which isn't likely at all. find some numbers where trump helped with that in addition to this part-time, low paying job stuff.

the markets are cyclical...to think this idiot had anything to do with is just shows how dumb we are.

D

When people are insecure, they are likely to call for change.
When they are secure and comfortable, they are more okay with the status quo.

Luck in timing plays a big part in elections. Bush wasn't directly responsible for the 2008 downturn. But Obama rode that wave.

while the media was saying it was bad and obsessing over 'economic anxiety'.

since then...under trump...

job growth has slowed.
farm bankruptcies are surging.
the manufacturing sector is already in a recession.
black home ownership has fallen to its lowest level *ever*.
gdp is dwindling to sub-2% levels.
income inequality is at a 50 year high and approaching gilded age levels.
and half of our *entire* deficit has driven up in 3 years under trump.
and even trumps biggest coal lobbyist is going out of business.

an entire trail of broken promises.
a worsening economy in just about every way that affects working people.
and those same areas of the country that the media said obama 'left behind' that trump resonated with...theyre doing even worse off under trump.

yet it gets covered as some economic boom under trump because the unemployment rate lowered a measly 1-2% under trump (vs 9% under obama) and the stock market continues its typical steady climb (performed better under obama as well).

if hillary clinton was president...the press would be portraying this same economy as doom and gloom for her re-election bid.

the trump campaign/presidency has been a great crash course in narrative framing by the 'liberal' media and public sentiment.

The "economy' is really based on the mood of the criminal business class and how they feel.

under Trump they feel secure - hes willing to do anything for short term gains - give them money back via tax cuts - and tell them that they are good people.

Any democrat - ANY DEMOCRAT - is going to make those people afraid and angry and sad - and they'll fuck the economy just to spite them.

Turns out the "economy" is nto based on reality.

Trust - if Obama or Clinton or anyone but Trump did so much CRAZY CRAZY shit the market would be shitting bricks.

but since there was modest regulation after the recession...traders/firms didnt have the complete green light to pillage and plunder. so they made it sound like obama had them in soup kitchens.

at least the obama stock market was organic tho.

the trump stock market is artificially propped up on corporate stock buybacks in response to the tax cuts. companies were supposed to be investing more in workers/wages and instead just bought a ton of their own shares with the freed up cash and pumped the value up.

The "liberal media" media can't convince people that they are doing good when they are not good, can they?

when they talk about record consumer confidence under trump...its really just pretty steady among most people but with sky high numbers from republicans.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/10/29/business/29survey1/29survey1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg

so the economy probably wont be the life raft for trump that people in the media make it out to be (it wasnt for obama either). election results have been getting more divorced from economic health recently anyway.

but the disproportionately positive coverage of the economy is undoubtedly better for trump than the more accurate 'performing worse than obama' coverage that it should be getting. that would actually hurt trump and give his opponents a ton of attack lines.

>and those same areas of the country that the media said obama
>'left behind' that trump resonated with...theyre doing even
>worse off under trump.
>

I suppose they'll chalk it up to the witch hunt do nothing Democrats keeping him from building the wall and rebuilding the coal plant

I have a friend who used to always go on about how Obama was fucking up the economy but also how he was personally doing better than ever under him. Whether any Obama policies affected him either way, I don't know, but people will go with whatever narrative suits them.

These numbers might help him among people who see their 401k numbers looking positive, but most people are settled in. The economy will only be a huge factor if a recession hits.