DOW minus 329 points-another recession ?!

[zack1234]

Try opening your mind, clear away the blind jealousy of being someone else's fool and make something of yourself.  You can start by taking Brookes very solid advice.  Only with an honest understanding of the facts can you make yourself into something more than you are now.

Any more pearls of wisdom

How rude and arrogant is the above

"And one day you could be President"
"A closed door is a opportunitiy"
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"

We had nausiating posters at work to inspire everyone did you invent them?.

Well done Mort i was worried about you, that $6000 i said i could invest for you has not arrived yet?

"Your investments may go up or down""Your car may or may not start after you have bought it"

If you work hard you will succeed, so everyone who is not rich is lazy and bad and everyone who is rich is good and hard working

[morfiend]

Any more pearls of wisdom

How rude and arrogant is the above

"And one day you could be President"
"A closed door is a opportunitiy"
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"

We had nausiating posters at work to inspire everyone did you invent them?.

Well done Mort i was worried about you, that $6000 i said i could invest for you has not arrived yet?

"Your investments may go up or down""Your car may or may not start after you have bought it"

If you work hard you will succeed, so everyone who is not rich is lazy and bad and everyone who is rich is good and hard working

   Zack,


    The cheque is in the mail!




   

[DmonSlyr]

First off, thank you for your contribution in the armed forces. If it weren't for people like you I wouldn't be able to talk so much BS  

 You think my arguement is invalid, yet everything in your entire post is actually telling me every reason why we are in this predicament here with our economy.

Living frugally is not good for the economy.

Selling my personal posessions does not help the economy.

Basically everything in your 4th paragraph will be hurting the econony.

Your 5th, 6th, and 7th paragraph would A. Hurt the economy B. Isn't benefitting anyone or any company, whats wrong with having luxeries, it gives people jobs, makes everything around us look more pleasant instead of a cheap arse crap hole. But it's okay we don't need nice things screw it.


You honestly don't even understand my arguement, psychologically you think your standard of living is okay because it's the "norm" in society, even though you have to live frugally, and you never question the bosses to where you don't have to live like that. IMO that is hurting you and the economy, and then it comes back to bite the employer in the arse. No disrespect to your style of living, some don't need a bunch of crap. But we need American's to buy a ton of crap, thats what I'm getting at with this.

You think I hate the corporate world but that is not my argument. I want to own a business. So I guess I'll see what's up with that. I want to invest in the stock market soon and buy silver when I can "afford" it.  I do have a 401k.

The thing about student loans: 6% interest first, second why can't we agree on say 100$ month? Ohh yeahh it's our tax money!! That's right! Wait... So what were taxes for again, to help the community? So loans aren't really helping you, it is just credit. We Shirley aren't gonna see any return on investment as a tax payer either. I'm not complaining about paying them back, however, that is a hefty financial amount/month/int they're placing on recent college grads 6th months out of graduation who are suppose to find "jobs" that can support such a high rate of return for their loans, as well as live moderately in society.



Prices would slowely rise over time but the demand would be greater if more people could buy the product aka, good for business.

It has nothing even close to do with socialism. I don't agree with socialism. It works on paper but not in real life.

[zack1234]

 

You drink double expresso as well

We built the channel tunnel in the UK to import cheap educated people to do our jobs, the governement says its good for the economy

The market economy its works to an extent, we have had it here for 50 years and you in the US have not even started

You use your internal markets to keep business's running and complain when a bloke in China can produce a car or Jet Airliner for a 1/3 of the price, and what do you all do wave the flag and say they are commies and their planes are poo

Its in books Brooke has told you, but no point reading it as you will get anoyed and start stoking the ovens again

[Thruster]

Wow,

Still flogging this equine carcass huh?

Here,

If a quick stop at Amazon.com were all it took to provide access to understanding the mechanics, nature, or design of what we naively call our "economy" then, well, a thread like this would die quick. Some guys I know posses a modest library's worth of material on the subject. All of it nothing more than analysis of past events and a narrow prognostication of what may, given a correspondingly narrow set of factors, produce outcomes in line with the author's particular focus. They all offer insight and perspective. Even some unique data.

The thing is they don't offer a road map or a silver bullet. None ever do or in reality, could. One thing I've learned in my brief exposure to the world of making/spending/losing/keeping lucre is that, typically, as in most competitive endeavors, those that know don't talk (at least not till after the smoke's cleared) and those that talk don't know. Can't blame 'em. It's a fascinating topic. BUT having a grasp of the relevant facts and how they fit can go a long way toward making one truly conversant in the subject. Otherwise everybody gets all mucked up in trivial distinctions...

So the answer to the OP's query has to be...."not necessarily".

[Slate]

  The economy is relative to the person experiencing it.

   The 1 million bankruptcy filers in 2013 would not rate it highly.

  I have no economic numbers so these are just my observations.

  What I have noticed is wages have been flat for most of the middle class for most of 10 years now.
  The prices of many goods and services have gone up in this time.
  The quantity of food in a package has gone down while prices crept up.
  Employers have shifted to more part time employees to save on benefits for full timers.
  The Stock Market has been artificially propped up with infusions of currency.
  Employers for non union workers do not give significant raises due to the many excuses such as "it's been a bad year, tough economy ect."
 
  I take the example of the Automotive repair area I am familiar with:

          In 2003 where I work the labor rate was $79/hr to have your car repaired.
          In 2014 the rate is $105/hr.

          $26 is roughly a 32% increase. Wages (in my shop for good A techs) have risen over that time slightly but only by 20%.

           So the workers available income is 12% less able to afford the cost of goods and services.

           From the US Department of agriculture: Given the lag in commodity costs impacting prices on grocery store shelves, annual U.S. food inflation is now running at +22% and rising.
   

[zack1234]

Burn the commie

[pembquist]

Burn the commie

YANKIE GO HOME!...........oh, wait....oh, JUST GO HOME!

[Brooke]

I dont believe Brooke can read anyway

Its a outrage! 

[Brooke]

No one has even remotely disputed my agruement with facts rather than tell me to read a book, which I will.

OK (although if you can manage it Sowell's book is the better of the two to read -- Hazlett is if you can't read one unless it's short), here you go.

You think that employers can decide independently what to pay people.  That is completely wrong.  Wages are part of an economic system, and a market determines them, of which the opinions of employers are only a tiny part.  Given that they set them at $x/year, why is it x and not 10x or x/10?  The reason is that at lower than x, they wouldn't be able to get the employees that are needed; and at higher than x, they are paying more than is needed to get the employees, leaving them at a disadvantage to competitors, which, if bad enough, results in the business paying $0/year when it closes down.  The market determines x.  That is why beginning electrical engineers cost $75k/year and beginning waiters cost $25k/year even if an electronics firm likes the idea of paying electrical engineers $25k/year of if a restaurant likes the idea of waiters getting $75k/year.

I would like some money for every time I talk to a person who has taken economics courses in college yet who gets such basic economic mechanisms completely wrong.

"Basic Economics," by Sowell, folks -- it can free your mind from slavery to economic fallacies. 

[Brooke]

I dont believe Brooke can read anyway

(I listen to audio books.)

[NatCigg]

OK (although if you can manage it Sowell's book is the better of the two to read -- Hazlett is if you can't read one unless it's short), here you go.

You think that employers can decide independently what to pay people.  That is completely wrong.  Wages are part of an economic system, and a market determines them, of which the opinions of employers are only a tiny part.  Given that they set them at $x/year, why is it x and not 10x or x/10?  The reason is that at lower than x, they wouldn't be able to get the employees that are needed; and at higher than x, they are paying more than is needed to get the employees, leaving them at a disadvantage to competitors, which, if bad enough, results in the business paying $0/year when it closes down.  The market determines x.  That is why beginning electrical engineers cost $75k/year and beginning waiters cost $25k/year even if an electronics firm likes the idea of paying electrical engineers $25k/year of if a restaurant likes the idea of waiters getting $75k/year.

I would like some money for every time I talk to a person who has taken economics courses in college yet who gets such basic economic mechanisms completely wrong.

"Basic Economics," by Sowell, folks -- it can free your mind from slavery to economic fallacies. 

could you talk about economies of scale and how difficult it is for a business without it to manufacture a product for price Y.  or given that the globalized market place has put further stress on said business because alibuboo not only has economy of scale but very cheap labor and can sell the product for x.  Now said business has now chance to produce product for x.  Even Fordo who has economy of scale can no longer sell at price Y and must lower costs to manufacture product for x in order to compete with Alibuboo.

 

[pembquist]

could you talk about economies of scale and how difficult it is for a business without it to manufacture a product for price Y.  or given that the globalized market place has put further stress on said business because alibuboo not only has economy of scale but very cheap labor and can sell the product for x.  Now said business has now chance to produce product for x.  Even Fordo who has economy of scale can no longer sell at price Y and must lower costs to manufacture product for x in order to compete with Alibuboo.

 

Are you describing the race to the bottom?

[DmonSlyr]

OK (although if you can manage it Sowell's book is the better of the two to read -- Hazlett is if you can't read one unless it's short), here you go.

You think that employers can decide independently what to pay people.  That is completely wrong.  Wages are part of an economic system, and a market determines them, of which the opinions of employers are only a tiny part.  Given that they set them at $x/year, why is it x and not 10x or x/10?  The reason is that at lower than x, they wouldn't be able to get the employees that are needed; and at higher than x, they are paying more than is needed to get the employees, leaving them at a disadvantage to competitors, which, if bad enough, results in the business paying $0/year when it closes down.  The market determines x.  That is why beginning electrical engineers cost $75k/year and beginning waiters cost $25k/year even if an electronics firm likes the idea of paying electrical engineers $25k/year of if a restaurant likes the idea of waiters getting $75k/year.

I would like some money for every time I talk to a person who has taken economics courses in college yet who gets such basic economic mechanisms completely wrong.

"Basic Economics," by Sowell, folks -- it can free your mind from slavery to economic fallacies. 

That is a good argument and I can see how that is portrayed, given the type of labor, and the quality of that labor. Would you agree that eventually the type of labor would suffer and lack quality if the employers continued to give the job to lower paid workers? Likewise, if a company handed out higher pay compared to competitors, wouldn't that attract the best workers, therefore making the company more profitable? Which would then increase pay around the industry.

could you talk about economies of scale and how difficult it is for a business without it to manufacture a product for price Y.  or given that the globalized market place has put further stress on said business because alibuboo not only has economy of scale but very cheap labor and can sell the product for x.  Now said business has now chance to produce product for x.  Even Fordo who has economy of scale can no longer sell at price Y and must lower costs to manufacture product for x in order to compete with Alibuboo.

 

That is a great question. And to add insult to injury, its controlled under a completely different economic system.

And it's far a way from America. That may be difficult to be a good competitor in this country. Im going to look into that company more.

The only problem with college is that we learn the fundamentals. But don't have the knowledge of what a CEO actually goes through.

[NatCigg]

That is a good argument and I can see how that is portrayed, given the type of labor, and the quality of that labor. Would you agree that eventually the type of labor would suffer and lack quality if the employers continued to give the job to lower paid workers? Likewise, if a company handed out higher pay compared to competitors, wouldn't that attract the best workers, therefore making the company more profitable? Which would then increase pay around the industry.

if you try a little harder i think youll get it.  there is always a give and take, or in better words a supply and demand curve.  the market decides the numbers.  it is more often than not, regulations that disrupt this system.  Increased costs due to regulations puts stress on a bussines, the business will adjust by increasing the price of the product or decreasing expenses or simply losing profit.

The problem I see in your logic is that your pulling money out of thin air.  how is one company's increased profit going to lead to further increased pay in the industry?  only if the super human worker your dreaming of creates a demand for that worker.  still the market is deciding the increase in wages.

This system is established and works far better than your imagination.  you can try to reinvent the wheel but the only thing your doing is thowing wrenches in the wheel that is driving the bus.