Low Unemployment Streak Ends

Author: Swagnarok

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
For about 27-28 months now, the US has enjoyed a streak of unemployment below 4 percent. This streak, a consequence of the continuing economic recovery from Covid which began in May 2020 under Trump and which Biden inherited, was touted by the President, Labor Secretary Su, and other members of this administration as some historic achievement. In their telling, we are living in some glorious repeat of the Reagan or Clinton days and it's because of Biden's leadership.
That streak has ended. Unemployment stands today where it did in January 2022. If it climbs 0.1 more points (and this probably will happen before election day), we'll be back to November 2021.


Here's some more fun facts about the economy. When Trump left office, after 9 months of the worst global pandemic since the Spanish Flu, there was per the Consumer Price Index a total 7.72% inflation from when he took office. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the rate of inflation was higher from Jan. 2020 to Jan. 2021 compared to in previous years during his term.
Meanwhile, from when Biden took office until this April, there was 19.87% inflation. Meaning if you've enjoyed a cumulative 20% pay raise since January 2021, your buying power would be nearly the same now as it was then. Biden's term is not finished, BTW. 

And yes, my source here too is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"But hold on", you might say. "Wages have risen faster than inflation! Biden had said so repeatedly, and the President of the United States wouldn't lie repeatedly! Nor would his cabinet officials! Such a thing has never happened, period!"
Well...


Let's keep going. On June 6, the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage had 6.99% interest. At the time when I originally made a thread about this last year, the then-current number was 6.67 percent. Not only has Biden failed to tame the beast in the last 6 months but it's actually higher today, standing at virtually 7 percent. I already explained before how badly your average person would be screwed taking on a 6.67% mortgage. Now add another third of a percentage to that.


What about big macro-problems? How's the national debt? Surely Trump was the worst spendthrift in American history, and Biden's mighty hand piloted us away from the cliff of bloated and ballooning deficits.
Sadly, 'tis wasn't to be. We are adding a trillion to the national debt every 100 days. This wasn't in 2021, in the wake of Covid when the Fed was desperately passing big stimulus bills because they feared the cost of doing nothing (prior to Covid, the national debt under Trump was rising but at a noticeably slower rate). This is an article from 3 months ago.


#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,706
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Fighting war against Russia isnt free, as many would like to think.

Besides, Trump was voted out because he messed up a country.

If it was so great during Trump, Trump would still be president.

Still, this dichotomy between Biden and Trump is nonsense.

If Trump and Biden are the best America has, then I dont really see how will Russia lose the war.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,639
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Swagnarok

We need to get back to Eisenhower's 92 percent top tax rate to pay down this Debt before the World voids the US dollar as the world currency.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,639
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I'm just posting this for researchers reviewing these posts 100 years from now. It will show that B.K and me are the smartest on this site.
Topic's author
#5
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Fighting war against Russia isnt free, as many would like to think.
The US isn't spending nearly enough on the Ukraine war to add $1 trillion to the national debt every 100 days. Maybe like $200-$300 billion a year if that much.

Besides, Trump was voted out because he messed up a country.
Trump lost reelection because:

(1). He was unlucky enough to be president in the year when the literal premise of a dimestore sci-fi novel about a mutant virus spreading across the globe and killing millions became reality, abruptly ending our 100-year streak without pandemics which lulled the planet and American society into a state of complacency about the topic so that no one was adequately prepared for it, since in the backs of their minds nobody really thought it could happen. People who say "Well if I were president in January 2020 I would've quarantined America at the first hint of Covid" are talking out of their butts with the benefit of hindsight, and in any case that would've been largely ineffective given how it's more contagious than the flu.

(2). The media was publishing a nonstop slew of 24/7 hit pieces on Trump accusing him of every imaginable vice under the sun, including (without the tiniest shred of evidence) calling dead soldiers "losers and suckers", to such an incredibly malicious degree that under any other country's law they'd be successfully sued for defamation and ordered to stop. These tall tales might've swayed the votes of enough Americans to make Biden president even if Covid hadn't been a thing.

If Trump and Biden are the best America has, then I dont really see how will Russia lose the war.
Russia will lose the war because the US is a superpower with the support of an equally impressive military alliance, which would take an staggering amount of incompetency to ruin, and because the Ukrainian people are incredibly brave and capable in warfare so as to command the undying respect of the civilized world.
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,706
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Maybe like $200-$300 billion a year if that much.
Thats over 1000$ per every employed American, so naturally, having over 2000$ less per year per family reflects in wages and prices, adds to difficulty.

He was unlucky enough to be president in the year when the literal premise of a dimestore sci-fi novel about a mutant virus spreading across the globe and killing millions became reality
I am pretty sure that saying things like "You dont have to wear a mask, I dont" and not enforcing rules which many other countries enforced about distancing and some other also didnt help his case.
Lets just say that with 200,000 dead Americans from covid, and highest mortality rate, we can say that he disappointed Americans and he obviously handles crisis badly. I am not saying that I disagree with Trump about masks and rules. But American people disagreed with him.

Russia will lose the war because the US is a superpower with the support of an equally impressive military alliance
Sadly, Russia and its allies are outproducing US and its allies in terms of artillery and rockets, and once Ukraine runs out of those, it wont be fun.
By increasing military production, US faces greater inflation since more money and workforce goes to military and not civilian production.
Also, US trade debt which both presidents failed to solve will cause many problems in future.
Topic's author
#7
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Sadly, Russia and its allies are outproducing US and its allies in terms of artillery and rockets, and once Ukraine runs out of those, it wont be fun.
IMO the "artillery shell production gap" talking point is largely irrelevant. Suppose you're a soldier with an artillery piece and a million shells, and you're up against a hundred soldiers (each with an artillery piece) and 10 shells each. You outnumber them 1000-1 in number of shells. Does that mean you'll beat a hundred men?

No. Of course not. More shells just mean that the men firing shells won't run out of them. It doesn't give Russia more men or more artillery pieces. All Ukraine needs is enough shells to cover the battlefield activities of each piece and they should achieve parity with a Russian force of the same size even if the Russians have more shells that they could use. What matters are the big guns themselves and the number of men adequately trained to fire them.

Now, it might be the case Russia is building more guns too. Even then, the M777 howitzer has a minimum crew size of 5 men, and the recommended complement is 8. We can assume Russian guns are probably similar. If Russian built, say, 2,000 more guns like this, it would either need to redirect 10,000-16,000 of its existing soldiers from other wartime roles or draft 10,000-16,000 more civilians. And given that the quality of Russia's military training has reportedly gotten worse, they wouldn't get exactly the same results from the latter as from an average set of 2,000 guns they already have.
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,706
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Suppose you're a soldier with an artillery piece and a million shells, and you're up against a hundred soldiers (each with an artillery piece) and 10 shells each. You outnumber them 1000-1 in number of shells. Does that mean you'll beat a hundred men?
I dont know why are you making a completely irrelevant example. Ukraine doesnt outnumber Russia 100 to 1. Its the Russia which outnumbers Ukraine. And yes, artillery and rockets are important and even crucial for modern war.

All Ukraine needs is enough shells to cover the battlefield activities of each piece
Sadly, the number of shells and rockets needed is such that more is always better, since it allows more intensive attacks. Besides, neither side has enough to strike entire battlefield every day, so the one with more can naturally strike more.

What matters are the big guns themselves and the number of men adequately trained to fire them.
Big guns? A rocket is pretty much the biggest gun there is, and artillery penetrates defenses more easily than anything else.

If Russian built, say, 2,000 more guns like this, it would either need to redirect 10,000-16,000 of its existing soldiers from other wartime roles or draft 10,000-16,000 more civilians.
Russia has millions of soldiers. 10,000 is less than 1%. Besides, tanks and combat vehicles arent as good as artillery, due to much shorter range and thus more vunerability.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,087
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Russia has a population of about 144 million.

With armed forces numbering about 1.3 million.

And a vast territory to defend.
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,706
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Russia has a population of about 144 million
And Ukraine?

#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Why do you think it's a good thing to be 8% non communist?
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,639
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

   ?
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
100% taxes is far superior to 92% taxes. Why should the government decide 8% corruption is ok?
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Very forward thinking comrade, the utopia is just around the corner with men like you!
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,639
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Dwight D. Eisenhower is often quoted from his February 17, 1953 News Conference in which he said,
The fact is there must be balanced budgets before we are again on a safe and sound system in our economy. That means, to my mind, that we cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced. Now that is just to my mind sheer necessity.
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Yeah Ike was a failed communist. 100% allows for no corruption.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Very forward thinking comrade, the utopia is just around the corner with men like you!

Danke
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
"We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But to slacken the tempo of the working masses means to fail to pay debts to the State."
another quote, from a 100% taxer.
#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
This streak, a consequence of the continuing economic recovery from Covid which began in May 2020 
You think the economic recovery from Covid began in May of 2020? Maybe May of 2021, but not 2020.

Sadly, 'tis wasn't to be. We are adding a trillion to the national debt every 100 days
WTF are you talking about? We actually had a surplus in April

#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,087
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
And Ukraine?

Please clarify.
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Get that? on April 15, the government ran a surplus.

How dare you accuse government living beyond paycheck to paycheck.
Topic's author
#22
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You think the economic recovery from Covid began in May of 2020? Maybe May of 2021, but not 2020.
I've laid out the unemployment data for you before. At this point, rehashing it would be like beating on a dead horse.

WTF are you talking about? We actually had a surplus in April
This is inconsistent with the data I have, which shows a nearly $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt from June 2023 until February 2024.

Again, check out this source. It has a graph.


Admittedly it hasn't risen by a trillion between February and today, though it has risen, which either does not suggest a surplus or that the Fed did raise enough money to potentially shrink the debt, which they then proceeded to flush down the toilet.
#23
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
I've laid out the unemployment data for you before. At this point, rehashing it would be like beating on a dead horse.
You are a dead horse 

This is inconsistent with the data I have, which shows a nearly $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt from June 2023 until February 2024.
Well that’s because you watch MAGA MORON TV. Aren’t you glad the Republicans dramatically cut taxes for the richest 1% and corporations?

which they then proceeded to flush down the toilet.
They spend it on guys like you who can’t earn

#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You are a dead horse 

reported.
#25
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
reported
Go fry your ass MAGA MORON

You cry baby. Have you been a whiny cry baby since grade school? I have to believe so. That’s why you live all alone.

#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10