What is your survival Plan for Recession[modified]
-
What you plan to do to ride depression?
Tapas Shome System Software Engineer Keen Computer Solutions 1408 Erin Street Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3E 2S8 http://www.keencomputer.com
modified on Monday, October 6, 2008 7:39 PM
Add more money to my mutual fund account, and hope the economy gets back on its feet again. Imagine the return on my investment if all goes well! :-D
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
14% is historically low?
Try 6%. This is valid since that's how it's been calculated for a long time and which is how you create a legitimate basis for any economic measurement. You can't compare numbers calculated one way with numbers calculated another. You may not like it, but (Strictly speaking, if you count every adult over 18 and who is not unemployed, the number is over 50%. So what?) (The same thing happens with inflation numbers; too many people get all uptight since it doesn't measure everything, but you can't measure everything and constantly changing what is measured and how would make any inflation number meaningless over time.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Try 6%. This is valid since that's how it's been calculated for a long time and which is how you create a legitimate basis for any economic measurement. You can't compare numbers calculated one way with numbers calculated another. You may not like it, but
My point is that isn't how it has been calculated for a long time. It's how it has been calculated since the Reagan Administration, basically. If you use the same calculation we were using during the last depression, you get the 14%.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(Strictly speaking, if you count every adult over 18 and who is not unemployed, the number is over 50%. So what?)
"not unemployed"? No, about 60% of the adults over 18 are unemployed. But the grand majority of those are either independently wealthy OR disabled to the point of being worthless OR self-employed, and not even the Depression-era workforce figures included those three groups.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(The same thing happens with inflation numbers; too many people get all uptight since it doesn't measure everything, but you can't measure everything and constantly changing what is measured and how would make any inflation number meaningless over time.)
Well, actually, with a large enough computer network you CAN measure everything, but only WalMart cares to, and they're not trying to measure inflation but worldwide just in time shipping. I'd be happy if they just went back to the Carter admin CPI which included fuel, food, and housing in the consumer price index- instead of the current inflation measurement which only measures a bunch of stuff that doesn't change to keep people from panicing.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Try 6%. This is valid since that's how it's been calculated for a long time and which is how you create a legitimate basis for any economic measurement. You can't compare numbers calculated one way with numbers calculated another. You may not like it, but
My point is that isn't how it has been calculated for a long time. It's how it has been calculated since the Reagan Administration, basically. If you use the same calculation we were using during the last depression, you get the 14%.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(Strictly speaking, if you count every adult over 18 and who is not unemployed, the number is over 50%. So what?)
"not unemployed"? No, about 60% of the adults over 18 are unemployed. But the grand majority of those are either independently wealthy OR disabled to the point of being worthless OR self-employed, and not even the Depression-era workforce figures included those three groups.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(The same thing happens with inflation numbers; too many people get all uptight since it doesn't measure everything, but you can't measure everything and constantly changing what is measured and how would make any inflation number meaningless over time.)
Well, actually, with a large enough computer network you CAN measure everything, but only WalMart cares to, and they're not trying to measure inflation but worldwide just in time shipping. I'd be happy if they just went back to the Carter admin CPI which included fuel, food, and housing in the consumer price index- instead of the current inflation measurement which only measures a bunch of stuff that doesn't change to keep people from panicing.
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
If you use the same calculation we were using during the last depression, you get the 14%.
I'll disagree until I can see a reputable link. Regardless, 14% is still a lot lower than 25%. Moreover, in the 1930s, there was relatively little underemployment (thanks largely to FDRs idiotic economic plans.) Where I live, unemployment is very low--barely over 3%. In IT, it's about .3%. These aren't made up; it's very difficult to hire anyone. Several people where I work have gotten jobs in industries across the board and in all regions of the country. Right now, not a single friend or close associate is unemployed. This is a far cry from 2003 when the exact opposite was true.
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
"not unemployed"? No, about 60% of the adults over 18 are unemployed.
Bad editing. My point is that most adults are unemployed. For example, full time homemakers. You can't simply discard these today since today many people move in and out of the workforce. My wife substitute teaches. Due to back pain, she hasn't taught for a few weeks. Is she unemployed? Underemployed? How do you factor that in? My daughter transitions between working for someone else as a cosmetologist and working for herself. She's also about to have a baby and will take time off. How does she factor in. Point being that this was almost a non-issue in the 1930s.
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
Well, actually, with a large enough computer network you CAN measure everything,
But that's not how it's done and doing it creates other misleading figures. For example, the TV you buy today is not the same TV you could have bought a year ago or ten years ago. If you actually factor in gadgets, you end up apparent deflation. This causes headaches with calculating inflation.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke