What % of Americans Are Working?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not recall where I read that if you buy precious metals , to make sure you have phsical possesion of them . The article claimed there are brokers selling metals they do not have to sell[/quote]

There are several articles about that topic coming to the surface. I personally take possession of my PMs, but there are some that do not. Comex silver is starting to have issues with physical delivery when futures are excercised. There are a lot of people buying PM and if something else would start to generate a decent sustainable return then PM would be sold and the price could drop, but people in Europe seeing the Goverments about to fall apart want gold and not Cash/FRN (Federal Reserve Notes).

42

Okay, will someone please explain to me why people are upset that some people (includes me at least in my small section of Small Town, America) are richer than other people? I’m not greedy, I just cooperate more and have a better work ethic than most people, that is all. Why should I be punished involuntarily because of this.

And if anyone should be upset at anyone, it should be at the government. The reason why my family is still making the money we make is because it costs less for us to do what we do than to ship the same product from Mexico because of tariffs.

Is everyone really pissed because my brokerage account is bigger than theirs? Or, are they just not focusing on the fact that their standard of living is increasing even though they maybe not at the level I am at?

The numbers in the account do not matter, it is what you can do with those numbers (kind of like cock size, but not). I could care less if I could buy my house for 900 dollars or 150,000 dollars. It is still the same house. Who cares if a head of cattle is 50 bucks or 1500 dollars, it is still the same cow. I think people are to focused on the amount of money they have instead of what they can do with that money and if that changes.

I am doing great in this recession, maybe not as good as I could be, however I cannot be positive as most of my dealings with money have been in the recession. However, when times get harder I just have to become more cooperative and work harder, not that hard of a concept.

The only time in my life that I have not been able to get work was when I wasn’t trying, and at the time that I didn’t have a job I thought I was trying, however now that I look back it was just because, well I wasn’t trying.

43

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Death Cross

Tomorrow, in confirmation of the Head-And-Shoulders that both the labor markets and the stock market made, the market will likely make what is called a ‘Death Cross’. This means that the 50 day moving average will go below the 200 day MA. The accuracy of a Death Cross is roughly 90%.

This means a fall of 30 or 40% is likely, with 90% confidence interval.

What this does to the rest of the economy I will leave to your imaginations.

[/quote]

Here is a blog link for someone who discusses Prechters Dow 1000 prediction, which has a pretty sobering chart. Look at the chart of the 1929 drop, 60% climb, then ~75% fall. The pattern looks very similar with the head and shoulders off the steep rally. If you believe history repeats, this is frightening. Im pretty sure they will announce more quantitative easing if it starts to look like a Great Depression repeat, and the dollar will be one giant leap closer to toast.

Hopefully the funds going broke and selling their PM winners will allow some nice entry points in precious metals.[/quote]

The first thing I thought of: Imagine its July 1932 and I’m sitting on $500,000 in T-Bills. Oh the stocks I could buy… :slight_smile:

Didn’t see the H&S in their chart; I’ll have to Google it and investigate further.

Funny how none of the other guys are commenting. Maybe they don’t understand or worse, don’t WANT to understand. When a chart pattern with 90% accuracy says we’re doomed, guess most can’t handle that.[/quote]

Would now be a good time to point out that there is literally zero empirical evidence suggesting that charting produces any returns over and above what you could get from a simple S&P index fund? i.e., charting has not demonstrated any significant predictive power.

Your “Death Cross” has sure nailed it so far this week.

I am aware that sometimes a prediction is correct in the long-run despite getting killed in the short-run, so how about you give us a timeline? You know, “The 30%-40% drop will occur by ______”? Or “If ______ happens, then that is clear evidence that this event fell outside of the 90% CI”? Something like that.
[/quote]

Its human nature + where the orders are. Its an art and its definitely not foolproof, especially with High Frequency Trading changing the market and the PPT squeezing shorts at every opportunity, but definitely a tool.

If you believe markets are efficient and price action is useless as an indicator, you havent spent much time in the market. Academics really dont know shit - I am doing an MBA and have a trading background and honestly the two have nothing to do with eachother.

44

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not recall where I read that if you buy precious metals , to make sure you have phsical possesion of them . The article claimed there are brokers selling metals they do not have to sell[/quote]

There are several articles about that topic coming to the surface. I personally take possession of my PMs, but there are some that do not. Comex silver is starting to have issues with physical delivery when futures are excercised. There are a lot of people buying PM and if something else would start to generate a decent sustainable return then PM would be sold and the price could drop, but people in Europe seeing the Goverments about to fall apart want gold and not Cash/FRN (Federal Reserve Notes).[/quote]

If the shit really does hit the fan, GLD is not deliverable and may not have the reserves it claims. Basically you own paper still. I think owning miner stocks would be better, but they are still dilutable.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Okay, will someone please explain to me why people are upset that some people (includes me at least in my small section of Small Town, America) are richer than other people? I’m not greedy, I just cooperate more and have a better work ethic than most people, that is all. Why should I be punished involuntarily because of this.

And if anyone should be upset at anyone, it should be at the government. The reason why my family is still making the money we make is because it costs less for us to do what we do than to ship the same product from Mexico because of tariffs.

Is everyone really pissed because my brokerage account is bigger than theirs? Or, are they just not focusing on the fact that their standard of living is increasing even though they maybe not at the level I am at?

The numbers in the account do not matter, it is what you can do with those numbers (kind of like cock size, but not). I could care less if I could buy my house for 900 dollars or 150,000 dollars. It is still the same house. Who cares if a head of cattle is 50 bucks or 1500 dollars, it is still the same cow. I think people are to focused on the amount of money they have instead of what they can do with that money and if that changes.

I am doing great in this recession, maybe not as good as I could be, however I cannot be positive as most of my dealings with money have been in the recession. However, when times get harder I just have to become more cooperative and work harder, not that hard of a concept.

The only time in my life that I have not been able to get work was when I wasn’t trying, and at the time that I didn’t have a job I thought I was trying, however now that I look back it was just because, well I wasn’t trying.[/quote]

Agreed x2. It is a mindset that people want to help the poor, and I am all for that, but the poor here in America are not poor. IMO they are just lazy. Some people are still on unemployment because they do not want to take a pay cut. There are jobs out there, but people think they are worth X amount, but jobs are only paying 2/3 of X. If there are no jobs in your area then you need to move to find the jobs.

46

I buy one roll of 20 silver eagles per month. They may be worth squat 10 years from now, but I’d bet they’ll be worth a lot.

Also bought a shit ton of Eli Lilly at just over $32…PE = 8, yield = 5.92%, little debt, dividends since 1885.

47

so do the people who blame the unemployed for being unemployed think the increased unemployment rate is due to an increase in laziness? Maybe its a structural issue and you are creating a straw man caricature of the unemployed population to blame, or maybe not.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I buy one roll of 20 silver eagles per month. They may be worth squat 10 years from now, but I’d bet they’ll be worth a lot.

Also bought a shit ton of Eli Lilly at just over $32…PE = 8, yield = 5.92%, little debt, dividends since 1885.

[/quote]

haha I am such a tinfoil hatter right now I pay cash. dont want the feds to know Ive been stockpiling and confiscate (we have done it before) my stash before I can move it offshore… shit can they trace this post?

  • not milktruck
49

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I buy one roll of 20 silver eagles per month. They may be worth squat 10 years from now, but I’d bet they’ll be worth a lot.

Also bought a shit ton of Eli Lilly at just over $32…PE = 8, yield = 5.92%, little debt, dividends since 1885.

[/quote]

haha I am such a tinfoil hatter right now I pay cash. dont want the feds to know Ive been stockpiling and confiscate (we have done it before) my stash before I can move it offshore… shit can they trace this post?

  • not milktruck[/quote]

People who buy silver in this way (web) could indeed be tracked. But there would be fierce resistance to confiscation this time, unlike in 1933. Anyone trying to confiscate would likely be met by someone holding a 12-gauge; now multiply that by a couple of million.

Americans in 1933 were much more trusting of the government. That era is long gone. We’re now more likely to see it as a mortal enemy.

50

[quote]milktruck wrote:
so do the people who blame the unemployed for being unemployed think the increased unemployment rate is due to an increase in laziness? Maybe its a structural issue and you are creating a straw man caricature of the unemployed population to blame, or maybe not.

[/quote]

I think there is a portion of the unemployed that are lazy. Everytime the company I work for post a job with requirements we have multiple people with out the credentials come in to apply. When we tell them they do not have the requirements for their job they say that is ok. Can you please sign this so I can continue to get my unemployement check. This is rediculous. There are jobs out there, but I guess people want to continue to get the unemployment check because it is more beneficial for them to collect it then take a huge pay cut. I have been hearing that if you take 6 months of unemployement your chances of getting another job decreases. Companies want to see that you have been working and not sitting on your butt. Even if you are working at McDonalds and you have a phD is better then not working at all. I went through this almost 5 years ago. I was unemployed for 1.5 years. I have an MBA. I applied every where even trying to be a teller at a bank. All I heard was you are over qualified for this position. I almost took my education off my resume just so I could get a job.

51

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:
so do the people who blame the unemployed for being unemployed think the increased unemployment rate is due to an increase in laziness? Maybe its a structural issue and you are creating a straw man caricature of the unemployed population to blame, or maybe not.

[/quote]

I think there is a portion of the unemployed that are lazy. Everytime the company I work for post a job with requirements we have multiple people with out the credentials come in to apply. When we tell them they do not have the requirements for their job they say that is ok. Can you please sign this so I can continue to get my unemployement check. This is rediculous. There are jobs out there, but I guess people want to continue to get the unemployment check because it is more beneficial for them to collect it then take a huge pay cut. I have been hearing that if you take 6 months of unemployement your chances of getting another job decreases. Companies want to see that you have been working and not sitting on your butt. Even if you are working at McDonalds and you have a phD is better then not working at all. I went through this almost 5 years ago. I was unemployed for 1.5 years. I have an MBA. I applied every where even trying to be a teller at a bank. All I heard was you are over qualified for this position. I almost took my education off my resume just so I could get a job.[/quote]

My wife is a tenured prof so I was restricted to where I could job hunt (never EVER give up tenure, ever). The school I taught at before my current one was ‘reluctant’ because I have a Masters degree. That meant a couple of extra thousand bucks. The MA can’t be left off because its on your professional certification, which can’t be gotten anyway without a Masters.

They hired me at the last minute because a woman with a BA got a different job. I am also glad I no longer teach there.

52

Looking at the chart I opened with, I think that THIS right now might be the ‘natural’ level of employment. The job increases from 1981 on were ‘bubble’ jobs, jobs that will never return without reflating a bubble.

10% unemployment is the new norm.

53

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Looking at the chart I opened with, I think that THIS right now might be the ‘natural’ level of employment. The job increases from 1981 on were ‘bubble’ jobs, jobs that will never return without reflating a bubble.

10% unemployment is the new norm.[/quote]

You have to be the most optimistic person on this board

54

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Globalization lowers the price for the consumer but also lowers the price of labor . That translates into disposable income that would go to more afluent countries going to third world countries where the purchasing power is so much greater,

I could go for eliminating the minimum wage , but would require that we do away with all imigration until unemployement is below 2 or 3 percent. Farm wages would exceed retail on the pay scale because the job is more valueable. The costs of your goods would go up . but so would wages[/quote]

Your lack of understanding of manufacturing is astounding…

Globalization if anything, increasees the price of labor because the skill of said labor increases. Globalization would work great if all things were created equal. However, you have countries like china who artificially keep their wages low compared to ours. However, that is even starting to fail as the chinese workers are expecting more money and less hours just like their american counter parts…

In an industrial engineering class I TA for I gave them a great article about the production of “Pool Noodles” those foam pool toys. The chineese workers feel producing these are their old pay is below them and demanded more money. Consequently it became cheaper to produce the pool noodles in the US again and they recently built a new plant for these in arizona…

[/quote]

I’m a few days late on this but I had to comment.

Globalization does not increase the price of labor. The workers providing said labor increase exponentially. When supply increases, prices go down. This is BASIC economics.

Also, the skill required for most labor jobs is finite. Companies are not willing to pay more for higher skilled employees past a certain point where the extra skill does not equate into more productivity.

Additionally, the US keeps wages artificially HIGH (minimum wage). I’m not aware of any minimum/maximum wage laws in China. If there are no maximum wage laws there, they are not keeping their wages artificially low, they are letting the market dictate pay rates which is the most efficient way to allocate resources.

55

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Globalization lowers the price for the consumer but also lowers the price of labor . That translates into disposable income that would go to more afluent countries going to third world countries where the purchasing power is so much greater,

I could go for eliminating the minimum wage , but would require that we do away with all imigration until unemployement is below 2 or 3 percent. Farm wages would exceed retail on the pay scale because the job is more valueable. The costs of your goods would go up . but so would wages[/quote]

Your lack of understanding of manufacturing is astounding…

Globalization if anything, increasees the price of labor because the skill of said labor increases. Globalization would work great if all things were created equal. However, you have countries like china who artificially keep their wages low compared to ours. However, that is even starting to fail as the chinese workers are expecting more money and less hours just like their american counter parts…

In an industrial engineering class I TA for I gave them a great article about the production of “Pool Noodles” those foam pool toys. The chineese workers feel producing these are their old pay is below them and demanded more money. Consequently it became cheaper to produce the pool noodles in the US again and they recently built a new plant for these in arizona…

[/quote]

I’m a few days late on this but I had to comment.

Globalization does not increase the price of labor. The workers providing said labor increase exponentially. When supply increases, prices go down. This is BASIC economics.

Also, the skill required for most labor jobs is finite. Companies are not willing to pay more for higher skilled employees past a certain point where the extra skill does not equate into more productivity.

Additionally, the US keeps wages artificially HIGH (minimum wage). I’m not aware of any minimum/maximum wage laws in China. If there are no maximum wage laws there, they are not keeping their wages artificially low, they are letting the market dictate pay rates which is the most efficient way to allocate resources.[/quote]

I agree with your first and second points but your third point I disagree with , I think you could possibly do away with the minimum wage in America if you did away with ALL unnecessary immigration . The way it works now the supply of labor has beat down the cost of labor below what it would naturally go if there was not an endless supply of cheap labor