Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
chop2chip
Well-known member
There’s a long list of things I want to buy but can’t due to supply (computer parts, second car, etc.)
Scarcity is still the number one issue in this economy. Once that problem is solved, I trust many of the symptoms we are worrying about will resolve themselves.
Overall, I feel very bullish on the economy. I do worry though we will trip over our shoelaces trying to fix the wrong problems (stimulate demand).
chop2chip
Well-known member
I also don’t buy people are leaving the workforce because the economic climate is so bad. What does that even mean?
You’ll see these jobs returns when parents don’t have worry about daycares/schools shutting down, older workers being able to return to physical offices, pandemic fused nest eggs drying up, etc.
Also, it would help if the easiest way to get a raise wasn’t to leave your current company.
sturg33
I
Has this administration done anything well?
acesfull86
Well-known member
Sanders’ economics are the definition of sophomoric.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Someone check the security footage at the home. Him and Biden got loose.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Took my truck in today because it started burning coolant. Mechanic said he hopes it doesn't need an engine. I said well, yeah, me too. He said no no no, not just because of the cost, but because it's around a three month wait to get them in when ordered.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
https://scitechdaily.com/mit-economists-new-research-the-long-afterlife-of-the-china-shock/amp/
In 2001, the U.S. normalized long-term trade relations with China, and China joined the World Trade Organization — moves many expected to help both economies. Instead, over the next several years, inexpensive imports from China significantly undercut U.S. manufacturing, especially in industries such as textiles and furniture-making. By 2011, this “China shock” from trade was responsible for the loss of 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, and 2.4 million jobs overall. Many locales were especially hard hit, especially in the South Atlantic and Deep South regions. So, while consumers nationally benefitted from slightly cheaper goods, workers in many places had their livelihoods devastated. That was the attention-grabbing finding of a 2013 paper by MIT economist David Autor and his colleagues David Dorn and Gordon Hanson.
Now Autor, Dorn, and Hanson have a follow-up paper, “The Persistence of the China Shock,” forthcoming in the Brookings Review, about the long-term effects of the China shock. They find that trade pressure from Chinese imports leveled out after 2011 — yet the hardest-hit U.S. areas have not bounced back from the rapid declines they suffered. MIT News spoke to Autor, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT, about the new findings.
There is plenty more.
In 2001, the U.S. normalized long-term trade relations with China, and China joined the World Trade Organization — moves many expected to help both economies. Instead, over the next several years, inexpensive imports from China significantly undercut U.S. manufacturing, especially in industries such as textiles and furniture-making. By 2011, this “China shock” from trade was responsible for the loss of 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, and 2.4 million jobs overall. Many locales were especially hard hit, especially in the South Atlantic and Deep South regions. So, while consumers nationally benefitted from slightly cheaper goods, workers in many places had their livelihoods devastated. That was the attention-grabbing finding of a 2013 paper by MIT economist David Autor and his colleagues David Dorn and Gordon Hanson.
Now Autor, Dorn, and Hanson have a follow-up paper, “The Persistence of the China Shock,” forthcoming in the Brookings Review, about the long-term effects of the China shock. They find that trade pressure from Chinese imports leveled out after 2011 — yet the hardest-hit U.S. areas have not bounced back from the rapid declines they suffered. MIT News spoke to Autor, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT, about the new findings.
There is plenty more.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
"[We have now found] the China shock plateaued around 2010-2012. In the decade since then, did places rebound? Unfortunately, places that lost manufacturing employment have seen a persistently deteriorated level of overall employment-to-population ratio and of earnings, while rates of dependency on transfer benefits have risen. Economists have made the phrase “creative destruction” famous. We’ve seen the destruction but not the creative rebound yet."
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The authors did well to bring up the regional devestation that this stuff caused. The decline of industries like coal mining, tobacco farming, furniture or auto manufacturing just crushed entire local and sometimes regional economies. It's not that those employees had to earn new skills to maintain their standard of living. They had to learn new skills, find a new employer in a new industry, and often move far away. They had to set all that up while not earning an income or earning a fraction of what they once earned.
That seemed daunting when I planned to join the military after high school when I had no responsibilities to speak of. Imagine it as a 30 year old with young kids that will have to transfer schools and a mortgage on a home that's underwater because the industry decline crushed home values. Or as a 50 year old with young adult children and elderly parents both nearby that you want to be able to help.
The snarky "adapt or die" or "learn to code" responses, frequently heard from college kids or people whose life is secure enough that they think people being called by other than their preferred pronouns is harmful, fall well short of the mark. It's learn to code, either job search remotely or move to a place without securing employment, wreck your credit with a foreclosure, leave your family, and dive into an entirely new culture.
It makes me furious.
sturg33
I
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Strength of the economy is all about perception. There is a concentrated propaganda effort by right wing news to create the perception that the economy is bad. Media coverage has nothing to do with the reality of the economy. No where in any of that I read says the they are meeting with them because the economy is bad. I honestly havent been following the economy too closely. Just saying that the second part in no way contradicts the first part of what you quoted.