Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Why? @UncleBuck is calming down after hilldawgs loss..OMG! What a great name for a new strain..hilldawgs
What do you think the crosses should be?
Obvi Chemdawg cross.
Grandma dawg's cookies?
working class whites and economic anxiety
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Grandma dawg's cookies?
That's because as a narcissist everything is about him and it's all personal.
It's a sickness. He's mentally ill..does anyone not understand this? It's abnormal human behavior brought on by shit relationship with mommy and daddy.
I actually feel sorry for Donald the child..his parents did a number on him.
No the strain is Hilldawgs..so it must have a dawg, chem 1-4 and something else.
Something hill..like hillbilly hobby.
Hillbilly Hobby x Chemdawg 1-3.. Not 4 too much indica.
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
TBH all politicians break campaign promises and I've seen quite a few of them in almost 4 decades of voting but I've never seen one break it BFORE he took office; you can't shame him because he has no shame.
I'm just going to enjoy watching his supporters who were conned by him scream for his impeachment.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'll back them all the way. Then we'll be treated to the spectacle of a Mike Pence presidency, which should finish the job of discrediting the right wing.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
no you won't enjoy that. they'll never believe anything you tell them. you're an evil lying bastard who hates america.
you can prove anything you want to, and thats going to be their response....kinda like how hillary supports won't lay down and die....the presidency of the living dead
you can prove anything you want to, and thats going to be their response....kinda like how hillary supports won't lay down and die....the presidency of the living dead
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
my original unedited post had quite a few more "colorful" words in it, so thats not quite how i actually feel, but its close
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13900228/1/u-s-consumers-are-spending-like-crazy-so-far-this-holiday-season.html
U.S. consumers have stepped up big-time to shop so far this holiday season.
Online sales for Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday reached $5.27 billion, up a strong 17.7% from last year, according to new data Saturday from Adobe. Black Friday set a new record by ringing up $3.34 billion in sales, an increase of 21.3% year over year.
A good portion of the online shopping is being done on mobile devices. Black Friday became the first day in retail history to notch over $1 billion in mobile sales at $1.2 billion, up 33% from a year ago.
The results are based on aggregated and anonymous data from 22.6 billion visits to retail websites.
"Shoppers hit the buy button at unprecedented levels as conversion rates were up nearly a full percent across all devices in the evening hours on Black Friday," said Tamara Gaffney, Principal Analyst and Director at Adobe Digital Insights in a statement.
Top-selling products tend to be expensive, notes Adobe, including Samsung 4K televisions, Apple (AAPL) iPads, Macbooks, electric scooters, Sony's (SNE) Playstation virtual-reality goggles, Microsoft's (MSFT) Xbox gaming console, and the Sony Playstation 4 gaming console.
they were just economically anxious though.
U.S. consumers have stepped up big-time to shop so far this holiday season.
Online sales for Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday reached $5.27 billion, up a strong 17.7% from last year, according to new data Saturday from Adobe. Black Friday set a new record by ringing up $3.34 billion in sales, an increase of 21.3% year over year.
A good portion of the online shopping is being done on mobile devices. Black Friday became the first day in retail history to notch over $1 billion in mobile sales at $1.2 billion, up 33% from a year ago.
The results are based on aggregated and anonymous data from 22.6 billion visits to retail websites.
"Shoppers hit the buy button at unprecedented levels as conversion rates were up nearly a full percent across all devices in the evening hours on Black Friday," said Tamara Gaffney, Principal Analyst and Director at Adobe Digital Insights in a statement.
Top-selling products tend to be expensive, notes Adobe, including Samsung 4K televisions, Apple (AAPL) iPads, Macbooks, electric scooters, Sony's (SNE) Playstation virtual-reality goggles, Microsoft's (MSFT) Xbox gaming console, and the Sony Playstation 4 gaming console.
they were just economically anxious though.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
A Tale of Two Job Markets
With the economic expansion in its eighth year, over 15 million jobs added since the post-recession low in employment, and a steady decline in the jobless rate from its recessionary high of 10% to under 5%, many mainstream economists were convinced that the U.S. economy was in good shape. That misconception, at least where jobs are concerned, is a key reason so many were stunned by this month’s election verdict.
Looking beneath the headlines, it is important to appreciate how unevenly distributed the job gains have been during the current business cycle. We pointed out nearly five years ago that, over the first two years of the jobs recovery, Whites accounted for less than 59% of the job gains, even though they made up over 81% of the labor force. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics, who made up “about a quarter of the labor force, accounted for around five out of every eight jobs added” (USCO, February 2012).
Last month, we again emphasized the skewed nature of this jobs recovery, noting that, “for seven long years, the majority of less-educated non-Hispanic White adults has not been employed. No wonder there is such angst in the lead-up to this presidential election” (USCO Essentials, October 2016).
A striking picture of this lopsided reality is evident from the shares of the total job gains since the November 2007 pre-recession peak in employment. As the chart shows, of the five-million-plus net jobs added since that high-water mark nine years ago, some 56% went to Hispanics (rightmost green bar), about quadruple their 14% share of the labor force at the time (rightmost blue bar). Meanwhile, 29% of those job gains went to Asians, i.e., about six times their 5% share of the labor force (second set of bars from left). Moreover, 25% of those job gains went to Blacks, i.e., more than double their 11% share of the labor force (third set of bars from left).
In sharp contrast, Whites, who made up over 81% of the labor force in 2007 (leftmost blue bar) accounted for negative 9% of the net job gains (red bar). While the percentage shares for these four groups add up to more than 100% because White Hispanics are double-counted as both White and Hispanic, and Black Hispanics are double-counted as both Black and Hispanic, the reality is stark. Whites actually have fewer jobs than nine years ago, while Hispanics, Blacks and Asians together gained all of the net jobs added, and more.
Part of the reason may be that these jobs, predominantly in services, were created in metropolitan areas, rather than in rural areas and small towns where factories were shuttered as the manufacturing jobs disappeared. There is little reason to expect that those jobs will come back to those areas away from the urban centers.
Stepping back from the current outlook, as students of the business cycle, we are well-positioned to discern what is cyclical and, by elimination, what is not cyclical but structural. Digging deep into data that do not conform to cyclical patterns, we have been able to promptly highlight structural anomalies that economists wielding fancy macroeconomic models overlook for extended periods. The details of the data, properly scrutinized, have long revealed the sources of anger and despair with the way the 21st century has sorted winners and losers.
President-elect Trump’s proposed tax cuts, along with major infrastructure spending, could well invigorate business activity, but are unlikely to take effect for at least a year or so. Thus, they are unlikely to affect the economy’s prospects over the coming months. To that extent, our cyclical outlook remains unchanged.
Of course, a reduction in regulations could have a nearer-term impact. The President also has the power to make major changes with regard to trade and tariffs in relatively short order. All in all, these could have positive or negative effects, though it is too soon to tell. But in any case, we will keep a close eye on our cyclical leading indexes for early objective indications of a shift in the outlook.
In any event, it will be difficult to change the plight of Mr. Trump’s supporters from outside the metropolitan areas. They remain at the mercy of powerful winds of structural change that continue to sweep the globe.
With the economic expansion in its eighth year, over 15 million jobs added since the post-recession low in employment, and a steady decline in the jobless rate from its recessionary high of 10% to under 5%, many mainstream economists were convinced that the U.S. economy was in good shape. That misconception, at least where jobs are concerned, is a key reason so many were stunned by this month’s election verdict.
Looking beneath the headlines, it is important to appreciate how unevenly distributed the job gains have been during the current business cycle. We pointed out nearly five years ago that, over the first two years of the jobs recovery, Whites accounted for less than 59% of the job gains, even though they made up over 81% of the labor force. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics, who made up “about a quarter of the labor force, accounted for around five out of every eight jobs added” (USCO, February 2012).
Last month, we again emphasized the skewed nature of this jobs recovery, noting that, “for seven long years, the majority of less-educated non-Hispanic White adults has not been employed. No wonder there is such angst in the lead-up to this presidential election” (USCO Essentials, October 2016).
A striking picture of this lopsided reality is evident from the shares of the total job gains since the November 2007 pre-recession peak in employment. As the chart shows, of the five-million-plus net jobs added since that high-water mark nine years ago, some 56% went to Hispanics (rightmost green bar), about quadruple their 14% share of the labor force at the time (rightmost blue bar). Meanwhile, 29% of those job gains went to Asians, i.e., about six times their 5% share of the labor force (second set of bars from left). Moreover, 25% of those job gains went to Blacks, i.e., more than double their 11% share of the labor force (third set of bars from left).
In sharp contrast, Whites, who made up over 81% of the labor force in 2007 (leftmost blue bar) accounted for negative 9% of the net job gains (red bar). While the percentage shares for these four groups add up to more than 100% because White Hispanics are double-counted as both White and Hispanic, and Black Hispanics are double-counted as both Black and Hispanic, the reality is stark. Whites actually have fewer jobs than nine years ago, while Hispanics, Blacks and Asians together gained all of the net jobs added, and more.
Part of the reason may be that these jobs, predominantly in services, were created in metropolitan areas, rather than in rural areas and small towns where factories were shuttered as the manufacturing jobs disappeared. There is little reason to expect that those jobs will come back to those areas away from the urban centers.
Stepping back from the current outlook, as students of the business cycle, we are well-positioned to discern what is cyclical and, by elimination, what is not cyclical but structural. Digging deep into data that do not conform to cyclical patterns, we have been able to promptly highlight structural anomalies that economists wielding fancy macroeconomic models overlook for extended periods. The details of the data, properly scrutinized, have long revealed the sources of anger and despair with the way the 21st century has sorted winners and losers.
President-elect Trump’s proposed tax cuts, along with major infrastructure spending, could well invigorate business activity, but are unlikely to take effect for at least a year or so. Thus, they are unlikely to affect the economy’s prospects over the coming months. To that extent, our cyclical outlook remains unchanged.
Of course, a reduction in regulations could have a nearer-term impact. The President also has the power to make major changes with regard to trade and tariffs in relatively short order. All in all, these could have positive or negative effects, though it is too soon to tell. But in any case, we will keep a close eye on our cyclical leading indexes for early objective indications of a shift in the outlook.
In any event, it will be difficult to change the plight of Mr. Trump’s supporters from outside the metropolitan areas. They remain at the mercy of powerful winds of structural change that continue to sweep the globe.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so your argument is that whites are so lazy and entitled that they need the government to fix everything for them, instead of taking responsibility for their own lives?A Tale of Two Job Markets
With the economic expansion in its eighth year, over 15 million jobs added since the post-recession low in employment, and a steady decline in the jobless rate from its recessionary high of 10% to under 5%, many mainstream economists were convinced that the U.S. economy was in good shape. That misconception, at least where jobs are concerned, is a key reason so many were stunned by this month’s election verdict.
Looking beneath the headlines, it is important to appreciate how unevenly distributed the job gains have been during the current business cycle. We pointed out nearly five years ago that, over the first two years of the jobs recovery, Whites accounted for less than 59% of the job gains, even though they made up over 81% of the labor force. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics, who made up “about a quarter of the labor force, accounted for around five out of every eight jobs added” (USCO, February 2012).
Last month, we again emphasized the skewed nature of this jobs recovery, noting that, “for seven long years, the majority of less-educated non-Hispanic White adults has not been employed. No wonder there is such angst in the lead-up to this presidential election” (USCO Essentials, October 2016).
A striking picture of this lopsided reality is evident from the shares of the total job gains since the November 2007 pre-recession peak in employment. As the chart shows, of the five-million-plus net jobs added since that high-water mark nine years ago, some 56% went to Hispanics (rightmost green bar), about quadruple their 14% share of the labor force at the time (rightmost blue bar). Meanwhile, 29% of those job gains went to Asians, i.e., about six times their 5% share of the labor force (second set of bars from left). Moreover, 25% of those job gains went to Blacks, i.e., more than double their 11% share of the labor force (third set of bars from left).
In sharp contrast, Whites, who made up over 81% of the labor force in 2007 (leftmost blue bar) accounted for negative 9% of the net job gains (red bar). While the percentage shares for these four groups add up to more than 100% because White Hispanics are double-counted as both White and Hispanic, and Black Hispanics are double-counted as both Black and Hispanic, the reality is stark. Whites actually have fewer jobs than nine years ago, while Hispanics, Blacks and Asians together gained all of the net jobs added, and more.
Part of the reason may be that these jobs, predominantly in services, were created in metropolitan areas, rather than in rural areas and small towns where factories were shuttered as the manufacturing jobs disappeared. There is little reason to expect that those jobs will come back to those areas away from the urban centers.
Stepping back from the current outlook, as students of the business cycle, we are well-positioned to discern what is cyclical and, by elimination, what is not cyclical but structural. Digging deep into data that do not conform to cyclical patterns, we have been able to promptly highlight structural anomalies that economists wielding fancy macroeconomic models overlook for extended periods. The details of the data, properly scrutinized, have long revealed the sources of anger and despair with the way the 21st century has sorted winners and losers.
President-elect Trump’s proposed tax cuts, along with major infrastructure spending, could well invigorate business activity, but are unlikely to take effect for at least a year or so. Thus, they are unlikely to affect the economy’s prospects over the coming months. To that extent, our cyclical outlook remains unchanged.
Of course, a reduction in regulations could have a nearer-term impact. The President also has the power to make major changes with regard to trade and tariffs in relatively short order. All in all, these could have positive or negative effects, though it is too soon to tell. But in any case, we will keep a close eye on our cyclical leading indexes for early objective indications of a shift in the outlook.
In any event, it will be difficult to change the plight of Mr. Trump’s supporters from outside the metropolitan areas. They remain at the mercy of powerful winds of structural change that continue to sweep the globe.
LOL
poor, stupid, helpless whites.
won't someone please think of the white people?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I added an attribution for you.A Tale of Two Job Markets
With the economic expansion in its eighth year, over 15 million jobs added since the post-recession low in employment, and a steady decline in the jobless rate from its recessionary high of 10% to under 5%, many mainstream economists were convinced that the U.S. economy was in good shape. That misconception, at least where jobs are concerned, is a key reason so many were stunned by this month’s election verdict.
Looking beneath the headlines, it is important to appreciate how unevenly distributed the job gains have been during the current business cycle. We pointed out nearly five years ago that, over the first two years of the jobs recovery, Whites accounted for less than 59% of the job gains, even though they made up over 81% of the labor force. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics, who made up “about a quarter of the labor force, accounted for around five out of every eight jobs added” (USCO, February 2012).
Last month, we again emphasized the skewed nature of this jobs recovery, noting that, “for seven long years, the majority of less-educated non-Hispanic White adults has not been employed. No wonder there is such angst in the lead-up to this presidential election” (USCO Essentials, October 2016).
A striking picture of this lopsided reality is evident from the shares of the total job gains since the November 2007 pre-recession peak in employment. As the chart shows, of the five-million-plus net jobs added since that high-water mark nine years ago, some 56% went to Hispanics (rightmost green bar), about quadruple their 14% share of the labor force at the time (rightmost blue bar). Meanwhile, 29% of those job gains went to Asians, i.e., about six times their 5% share of the labor force (second set of bars from left). Moreover, 25% of those job gains went to Blacks, i.e., more than double their 11% share of the labor force (third set of bars from left).
In sharp contrast, Whites, who made up over 81% of the labor force in 2007 (leftmost blue bar) accounted for negative 9% of the net job gains (red bar). While the percentage shares for these four groups add up to more than 100% because White Hispanics are double-counted as both White and Hispanic, and Black Hispanics are double-counted as both Black and Hispanic, the reality is stark. Whites actually have fewer jobs than nine years ago, while Hispanics, Blacks and Asians together gained all of the net jobs added, and more.
Part of the reason may be that these jobs, predominantly in services, were created in metropolitan areas, rather than in rural areas and small towns where factories were shuttered as the manufacturing jobs disappeared. There is little reason to expect that those jobs will come back to those areas away from the urban centers.
Stepping back from the current outlook, as students of the business cycle, we are well-positioned to discern what is cyclical and, by elimination, what is not cyclical but structural. Digging deep into data that do not conform to cyclical patterns, we have been able to promptly highlight structural anomalies that economists wielding fancy macroeconomic models overlook for extended periods. The details of the data, properly scrutinized, have long revealed the sources of anger and despair with the way the 21st century has sorted winners and losers.
President-elect Trump’s proposed tax cuts, along with major infrastructure spending, could well invigorate business activity, but are unlikely to take effect for at least a year or so. Thus, they are unlikely to affect the economy’s prospects over the coming months. To that extent, our cyclical outlook remains unchanged.
Of course, a reduction in regulations could have a nearer-term impact. The President also has the power to make major changes with regard to trade and tariffs in relatively short order. All in all, these could have positive or negative effects, though it is too soon to tell. But in any case, we will keep a close eye on our cyclical leading indexes for early objective indications of a shift in the outlook.
In any event, it will be difficult to change the plight of Mr. Trump’s supporters from outside the metropolitan areas. They remain at the mercy of powerful winds of structural change that continue to sweep the globe.
https://www.businesscycle.com/ecri-news-events/news-details/economic-cycle-research-ecri-a-tale-of-two-job-markets
I don't understand the graphic you posted. Or maybe I do.
The chart says Whites occupy 81% of all jobs in 2007. Does the 9% decrease of 81% in total jobs mean that whites now occupy 74% of all jobs today? Then what of Hispanics. They occupied 14% of all jobs in 2007 or is because of double counting, they really occupy 6% of all jobs in 2007. Let's say it's the latter, 6% of all jobs in 2007, with 56% increase in jobs participation, they now hold 9% of all jobs today.
I don't know about you but the real numbers look less stark:
81% of all jobs held by whites in 2007 declined to 74% of all jobs in 2016
6% of all jobs held by hispanics in 2007 increased to 9% of all jobs in 2016
All the while, ethnic mix in this country is changing. The jobs data can easily be explained by a change in ethnic mix in this country.
So, yeah, I'm poking holes in your post of statistical trash. The graphic has been manipulated to basically lie to the reader.