Recession? We don' need no steenkeen recession!

[jimpeel]

Hey, Jim... what have you seen more of lately coming through your line?

I haven't seen any difference in what goes through my line. I hear the same complaints across the demographic on how prices are going up. I have gotten several comments in the past few days on how they are appreciative of one stop shopping which I assume is a commentary on the price of expending gas driving around from one retailer to another. We also comp all advertised prices for all competitors and recently started comping club card prices as well which heretofore had been off the table. We would only comp the "walk in off the street" prices but not the membership prices such as Safeway, King Soopers, etc.

People are still buying specialty foods like cherries but the cost of cherries is way down ($2.48) from what it usually is ($4.88) this early in the season. Bananas are up but are still flying off the shelves. Meats are unchanged even though all meats across the board, from chicken to filet mignon, are up. Milk is still a commodity that finds its way into nearly every transaction even though it went from $2.50 / gal to over $4.00 in a two month period. Prices have since settled in the $3.00 / gal area.

As for me, I bought custom tailored dress shirts from http://www.bestcustomshirt.com . I get compliments all of the time on my manner of dress; and at least twice a week I am asked if I am a manager. My standard response? "No, I'm not a manager. I just dress better than the managers do."

 

[Gonz]

You're right, that is the common definition. I think I got mine from the eighties recession (when in fact the US had an increase in GDP as well, I believe). The S&L problem contributed a lot to that but by this definition that wasn't a recession either. Note that I don't think we're in a recession now, but I do think that we're in danger of falling into one given the global economic climate and the current condition of the banking industry.

Which shows how the media affects our perception. If you're told often enough that we're in bad times, yet you personally don't feel it, you will tend to agree that times are tough. We've not had actual negative numbers since Carter. A couple of slowdowns & we freak out.

Awaiting stagflation & misery index to return to our vernacular,

 

[chcr]

Which shows how the media affects our perception. If you're told often enough that we're in bad times, yet you personally don't feel it, you will tend to agree that times are tough.

I agree that it's probably not as bad as the media portrays it but how much was your last fill-up? How much more do you spend on groceries than you did a year ago. "Not as bad as the media portrays it" hardly makes it good, now does it?

We've not had actual negative numbers since Carter. A couple of slowdowns & we freak out.

Awaiting stagflation & misery index to return to our vernacular,

I know you can't help it but in fact the smallest growth in GDP under Carter was .15%, not negative. We had -.3% in q1 of 1982, which of course you will blame on Carter and -.01% in q1 of 1990 which of course you will blame on Clinton. The last two quarters, FYI, were .74% and .86%. Hardly encouraging. Note that I'm not freaked out but I am concerned. Concerned enough to become way less aggressive (more conservative if it makes you feel better ) with investments. GDP is not exactly the same as "economic growth" but it's pretty close and the figures are harder to fudge.

 

[MrBishop]

Consumer inflation jumped by more in June than at any time in the past 27 years, helping to drive down spending as Americans fought to stay ahead of rising prices and a weak economy, the government said Monday.The Commerce Department said consumer inflation spiked 0.8 percent, the biggest gain since 1981, while spending dipped by 0.2 percent in June, after adjusting for inflation — the poorest showing since a similar drop in February.
The latest data show that the effect of government stimulus checks is waning and that $4-a-gallon gasoline, coupled with lower home values and job losses, is having an impact on consumers' spending. Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of national economic growth.
Meanwhile, incomes barely edged up by 0.1 percent. The department said it was the smallest rise in personal incomes since April 2007, when they were flat.

The unemployment rate climbed to a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July, as employers cut 51,000 jobs amid a slumping economy, a Labor Department report showed Friday.
It was the seventh consecutive month of job declines, and the rate was a full percentage point higher than the same period last year.
Modest job gains in government, education and health care were swamped by parts of the economy exposed to the struggling housing market, and the credit and financial industries were hit hardest. Construction alone shed 22,000 jobs, while manufacturers got rid of 35,000 and retailers cut 17,000.
Teenagers looking for summer jobs were hurt the most. Fewer of them were able to find work, the government said, with unemployment for the age group jumping to 20.3 percent, its highest since late 1992.
General Motors, Chrysler, Wachovia Corp., Cox Enterprises Inc. and Pfizer were among the companies that announced job cuts in July.
The number of jobs lost so far this year is 463,000, bringing the total number of unemployed to 8.8 million in July, up from 7.1 million last year. The jobless rate last July stood at 4.7 percent.
There were some positive signs amid the raw data: Average hourly earnings rose to $18.06 in July, a 0.3 percent increase from the previous month. Over the past year, wages have grown 3.4 percent. Even so, the increase has not been able to keep pace with rising inflation, driven mainly by higher food and energy costs.

I'm wondering if the election results will help change the economy around in time.

 

[2minkey]

the economy is doing fine.

the aren't the droids you're looking for.

move along.

 

[jimpeel]

Does anyone here realize how happy most, and I do mean MOST, other countries in the world would be to have an unemployment rate of 5.7%???

Why is it that when it comes to bashing our own country there is no lack of those willing to step right up?

Try these stats http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate

Here is another that is more up to date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

 

[2minkey]

yeah that's great. those comparisons to the rest of the world will become more and more relevant as we sink into shitdom. you, too, can live off $2/day.

 

[jimpeel]

yeah that's great. those comparisons to the rest of the world will become more and more relevant as we sink into shitdom. you, too, can live off $2/day.

Time will tell oh ye of little faith.

 

[Gonz]

Unemployment of 0%? 1.9%?

check out Cuba

 

[2minkey]

Time will tell oh ye of little faith.

i'm not the one who should be worried.

 

[jimpeel]

i'm not the one who should be worried.

Who's worried?

 

[2minkey]

yeah, um, jim, but you should be, as far as ability to survive economically in an economy that is worsening. i mean, golly, you got a "mcjob." not the ideal place when stuff slow down, peters out, poops the britches.

 

[jimpeel]

yeah, um, jim, but you should be, as far as ability to survive economically in an economy that is worsening. i mean, golly, you got a "mcjob." not the ideal place when stuff slow down, peters out, poops the britches.

Sorry, Pal, but I work at a Supercenter and we sell FOOD. Food is a recession proof commodity.

Are you telling me that if you were to be thrown out of work, for whatever reason, that you could not draw on whatever skills you currently possess to survive? Can you mow a lawn? Can you wash a dish? Can you tune up a car? Can you set a toilet? Can you clean one? It's pretty pathetic if you cannot imagine what you would do in a declining ecomomy in which you are thrown out of work.

 

[MrBishop]

The problem with a declining economy is finding people who will pay you to mow lawns, wash dishes etc. In the last depression (real, not imagined) during the late 20's and early 30's, the GVTs were the ones hiring people to do jobs in order to try and kick-start the economy. People were hired by the thousands to sweep the streets, manually turn farmer's fields etc..

If you look at theories about what caused the Great Depression...I'm sure that you'll find alarming similarities.

**
Super-centres sell food, and food will always be needed - but employees of food centres?

 

[2minkey]

but employees of food centres?

yup.

ker-*flush* in a heartbeat.

most of what i'm talking about, though, is the relative vulnerability of various parts of the labor market to economic shitsville, and the general pain-in-the-ass of having to scramble to keep food on the table over the long haul through a series of poop-and-ass jobs.

yeah jim i'm sure you can push a lawnmower. but, then, i'm younger and peppier, so i'd get that job first! and of course i can imagine, that if things got REALLY bad, i might end up marvelously underemployed. but it'll happen to you long before...

but plant yer noggin in the swirling desert sands, and hold your breath. soon enough, some dude - ohmigawd prolly some lousy immigrant - hungrier than you will do your mcjob for less. and those MBA types in the wally world power structure ain't gonna give two shits about your overpriced ass.

 

[jimpeel]

The problem with a declining economy is finding people who will pay you to mow lawns, wash dishes etc.

Payment in food, when you are hungry, is just fine. I'm not talking about sitting on an offramp with a sign that says "Will work for food God Bless you" either. Ya ever try to hire one of those guys? They will do anything not to get real work; and if you try to get them to mow a lawn or clean out a garage they will tell you about the bone spurs in their feet and their bad back.

 

[spike]

Payment in food, when you are hungry, is just fine. I'm not talking about sitting on an offramp with a sign that says "Will work for food God Bless you" either. Ya ever try to hire one of those guys? They will do anything not to get real work; and if you try to get them to mow a lawn or clean out a garage they will tell you about the bone spurs in their feet and their bad back.

How many of these people have you hired exactly that allows you to make a generalization about ALL of them?

 

[jimpeel]

yup.

ker-*flush* in a heartbeat.

most of what i'm talking about, though, is the relative vulnerability of various parts of the labor market to economic shitsville, and the general pain-in-the-ass of having to scramble to keep food on the table over the long haul through a series of poop-and-ass jobs.

yeah jim i'm sure you can push a lawnmower. but, then, i'm younger and peppier, so i'd get that job first! and of course i can imagine, that if things got REALLY bad, i might end up marvelously underemployed. but it'll happen to you long before...

but plant yer noggin in the swirling desert sands, and hold your breath. soon enough, some dude - ohmigawd prolly some lousy immigrant - hungrier than you will do your mcjob for less. and those MBA types in the wally world power structure ain't gonna give two shits about your overpriced ass.

I waited on 259 customers, according to the register report, yesterday. That is one register out of 24 plus eight self checkouts -- which, by the way, are being removed from existing Wal-Marts and are not being installed in new builds. Who will handle that kind of throughput if they get rid of the employees?

The part that most people refuse to understand ids that the economy is not as bad as the media has brainwashed them to think it is. Oil is coming back down. Yes, there are mortgage losses but they are not as prevalent as the media has brainwashed them to think they are. Of course, those same people never get off their ass in front of the TV to investigate why these things are happening.

Why did oil go so high? NOT because of the speculators everyone trys to blame. It is simple supply and demand. China and India are subsidizing oil so their people use far more because the price is low. Our supply went down as our demand remained the same so our prices went up. As a result, we started using less. With less demand, supply went up. The price went down because of supply and demand. That's it. Don't believe the BS about how tropical storm Eduard missed the oil platforms and that was the reason. The price was coming down before Eduard ever became a blip on the radar.

The mortgage "crisis" came about as a comedy of errors. The government caused it all.

The credit card companies lobbied Congress to change the bankruptcy laws. They did. It made it so that you have to pay off your unsecured (credit card) debt even after bankrupting. So what did people do? They changed their behavior, just like they always do. They started abandoning their secured debt -- their houses -- because they had to pay the unsecured debt.

On top of that, the Congress changed the laws some years back to stop the practice of "redlining" by mortgage companies so "everyone can realize the American dream". This was reinforced by cries of "racism" against those living in those "redlined" areas. This forced the mortgage companies to make loans which they normally never would have made. Those chickens are now coming home to roost as those they never would have loaned money to in the first place default on their loans.

As for that really, really good sounding word the media likes to bandy about "recession!" it never manifested. There is no recession. We have weaker growth but growth none the less. The press has mostly ignored that, though.

ABC & NBC IGNORE GOOD ECONOMIC NEWS, WHILE CBS PRETENDS IT'S BAD

When it comes to the economy, the media have been playing the part of
Chicken Little all year. So when word came Thursday that the U.S.
economy expanded at an annual rate of 1.9% -- the latest evidence
that the much ballyhooed recession is just pessimistic hype -- how
did the big three broadcast networks respond?

ABC's World News and the NBC Nightly News didn't air a word about the
improving economy, while the CBS Evening News centered its story
around "disappointing" news about the supposedly "struggling
economy." Anchor Katie Couric first emphasized how a revision showed
a slight decline in GDP from October to December 2007, then fretted:
"In the second quarter, when all those rebate checks were supposed to
stimulate the economy, it grew less than two percent. Jeff Glor has
more about the disappointing numbers."

Reporter Glor emphasized a bad news anecdote over factual data
showing improvement: "You'll have a hard time convincing Paula
Corletto the economy is growing....She and her eight-year-old
daughter Leandra now limit their shopping to only one day a
week....It might take more than music to make Paula Corletto feel
good about the future."

Three months earlier, when the economic growth rate came in at a much
lower 0.6% (since revised upward to 0.9%), both ABC and NBC found the
GDP statistic newsworthy enough to lead their broadcasts. ABC anchor
Charles Gibson proclaimed the "new numbers show the economy is
limping along with meager growth," even as NBC's Brian Williams
argued that (And how's this for blatant bullshit -- j) "the figure that came out today stops just short of the
official declaration of a recession."

For more, see the August 1 CyberAlert:
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080801.asp#1

So they take one person who is struggling and turn them into every American everywhere. Then they skew the definition of "recession" by saying the new numbers fall just short of the official declaration of a recession. Yeah, Brian, how about 1.9% and two quarters short? We have yet to experience even ONE quarter of NEGATIVE growth, let alone two quarters which is the OFFICIAL DEFINITION of a recession.

THERE IS NO RECESSION!!!

 

[2minkey]

i'm sorry, did i say there was a recession?

 

[jimpeel]

i'm sorry, did i say there was a recession?

I was referring to the press. Are you with the press?

The parsed version:

So they ("they" being the press) take one person who is struggling and turn them into every American everywhere. Then they ("they" being the press) skew the definition of "recession" by saying the new numbers fall just short of the official declaration of a recession. Yeah, Brian, ("Brian" being Brian Williams of the press) how about 1.9% and two quarters short? We have yet to experience even ONE quarter of NEGATIVE growth, let alone two quarters which is the OFFICIAL DEFINITION of a recession.