GDP Hits 4.1 %! In Second Quarter

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Listen asshole, if you want to fuck with me on economics you will lose.

Isn't the internet a wonderful wonderland?

Declaring yourself a "winner" on a blog? You sound like AssUp!

Carry on with your self-delusion.

BTW: You aren't "arguing" economics ... you are debating semantics ...

by attempting to redefine concepts to suit your "opinion" ...

speaking of "assholes"!

The Clinton and Obaminable administrations tried that shit. Now you?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by R.M.

What does all of this dick sucking have to do with what he is doing for America and the economy?

NOTHING!

Unless of course one is exchanging GDP for one and the dick sucking is sufficiently satisfying to extract a decent GDP share! Then it's a positive influence on Making America Great Again!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And CNBC says .... you're wrong, speedy!

I guess it depends on your source of information:

"If the low unemployment numbers make you think that you’ll finally get a bigger raise in January, think again. Most large employers plan to boost salaries for 2018, but the average increase will be about 3%—roughly the same as it has been for the past three years, according to consulting firm Willis Towers Watson. Many companies are using a backdoor approach to boosting employee compensation, however, by sweetening benefits that could improve your bottom line."

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/bu...s-in-2018.html

And you have to take into account the increase in the inflation rate in the last year:

"American workers are in line for a 3% pay increase, but 2% inflation means they'll end up being only 1% better off."

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/pf/pay-salary-work-inflation/index.html

North America Lagging

In the United States, an average 3 percent pay increase is predicted by Korn Ferry, the same as for 2017. Adjusted for the expected 2 percent inflation rate in 2018, however, the real wage increase is 1 percent—down from last year's 1.9 percent.



https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtoo...us-global.aspx

[Yssup Rider]

Yeah, but didn’t Twitler give everybody a raise by cutting taxes in the rich?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess it depends on your source of information:

"If the low unemployment numbers make you think that you’ll finally get a bigger raise in January, think again. Most large employers plan to boost salaries for 2018, but the average increase will be about 3%—roughly the same as it has been for the past three years, according to consulting firm Willis Towers Watson. Many companies are using a backdoor approach to boosting employee compensation, however, by sweetening benefits that could improve your bottom line."

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/bu...s-in-2018.html

And you have to take into account the increase in the inflation rate in the last year:

"American workers are in line for a 3% pay increase, but 2% inflation means they'll end up being only 1% better off."

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/pf/...ion/index.html

North America Lagging

In the United States, an average 3 percent pay increase is predicted by Korn Ferry, the same as for 2017. Adjusted for the expected 2 percent inflation rate in 2018, however, the real wage increase is 1 percent—down from last year's 1.9 percent.


https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtoo...us-global.aspx

But you said "stagnant" ... as in "motionless" ... as in not moving at all, didn't you, speedy? Which means that it is YOU as a source that is untrustworthy, speedy, because you just admitted that wages did increase.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess it depends on your source of information....

Of all your posts I couldn't agree more.

The quotable quote.

As quoted by Speedo:

Most large employers plan to boost salaries for 2018, but the average increase will be about 3%—roughly the same as it has been for the past three years, according to consulting firm Willis Towers Watson. Many companies are using a backdoor approach to boosting employee compensation, however, by sweetening benefits that could improve your bottom line."

After 45 years of corporate indoctrination it would seem one would have some grasp of budgeting projections for the coming fiscal year based on appropriately conservative anticipation of income to "cover" the budget increases. I guess one must actually be involved in cutting the checks and gathering the revenue to cover them before one can have a full appreciation of the ECONOMICS of running a BUSINESS (as opposed to a government).

But this is the internet.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Isn't the internet a wonderful wonderland?

Declaring yourself a "winner" on a blog? You sound like AssUp!

Carry on with your self-delusion.

BTW: You aren't "arguing" economics ... you are debating semantics ...

You suck at semantics too. Words are vehicles of meaning. When you choose them imprecisely your message is muddled. I never declare myself a winner. I let people judge for themselves based on the strength of the words I choose to string together into logical, coherent arguments.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You suck at semantics too.

Why does the word "suck" come to your mind?

You sound more and more like AssUp!

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Obama was in office for 8 fucking years. Yes, he inherited an economy that was pretty much in free-fall in January 2009. Any honest economist will acknowledge that. By July 2009, the economy had bottomed out. From that point on what obama "presided over" - and therefore owns - was the weakest economic recovery in US postwar history!




Obama doesn't get a pass for 6-7 subsequent years of subpar growth just because his first 1-2 years could arguably be blamed on his predecessor. His policies of over-regulation, his anti-business bias ("you didn't build that!"), and his inept focus on healthcare while neglecting whatever was needed to create "shovel-ready" jobs, teed up the economy for Trump to come in and unleash it.

You left out the part of what the chart was actually for. It was showing that sub par growth has become a trend. You like to manipulate things or more likely copy and pasted one of your ilks thoughts from some other forum.

To compare growth rates across expansions, we indexed real GDP to the quarter including the start month of the four longest post-war expansions, as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). As shown in the chart below, real GDP growth in the current expansion lags the other three expansions—by a lot. As of the first quarter of 2018, real GDP has expanded by 21% since the beginning of the current expansion; this is far lower than the 36% compound growth we saw at this point in the 1991-2001 expansion. The chart also shows that the growth path for the longest expansions has continued to shift lower over time; the 1961-1969 expansion saw real GDP grow by 52% by the end of its ninth year, while the economy had grown by just 38% by the end of year eight of the 1982-1990 expansion.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Isn't the internet a wonderful wonderland?

Declaring yourself a "winner" on a blog? You sound like AssUp!

Carry on with your self-delusion.

BTW: You aren't "arguing" economics ... you are debating semantics ...

by attempting to redefine concepts to suit your "opinion" ...

speaking of "assholes"!

The Clinton and Obaminable administrations tried that shit. Now you?

While I normally enjoy it when you are being irritated. In this case I feel your pain dealing with this Dotard.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

While I normally enjoy it when you are being irritated. ....

I'm not "irritated." I'm amusing myself. There's a distinction.

Lusty is what one gets when one goes full tilt "sanctuary"!

Like Spitsburg!

[IIFFOFRDB]

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But you said "stagnant" ... as in "motionless" ... as in not moving at all, didn't you, speedy? Which means that it is YOU as a source that is untrustworthy, speedy, because you just admitted that wages did increase.

Wrong.

stagnant
(stægnənt )

1.
adjective
If something such as a business or society is stagnant, there is little activity or change.
[disapproval]
He is seeking advice on how to revive the stagnant economy.


There can be movement in a stagnant economy, just not what was hoped for. The tax reform package was intended to increase wages beyond the increases in recent years. Has yet to happen.
Wages are stagnant, showing little activity or change.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong.

stagnant
(stægnənt )

1.
adjective
If something such as a business or society is stagnant, there is little activity or change.
[disapproval]
He is seeking advice on how to revive the stagnant economy.


There can be movement in a stagnant economy, just not what was hoped for. The tax reform package was intended to increase wages beyond the increases in recent years. Has yet to happen.
Wages are stagnant, showing little activity or change.

You're ignoring context, speedy. There was a negative decline -- 2% -- in wage growth under Odumbo, speedy. So, the shift towards the positive under Trump would mean it is your POV that is stagnant, speedy.

[Yssup Rider]

Merriam Webster back in action.

Irritable Bowel Hanky is well known for his “dictionary” arguments.

Haven’t seen one in a while.

Go for it IBS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,,,,