Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#31

Post by sillysaurus3 »

pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#32

Post by opendais »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31
pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

The graph represents a 4% chance in the size of the active labor force.

In good times, 1 in 5 people don't work. So saying 1 in 4 is a massive change [when it is 5%] isn't really correct.

It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25.

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#33

Post by michaelbuckbee »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31
pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

One potentially misleading aspect of the chart is that it covers only 25-54 year olds and one result of the downturn was that older workers have remained in their jobs longer, delayed retirement, etc.

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#34

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

[deleted]

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#35

Post by dllthomas »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31
pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

I think this includes people who are not working by choice (wealthy and idle, stay-at-home parent, student, &c).

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#36

Post by toomuchtodo »

opendais wrote: post #32
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

The graph represents a 4% chance in the size of the active labor force. In good times, 1 in 5 people don't work. So saying 1 in 4 is a massive change [when it is 5%] isn't really correct. It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25.

> It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25.

Does the Social Security Administration release data on the number of people collecting SS benefits who are also working? Very interested in the number of people delaying retirement in order to keep working (either because base SS doesn't cover their living expenses, or because they're delaying collecting SS to increase their monthly benefit).

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#37

Post by nostrademons »

[deleted] wrote: post #34
pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

[deleted]

The articles said that if you take health care out of the index the economy still shrank at an annualized rate of 2.7%. So it had some effect, but you can't blame the whole headline on it.

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#38

Post by clavalle »

refurb wrote: post #19
memossy wrote: post #15

The most interesting component of this was the healthcare drag in the revisions taking it down from the initial ones. While a large element of this was the affordable care act, it is also notable that healthcare inflation went negative for the first time in 20 odd years last quarter (education did too, but thats another story). Given the US currently spends twice the amount of other countries on its health care as a…

Unfortunately the ACA doesn't do much to address increasing healthcare costs. There are a few initiatives (comparative medicine funding is one that comes to mind) that are good starts, but the ACA is likely to lead to overall higher GDP expenditures on healthcare in the US, not lower, as more and more uninsured have access to care.

Your analysis assumes healthcare is like any other commodity.

While the primary aim of the ACA is not overall cost reduction (but, rather, make it affordable for the uninsured to get insurance), there are several reasons it could go down that path.

The marketplaces and minimum standards for insurance plans make it easier to comparison shop.

The fact that people will have insurance will lead to earlier and cheaper treatments for potentially serious disease.

Businesses can get out of the insurance business altogether. As businesses remove themselves from the equation individuals will be more attuned to the cost of their insurance plans and shop accordingly.

There are some direct provisions for paying providers for disease prevention and effective treatments that lead to patients not having to return for the same issue rather than just for treatments reversing that twisted financial incentive.

Granted, there are plenty of ways for these potential cost benefits to go sour but there is a good chance that the ACA will actually reduce costs relative to what they would have been without the ACA.

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#39

Post by [deleted] »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #33
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

One potentially misleading aspect of the chart is that it covers only 25-54 year olds and one result of the downturn was that older workers have remained in their jobs longer, delayed retirement, etc.

[deleted]

Re: The US economy shrank at an annualized rate of 2.9 percent in Q1

#40

Post by nostrademons »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31
pessimizer wrote: post #25

A stock market recovery is not a "recovery." Prime-age employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 Median wealth, and the median wealth of various segments: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/for-most-familie... Median income: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Househo... Wealthy people cannot drive consumption, because they spend a far smaller part of their income on it. edit: I…

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

The graph doesn't start at 0 on the Y-axis. It would be a lot less striking if the scale ran from 0-100 instead of the cherrypicked 74-81 scale.

Also, this is labor force participation, not unemployment. If you carried this back to the 1950s, it would be around 60%, because most women didn't work back then.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

Post reply on HN