IndependentlyPoor
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I don't think so
Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
Now I have to assume the worst, which means missing out on the low stock prices. I hate saving cash at 1% interest when I can buy good stocks with a 3% or higher yield.
I'm curious why a 33 year old guy with money in the bank and a good job would move home with his parents. Are they in poor health and in need of your help?
It ended early summer of 2009. We have had several quarters of expansion since then, some of them quite strong. It just takes NBER over a year sometimes to announce the official "end". (same with starts too)Just out of curiosity, has it been officially determined that the recent (or current) recession ended? I hadn't heard.
The December 2007 peak was announced December 1, 2008.
The November 2001 trough was announced July 17, 2003.
The March 2001 peak was announced November 26, 2001.
The March 1991 trough was announced December 22, 1992.
etc... Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
I don't understand what you are saying here. If you have a secure job (at least by most standards), and you have money, what requires you to invest in cash? If you feel that stocks are cheap, why not buy them?
Ha
I'm curious why a 33 year old guy with money in the bank and a good job would move home with his parents. Are they in poor health and in need of your help?
That "probably" word will get ya every time...No, it would be to sponge off of them rent free. So, I can save more money.
They live in a 5k sqft house and don't really use the top two floors. So, they probably wouldn't care if I stayed in a guest room.
Speaking as a parent, I'd want to hear the opinion of your parents...They live in a 5k sqft house and don't really use the top two floors. So, they probably wouldn't care if I stayed in a guest room.
Speaking as a parent, I'd want to hear the opinion of your parents...
... and of course you'd be offering them market rent, right?
Probably positive due to census hiring and housing incentives.
My buddy is the lead census taker at a small county in Calif. He told me they lay off and then rehire workers...which adds credence to the reports by conservative talk this is being done to inflate the number of jobs created. This and manipulation with numbers like how they figure unemployment and GDP. Hidden debt at the Fed and Freddie and Fannie, shadow inventories... Still smells like one big deflationary depression, not a single or double dip recession to me.
I'm assuming these jobs have no benefits in that they are temporary, and if that's the case, I don't see why they can't keep someone on the payroll but simply not give them any hours from time to time.Is it cheaper, overall, for them to keep census workers on the payroll or to lay them off and rehire?
If the are spending less taxpayer money by doing it the way they are, I am all for it!
Is it cheaper, overall, for them to keep census workers on the payroll or to lay them off and rehire?
If the are spending less taxpayer money by doing it the way they are, I am all for it!
Hiring and firing might or might not have cost savings. What I meant was that laying someone off then rehiring them could be counted as another job created, meaning the 400k jobs claimed to have been created might not actually be true.
Prepare for disappointment. I don't think those times are returning any time soon. That doesn't mean I'm ultra bearish, but I see too many demographic and economic headwinds to expect that kind of vigorous, sustained growth. I can imagine being a geezer and telling youngsters that "yeah, I remember the days of 5% unemployment."I want to be a buy and holder again, expecting my 8% growth. Those were fun times.
I thought Martha already debunked that claim:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/heading-under-10-000-on-the-way-50077-23.html#post944144