Do you see a strong economic recovery for the U.S. . . .ever?

[Bootsie]

There appears to be a lot of talk of inflation and rising prices. The inflation rate in the US has only been about 1.4% over the past three years; this is far below historical averages. It is also below the inflation rate in most countries of the world.

 

Of course, the national inflation rate can mask costs to particular individuals who do not buy the "average" market basket. However, I am wondering why such a perception of inflation exists.

[Jane in NC]

I know we(dh and I) were brought up to believe in the building investment in real estate. Thankfully we got out from under the unaffordable house before it became an issue, but we've watched the sprawl overtake once affordable areas.

 

I feel like we've moved back in time, not in a bad way. We are in a small town, not far outside a large metropolitan area. Our expenses have been cut drastically, at least 50% in the last year. We are definitely experiencing a simpler lifestyle.

 

I was just discussing this issue with my Dad. He sees people in city being stuck with higher, almost ghastly, utility bills as cost of maintaining infrastructure rises.

 

Regarding utility infrastructure: many older Eastern cities have deteriorating power and water systems. I include the grid and the water supply among the very large elephants filling any chat room in which the future is discussed.

 

Maybe because we were directly affected by previous recessions, my husband and I have always chosen to live simply. (Or maybe that is just our ethos.) I attended college at a time when many students were forced to drop out for a semester or year to work in order to pay the next year's tuition. My husband lost a job in one of the recessions, forcing us to move across the state. I started a nest egg for my son which was hit by the dot com bust. So we learn lessons. We adjust. And we thank our lucky stars for our good fortune.

[Barb_]

There appears to be a lot of talk of inflation and rising prices. The inflation rate in the US has only been about 1.4% over the past three years; this is far below historical averages. It is also below the inflation rate in most countries of the world.

 

Of course, the national inflation rate can mask costs to particular individuals who do not buy the "average" market basket. However, I am wondering why such a perception of inflation exists.

 

Because gas, groceries and education are up considerably higher than the average rate of inflation. Those are the things middle class folks are focused on.

[ereks mom]

Do you see a strong economic recovery for the U.S. . . .ever?

 

 

In a word... no. At least, not in the forseeable future, and even after that, I don't think it's likely. It would take a MAJOR change from the "me first", entitlement, "I want it NOW" mentality that seems to permeate most Americans' way of thinking. Personally, I don't think that's likely.

[QueenCat]

The historical data show that it's not as bad as previous downturns in the economy, even downturns in the recent past.

 

I think there is a whole lot of political rhetoric/info-tainment coloring people's opinions versus real information.

 

:iagree: So true, and a lot of people who don't know much about macroeconomics and domino affects.

[Margaret in GA]

Entertainment. The industry is already crying that pirating and music sharing is costing them money. But, the truth is the industry is pricing themselves out of a job.

 

Thomas Friedman talks about this in relation to the sports industry, but I think his reasoning is wrong. He talks about empty sports stadiums and says that televised games mean that people don't go to the ballpark anymore. But, the truth is, people aren't taking their kids to the ballpark anymore because it is *too expensive* for the average family. You want to sit in the second level at a Red Sox game? The seats *alone* are $99 each. We have a local summer league, the tickets are $5 for general admission. On Tuesdays all concessions are $1. The stands are *packed* for nearly every game.

 

Netflix and Redbox are flourishing because families don't go to the movies every weekend any more and nobody wants to buy a movie that they haven't seen.

 

 

This makes me so sad. So, we're just going to sit indoors and not interact with people any more? Take British Pubs. They are closing at a rate of two per day! We sit at home and "interact" with total strangers in total anonymity over the web. ;)

 

Anonymously,

"Margaret"

[Rosie_0801]

It does have to do with globiliztion. If countries would used their own resources when available instead of importing the products, what would the cost of fuel matter? It is wrong to import oranges and plow orange groves down in your own country because it is cheaper to import oranges.

 

The cost of fuel matters because we live in large countries and fuel is required to get products from where they are grown to retail outlets. That adds to the cost of a product. My aunt was buying bananas in Queensland for $3.99/kg while I was down south not buying them for $13.99/kg. My local shops weren't charging that to make large profits.

 

Rosie

[Embassy]

In answer to the OP - No, not with all that debt.

[Free]

It does have to do with globiliztion. If countries would used their own resources when available instead of importing the products, what would the cost of fuel matter? It is wrong to import oranges and plow orange groves down in your own country because it is cheaper to import oranges.

 

If a really smart businessperson wants to take advantage of the cheap prices of fuel or goods or anything else to cut costs and increase profits, he/she should have the option of doing that in a free market economy. This is what globalization is really - to take advantage of cheaper resources available anywhere in the world to produce goods cheaper.

 

Businesses which want to procure only locally can do so, but I imagine the cost of the products would be too high for them to compete with others. And consumers who wish to buy locally can also do so, but they would have to be willing to pay a higher price.

 

I don't see any way to reverse globalization other than perhaps restrictions placed by governments on businesses forcing them to procure resources locally.

[ereks mom]

 

"Gov't spending is like taking a pail of water from the deep end of the swimming pool and pouring it in the shallow end while hoping the level of the water will go up."

 

I wish I could remember WHO said it. Maybe someone else knows? It was a recent quote.

 

It's on Herman Cain's website, but I think he was quoting someone else because I also found it here: http://www.invisibleheart.com/2008/01/the_science_of_stimulus.php

[Mama Geek]

In discussing inflation as long as the government is printing more money inflation will be the best case scenario. Hourly rates for contract jobs in my field as well as my dh's have gone up by about 15% in the last 2-3 years.

[creekland]

The cost of fuel matters because we live in large countries and fuel is required to get products from where they are grown to retail outlets. That adds to the cost of a product. My aunt was buying bananas in Queensland for $3.99/kg while I was down south not buying them for $13.99/kg. My local shops weren't charging that to make large profits.

 

Rosie

 

Bananas here were 49 cents per pound last I checked. At 2.2 pounds = 1kg this means they'd be $1.08/kg.

 

I'm pretty certain all our bananas are grown overseas - probably generally central America or the Caribbean, so they'd need to be shipped in.

 

If bananas are an indicator, I guess the US doesn't have much to complain about yet.

Edited September 30, 2011 by creekland

[Aelwydd]

How do you determine one country is more prosperous than another?

 

Canada has a lower per capita GDP than the US. Canada has also had a higher inflation rate and a higher national debt relative to GDP than the US in the past year.

 

I shouldn't have used the word "prosperous," although I don't think GDP is an accurate measure of that either. I mean, US can produce a huge GDP, but if its citizens enjoy less and less of the revenue brought in, then it doesn't have any particular link to a measure of prosperity.

 

I meant that Canada, and other countries, have managed to weather the economic slump much better than we did, primarily because their banking industry was much more regulated. Also, they have the Alberta oil sands, and huge diamond mines, as well as one of the few remaining countries with higher quality uranium, and so forth, to really bolster their economy.

 

The point is, I don't happen to think that American workers taking a week's worth of vacation once a year equates a workforce unwilling to work. I just think that makes a workforce really stressed and unhealthy.

[Aelwydd]

 

"Gov't spending is like taking a pail of water from the deep end of the swimming pool and pouring it in the shallow end while hoping the level of the water will go up."

 

I wish I could remember WHO said it. Maybe someone else knows? It was a recent quote.

 

 

Please do not quote any more politicians on this thread, or link to their sites. All that will accomplish is getting this thread locked and deleted. I would consider editing the above out of your post, to avoid getting deleted by the Mods anyway, but that's up to you!

[Aelwydd]

Just to sum up this thread, it sounds like a large segment of posters do not think that this slump is temporary, but a transition to a new "normal."

 

I'm inclined to agree. There are several possible scenarios in my mind. The most optimistic is the above, that things will settle down, but it will involve an adjustment to a less materialistic, consumer-driven society.

 

The worst is a total collapse of the economy, followed by a collapse of the government, much like the USSR in the 90's. There may be a new nation that emerges, perhaps even with new lines drawn.

 

In any case, I do agree with Audrey that the empire's days are numbered.

[Bootsie]

I shouldn't have used the word "prosperous," although I don't think GDP is an accurate measure of that either. I mean, US can produce a huge GDP, but if its citizens enjoy less and less of the revenue brought in, then it doesn't have any particular link to a measure of prosperity.

 

 

If the citizens aren't enjoying the national income of GDP, who is?

[Mrs Mungo]

Just to sum up this thread, it sounds like a large segment of posters do not think that this slump is temporary, but a transition to a new "normal."

 

I'm inclined to agree. There are several possible scenarios in my mind. The most optimistic is the above, that things will settle down, but it will involve an adjustment to a less materialistic, consumer-driven society.

 

The worst is a total collapse of the economy, followed by a collapse of the government, much like the USSR in the 90's. There may be a new nation that emerges, perhaps even with new lines drawn.

 

In any case, I do agree with Audrey that the empire's days are numbered.

 

We have too many weapons that would be sold off. The world cannot afford to let that happen. It will not happen.

[creekland]

 

Please do not quote any more politicians on this thread, or link to their sites. All that will accomplish is getting this thread locked and deleted. I would consider editing the above out of your post, to avoid getting deleted by the Mods anyway, but that's up to you!

 

??? I listed a quote from a source I wasn't certain about, but liked. We later learned where it was from and I mentioned that I wasn't endorsing him and don't personally care for all he stands for. No one linked to his site. Someone even mentioned the quote probably goes further back. No one turned it into politics. So there's a problem? I guess I just don't see it.

 

It is a philosophy about gov't spending and whether the US will be able to get out of the current economic slump - therefore - fits with the thread as a stand-alone quote.

 

If the mods feel it's too much, well, that's their decision, but as I said, I just don't see it.

Edited September 30, 2011 by creekland

[Barb_]

The worst is a total collapse of the economy, followed by a collapse of the government, much like the USSR in the 90's. There may be a new nation that emerges, perhaps even with new lines drawn.

 

No, that would be Apocalyptic Fantasy.

[Barb_]

 

??? I listed a quote from a source I wasn't certain about, but liked. We later learned where it was from and I mentioned that I wasn't endorsing him and don't personally care for all he stands for. No one linked to his site. Someone even mentioned the quote probably goes further back. No one turned it into politics. So there's a problem? I guess I just don't see it.

 

It is a philosophy about gov't spending and whether the US will be able to get out of the current economic slump - therefore - fits with the thread as a stand-alone quote.

 

If the mods feel it's too much, well, that's their decision, but as I said, I just don't see it.

 

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

??? I listed a quote from a source I wasn't certain about, but liked. We later learned where it was from and I mentioned that I wasn't endorsing him and don't personally care for all he stands for. No one linked to his site. Someone even mentioned the quote probably goes further back. No one turned it into politics. So there's a problem? I guess I just don't see it.

 

It is a philosophy about gov't spending and whether the US will be able to get out of the current economic slump - therefore - fits with the thread as a stand-alone quote.

 

If the mods feel it's too much, well, that's their decision, but as I said, I just don't see it.

 

 

I don't have a problem with your quote. I posted that warning because the moderators don't seem to have much tolerance for political matters at all. I didn't want your entire post to get deleted because of one reference to a politician. That's why I suggested the edit. Whether you wish to delete it or not is up to you! I just don't want an interesting thread locked.

[Aelwydd]

No, that would be Apocalyptic Fantasy.

 

It might be fantasy. However,I think it's hubris to believe that any country or nation, no matter how powerful, is impervious to total economic collapse.

[Tabrett]

If a really smart businessperson wants to take advantage of the cheap prices of fuel or goods or anything else to cut costs and increase profits, he/she should have the option of doing that in a free market economy. This is what globalization is really - to take advantage of cheaper resources available anywhere in the world to produce goods cheaper.

 

Businesses which want to procure only locally can do so, but I imagine the cost of the products would be too high for them to compete with others. And consumers who wish to buy locally can also do so, but they would have to be willing to pay a higher price.

 

I don't see any way to reverse globalization other than perhaps restrictions placed by governments on businesses forcing them to procure resources locally.

Yes, it is smart for the business man, but all these 'smart' decisions of shipping American jobs over seas for slave labor wages is causing the decline of our country. If the USA doesn't have good paying jobs, who is going to buy all the things being manufactured over seas? The people manufacturing the products can't afford them. The USA can't be a nation of service workers and that is now what we are.

What the 'smart' business had failed to see it that he cut his own throat.

 

Tariffs would help. I know prices would increase, but it would also create many jobs. It seem it would be better to have higher employment with higher prices than low employment, lower prices and more people living off the government.

I think thing would eventually level out, but it would cause great birthing pains.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, it is smart for the business man, but all these 'smart' decisions of shipping American jobs over seas for slave labor wages is causing the decline of our country. If the USA doesn't have good paying jobs, who is going to buy all the things being manufactured over seas? The people manufacturing the products can't afford them. The USA can't be a nation of service workers and that is now what we are.

What the 'smart' business had failed to see it that he cut his own throat.

 

Tariffs would help. I know prices would increase, but it would also create many jobs. It seem it would be better to have higher employment with higher prices than low employment, lower prices and more people living off the government.

I think thing would eventually level out, but it would cause great birthing pains.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:I wish more congressmen and the like would start talking about modifying free trade since IMHO this is the only way to save our jobs.

[creekland]

Yes, it is smart for the business man, but all these 'smart' decisions of shipping American jobs over seas for slave labor wages is causing the decline of our country. If the USA doesn't have good paying jobs, who is going to buy all the things being manufactured over seas? The people manufacturing the products can't afford them. The USA can't be a nation of service workers and that is now what we are.

What the 'smart' business had failed to see it that he cut his own throat.

 

Tariffs would help. I know prices would increase, but it would also create many jobs. It seem it would be better to have higher employment with higher prices than low employment, lower prices and more people living off the government.

I think thing would eventually level out, but it would cause great birthing pains.

 

It would also help if more Americans would care where their products came from. We've been trying to buy domestic for years (literally), but whenever we're shopping and see others in our same area, they always go for "cheap." Even on here there are several threads on how to buy "cheap" whether one needs to for personal economic reasons or not. Our school district buys "cheap." So what if there are staplers and paper and crayons made in the US. It's cheaper to select the imports.

 

The vast majority of businesses haven't been able to stay in business by offering domestic only as too many people choose not to buy their products. Consequently, it's gotten more and more difficult for those of us who do care to buy domestic.

 

Tariffs would help, but it would help even more if Americans cared. To some extent, if Americans don't care, it's almost poetic justice if we lose what we have.

[Jane in NC]

It would also help if more Americans would care where their products came from. We've been trying to buy domestic for years (literally), but whenever we're shopping and see others in our same area, they always go for "cheap." Even on here there are several threads on how to buy "cheap" whether one needs to for personal economic reasons or not. Our school district buys "cheap." So what if there are staplers and paper and crayons made in the US. It's cheaper to select the imports.

 

The vast majority of businesses haven't been able to stay in business by offering domestic only as too many people choose not to buy their products. Consequently, it's gotten more and more difficult for those of us who do care to buy domestic.

 

 

 

Often cheaper and easier in the short term, but not in the Big Picture. And it is that which I believe is lacking: The Big Picture.

 

Your point on "cheap" carries over into the American diet. Cheap food has contributed to the obesity epidemic and diabetes, hence rising health care costs. "Cheap" ain't cheap.

[creekland]

Often cheaper and easier in the short term, but not in the Big Picture. And it is that which I believe is lacking: The Big Picture.

 

Your point on "cheap" carries over into the American diet. Cheap food has contributed to the obesity epidemic and diabetes, hence rising health care costs. "Cheap" ain't cheap.

 

How true! (Both points.)

[KristinaBreece]

It would also help if more Americans would care where their products came from. We've been trying to buy domestic for years (literally), but whenever we're shopping and see others in our same area, they always go for "cheap." Even on here there are several threads on how to buy "cheap" whether one needs to for personal economic reasons or not. Our school district buys "cheap." So what if there are staplers and paper and crayons made in the US. It's cheaper to select the imports.

 

The vast majority of businesses haven't been able to stay in business by offering domestic only as too many people choose not to buy their products. Consequently, it's gotten more and more difficult for those of us who do care to buy domestic.

 

Tariffs would help, but it would help even more if Americans cared. To some extent, if Americans don't care, it's almost poetic justice if we lose what we have.

 

Often cheaper and easier in the short term, but not in the Big Picture. And it is that which I believe is lacking: The Big Picture.

 

Your point on "cheap" carries over into the American diet. Cheap food has contributed to the obesity epidemic and diabetes, hence rising health care costs. "Cheap" ain't cheap.

 

All true, and I believe if more Americans had jobs that paid a living wage, there would be more people willing to spend the money to buy quality foods and American-made goods. It's a self-perpetuating problem.

[Deb in NZ]

All true, and I believe if more Americans had jobs that paid a living wage, there would be more people willing to spend the money to buy quality foods and American-made goods. It's a self-perpetuating problem.

 

What do you consider a living wage? (I'm not being cheeky, I really am interested to know)

[tntgoodwin]

As long as the Federal Reserve exists, I believe any economic recovery we experience will only be a mirage.

[KristinaBreece]

What do you consider a living wage? (I'm not being cheeky, I really am interested to know)

 

Most jobs in our area that don't require a degree start at between $8-$12 per hour. Then you can hope for a $0.50 raise every year. It's becoming increasingly common for companies not to give the raises people have come to expect. At $10 an hour, you may be able to take home $300 a week if you don't have insurance and you claim a few exemptions on your taxable income. That would put your monthly income at roughly $1200. (And, really, that's pushing it. Does anyone really only get 25% of their income taken out for taxes? They take almost 40% of DH's check every week.) We live in a small apartment on the line between a decent area and a much less decent area. Our rent, electric, phone, and water total about $900 each month. In order to be able to afford the "premium" for more expensive goods made in America, and the minimal cost of living in our area, I would say one would need to make at least $15 an hour. And that's if you can manage to live frugally in all areas of your life. That's this year. The cost of living (at least around here) is increasing much faster than pay rates are.

 

ETA: In a time when some people with degrees are having to live with & be grateful for a McJob.... Y'know?