- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
ocrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM #20265November 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM #754312
Hobie
ParticipantNot really, not yet. Too much uncertainty out there.
Low interest rates should have sparked more RE activity but there is limited personal cash flow to support it. Job outlook still includes many people out of work or underemployed. Especially the >40 crowd. Market is trending down and I’m sure we’ll feel more ripples when new Obamacare regs causes companies to react. Pres just closed more federal lands to oil exploration. New enviro regs hit business in the knees. Throw in a new mid-east conflict and things get ugly.
However, I feel like a spring is being would up. There still is a lot of money on the sidelines in cash. Companies and people are hunkering down not willing to take a lot of risk due to the uncertain future. Sadly, I feel this will run another 4 years. Once Washington is perceived as working together and for a better America watch out for growth like the ’50’s.
November 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM #754313SK in CV
ParticipantI think it is good news. I’m skeptical this turn around is on the immediate horizon, though the article doesn’t really say when it’s coming. The 3 things the author cites as the source of a coming boom are probably accurate.
We are (probably) currently at unsustainable lows for new home construction. Just as 5 years ago we were at unsustainable highs. I think we’re years away from serious pent up demand on a national level. Five years ago we had way too many houses. Whether we need 3 or 4 low years, or 10 low years remains to be seen. But new home construction is a serious driver of the economy. And the most painful single industry segment of job losses suffered during the ’08-’09 recession. The (proper) failure of the segment to recover is also the reason we didn’t bounce out of the recession.
I suspect the “not really” part of the title here refers to the end of deleveraging, questioning whether thats really a good thing. The savings rate in the US steadily declined for 25 years, until the middle of the last decade, and the trend has been rising for the last 7 years. It’s flattened a little bit over the last few quarters. The effect on the economy is inverse. As the savings rate rises, it causes a drag on the economy. The rate is still very low in an historical sense (as compared to decades ago), but if it remains flat, it will create a boost in consumer spending, if, and only if personal income rises. So if we do see that scenario of a rise in personal income and a flattening of the savings rate, then it is good news. If we have a drop in the savings rate from current levels, we’re returning to the cycle that got us into this mess.
The 3rd impetus addressed in the article is energy. I haven’t had near enough caffiene yet this morning to address that issue. But it is a possibility.
Conclusion is, the article addresses some reasonable scenarios. All speculative. But none outrageously so.
November 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM #754322flyer
ParticipantMy thoughts on this article were pretty much a combination of what both of you expressed–Hobie and SK.
Now, I guess the real question is, if any these positive predictions do prove to be true, will any of this make much difference in the lives/bottom line of “average Americans?” Also, because many of these “positives” also have “negatives” associated with them. (increased consumerism=lower savings rates=destitute future retirees, etc.)
Yet, even though the financial direction of our country appears dire, I’m hoping, more for the sake of future generations than anything else, that we can somehow overcome our problems, but I’m not too optimistic.
The next ten to twenty years in this country are going to be very interesting.
November 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM #754339paramount
ParticipantObama was “fired up” and so were the voters, and so now, the mass firings begin. Here’s a collection of today’s headlines. Please say a prayer for the families who will be suffering. Had Romney won, many of these companies would now be hiring.
Teco Coal officials announce layoffs
Momentive Inc plans temporary layoffs for 150
Wilkes-Barre officials to announce mandatory layoffs
600 layoffs at Groupon
More layoffs announced at Aniston Weapons Incinerator
Murray Energy confirms 150 layoffs at 3 subsidiaries
130 laid off in Minnesota dairy plant closure
Stanford brake plant to lay off 75
Turbocare, Oce to lay off more than 220 workers
ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills
SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100
Providence Journal lays off 23 full-time employees
CVPH lays off 17
New Energy lays off 40 employees
102 Utah miners laid off because of ‘war on coal’, company says
US Cellular drops Chicago, cuts 640 jobs
Career Education to cut 900 jobs, close 23 campuses
Vestas to cut 3,000 more jobs
November 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM #754387ParticipantEither way things had gone–these are sad realities, paramount–and more proof to support my comment on another thread about how difficult it is going to be for future generations to achieve “wealth” in this country.
November 11, 2012 at 4:25 PM #754388dumbrenter
ParticipantThis is sickening. Didn’t some other posters get banned for needlessly bringing in partisan politics on every thread?
Seriously, you think Groupon would have held on to employees had Romney won? Have you even been following up on what’s happening with Groupon lately?
And SpaceX? Were they expecting a bailout if Romney won? This makes no sense.[quote=paramount]Obama was “fired up” and so were the voters, and so now, the mass firings begin. Here’s a collection of today’s headlines. Please say a prayer for the families who will be suffering. Had Romney won, many of these companies would now be hiring.
Teco Coal officials announce layoffs
Momentive Inc plans temporary layoffs for 150
Wilkes-Barre officials to announce mandatory layoffs
600 layoffs at Groupon
More layoffs announced at Aniston Weapons Incinerator
Murray Energy confirms 150 layoffs at 3 subsidiaries
130 laid off in Minnesota dairy plant closure
Stanford brake plant to lay off 75
Turbocare, Oce to lay off more than 220 workers
ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills
SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100
Providence Journal lays off 23 full-time employees
CVPH lays off 17
New Energy lays off 40 employees
102 Utah miners laid off because of ‘war on coal’, company says
US Cellular drops Chicago, cuts 640 jobs
Career Education to cut 900 jobs, close 23 campuses
Vestas to cut 3,000 more jobs[/quote]
November 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM #754390ParticipantKeeping politics completely out of it, all that will really matter going forward–will be how well each of us and our families are doing financially in years to come–and that was the point of my OP–Good luck to all!
November 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM #754391Participant[quote=dumbrenter]This is sickening. Didn’t some other posters get banned for needlessly bringing in partisan politics on every thread?
Seriously, you think Groupon would have held on to employees had Romney won? Have you even been following up on what’s happening with Groupon lately?
And SpaceX? Were they expecting a bailout if Romney won? This makes no sense.[/quote]
Of course the vast majority of those job cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the election. Those that are related, are simply stupid.
November 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM #754394spdrun
ParticipantIf I were firing in the general timeframe, I’d have waited till after the election to do the deed as well. Regardless of which candidate won, just to send a big “vaffa” to the winner. I dislike 99% of politicians, so any opportunity to spit in a politician’s eye is worth while.
Besides, watching the conspiracy theorists yapp away is worth it of its own right.
November 11, 2012 at 6:28 PM #754396Participant[quote=dumbrenter]This is sickening. Didn’t some other posters get banned for needlessly bringing in partisan politics on every thread?
[/quote]The thing is, it’s not partisan.
Companies don’t layoff because of election results – they are more rational than that.
They layoff because of real life economic conditions, often times the result of administration policy.
November 12, 2012 at 12:02 AM #754428an
Participant[quote=flyer]Keeping politics completely out of it, all that will really matter going forward–will be how well each of us and our families are doing financially in years to come–and that was the point of my OP–Good luck to all![/quote]
Very well said flyer and I totally agree with you. Financially smart people will find way to growth their wealth and take care of their own regardless of who’s elected. I’ve also adopted flu and your stance in I don’t give a rats a$$ anymore and I’m out to take care of my own family. I no longer care/try to say one candidate is better than another. I just want to know how to take advantage of the current situation, regardless of who’s in charge.November 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM #754451ocrenter
Participant[quote=flyer]http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/11/10/3-compelling-reasons-to-think-an-economic-boom-is-coming/[/quote]
if I recall correctly, this was one of the issues floating around during the election. Romney really didn’t have much of a plan to “improve” the economy because the economy was already heading toward a recovery. and he figured he’ll be able to take credit if he lands in the white house.
once again, the economy is cyclical and the president’s role in the economy is very much over-estimated. and both Obama and Romney knew this as well as anybody.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.