quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Back on topic, economy is booming

---

What indicators are you using, jobs, GDP, or what?

One leading indicator, freight loads, is down 50% June to June. Some of that is regression to the mean, but a big chunk of that is not. Slowing production, possibly inflationary pressures.

---

Source? The most recent Cass Freight index report was from May. Do you have another source that has figures through June?

I can't find a reputable source that indicates anywhere close to a 50% decline. Declines in the 3-10% range, depending on measure, yes, but not 50%.

And all freight market analysts recognize the current declines are mostly due to the artificially high numbers in 2018 due to the anticipation of tariffs with China. The 2 year running average is still positive.

Edit: and for the record, I was critical and Florida Mike and team last year when they pointed to economic indexes that were artificially inflated due to the anticipated China tariffs. That's the danger of people with little economic knowledge try to act like they do.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Back on topic, economy is booming

---

What indicators are you using, jobs, GDP, or what?

One leading indicator, freight loads, is down 50% June to June. Some of that is regression to the mean, but a big chunk of that is not. Slowing production, possibly inflationary pressures.

---

Source? The most recent Cass Freight index report was from May. Do you have another source that has figures through June?

I can't find a reputable source that indicates anywhere close to a 50% decline. Declines in the 3-10% range, depending on measure, yes, but not 50%.

And all freight market analysts recognize the current declines are mostly due to the artificially high numbers in 2018 due to the anticipation of tariffs with China. The 2 year running average is still positive.

Edit: and for the record, I was critical and Florida Mike and team last year when they pointed to economic indexes that were artificially inflated due to the anticipated China tariffs. That's the danger of people with little economic knowledge try to act like they do.

---

Glad you asked https://www.dat.com/industry-trends/trendlines

As I noted, some of this is regression to the mean from 2018 and the pre-tariff prep.

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Back on topic, economy is booming

---

What indicators are you using, jobs, GDP, or what?

One leading indicator, freight loads, is down 50% June to June. Some of that is regression to the mean, but a big chunk of that is not. Slowing production, possibly inflationary pressures.

---

Source? The most recent Cass Freight index report was from May. Do you have another source that has figures through June?

I can't find a reputable source that indicates anywhere close to a 50% decline. Declines in the 3-10% range, depending on measure, yes, but not 50%.

And all freight market analysts recognize the current declines are mostly due to the artificially high numbers in 2018 due to the anticipation of tariffs with China. The 2 year running average is still positive.

Edit: and for the record, I was critical and Florida Mike and team last year when they pointed to economic indexes that were artificially inflated due to the anticipated China tariffs. That's the danger of people with little economic knowledge try to act like they do.

---

Glad you asked https://www.dat.com/industry-trends/trendlines

As I noted, some of this is regression to the mean from 2018 and the pre-tariff prep.

---

I know you chose your words carefully, but how do you define a big chunk of the decline is due to other factors than regression to the mean? Because every expert I've talked to or read from indicate much of this is a regression to the mean and they point to the long term averages that still show increases.

I'm certain this is all due to Obama, but anyway:

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/08/govt-dependency-plunges-under-trump-why-arent-we-celebrating/?fbclid=IwAR2WyIUSWweeSW5jSZLPZ43o_nH_qr8r0ZMR6x5OBSOaLxonbS7w5R7qJ_M

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The Nation recently published a stunning overview of the working poor and underpaid. One of the most powerful data points in the piece described how empty the decline in unemployment actually is: having a job doesn't exempt anyone from poverty anymore. About 12% of Americans (43 million) are considered poor, and yet they are employed. They earn an individual income below $12,140 per year, and slightly more than that for a family of two. If you include housing and medical expenses in the calculation, it raises the percentage of Americans living in poverty to 14%. That's 45 million people.

At that level of income, there's almost no way to pay for food and shelter in any sizeable American city. That means people now can both be employed and homeless.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergeorgescu/2018/08/22/americas-real-economy-it-isnt-booming/?fbclid=IwAR19dvytJ4THMcesHk6m3F5ou1DX6rKBF4WYWC6bJusKdgJaqSexfN5XF_k#320433c060b7

---

Tell that to these people...

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Back on topic, economy is booming

---

What indicators are you using, jobs, GDP, or what?

One leading indicator, freight loads, is down 50% June to June. Some of that is regression to the mean, but a big chunk of that is not. Slowing production, possibly inflationary pressures.

---

Source? The most recent Cass Freight index report was from May. Do you have another source that has figures through June?

I can't find a reputable source that indicates anywhere close to a 50% decline. Declines in the 3-10% range, depending on measure, yes, but not 50%.

And all freight market analysts recognize the current declines are mostly due to the artificially high numbers in 2018 due to the anticipation of tariffs with China. The 2 year running average is still positive.

Edit: and for the record, I was critical and Florida Mike and team last year when they pointed to economic indexes that were artificially inflated due to the anticipated China tariffs. That's the danger of people with little economic knowledge try to act like they do.

---

Glad you asked https://www.dat.com/industry-trends/trendlines

As I noted, some of this is regression to the mean from 2018 and the pre-tariff prep.

---

I know you chose your words carefully, but how do you define a big chunk of the decline is due to other factors than regression to the mean? Because every expert I've talked to or read from indicate much of this is a regression to the mean and they point to the long term averages that still show increases.

---

Got that from the article that linked to DAT. I can't remember what device I was on (not this one apparently) but let me keep looking, gotta be on the history somewhere..

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

I've probably said it six times in the last three months but this is a good place to repeat it: I want a free flow of labor.

Some big restaurant chain in the Pacific northwest just filed for bankruptcy citing labor costs linked to municipal living wage ordinances. They have a lot of debt to service, too, but it doesn't help when the govt tells you what a worker is worth. Hint: the govt is usually wrong.

A living wage is available by virtue of experience and training, not govt fiat.

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

Low wages are THE problem right now. Wage growth is around 3.1% which is maddening given full employment.

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

I've probably said it six times in the last three months but this is a good place to repeat it: I want a free flow of labor.

Some big restaurant chain in the Pacific northwest just filed for bankruptcy citing labor costs linked to municipal living wage ordinances. They have a lot of debt to service, too, but it doesn't help when the govt tells you what a worker is worth. Hint: the govt is usually wrong.

A living wage is available by virtue of experience and training, not govt fiat.

---

And the non-partisan CBO just reported that an increase of the minimum wage to $15/hr would lift some from poverty but result in job losses...."Overall, CBO economists wrote that resulting job losses would likely range between "about zero and 3.7 million."
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739607964/-15-minimum-wage-would-boost-17-million-workers-cut-1-3-million-jobs-cbo-says
I'm not a fan of minimum wage because it's an artificial, one size fits all floor that doesn't take a local wage market into account.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

Low wages are THE problem right now. Wage growth is around 3.1% which is maddening given full employment.

---

Suspect the impact of millions of illegals flooding the job market would negatively impact wage growth.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

Low wages are THE problem right now. Wage growth is around 3.1% which is maddening given full employment.

---

^^^ Too bad "know nothing" inexperienced idiots like this can be heard at all

His stupidity just clogs up wisdom

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Any chance you'll do what Florda cannot? What metric are you using for the boom?

---

I'm not characterizing the economy one way or another. Just observing that we have more jobs than workers right now in a number of places.

---

Hmm, maybe we should loosen up work visas.

---

What would that do to wages?

---

Not much given that this is a supply issue. But let's say it depresses wages a little. So what? That is what the market does, it responds.

---

Well considering this entire thread is about how some people work their tail off and still can't get by, shouldn't we do everything we can to avoid over-saturating the lower-wage labor pool, which is the employment sector most of the work visas would contribute to? I'm all for a free flow of labor, but then you will have people like BBL and cinque and Jinx who will complain about the low wages. So we need to decide what we want. Do we want a free flow of labor and people, which will keep wages (and costs) low, particularly in the lower-income sector, or do we want to put a halt to this and allow wages to catch up to the requirements needed just to "get by"?

---

Low wages are THE problem right now. Wage growth is around 3.1% which is maddening given full employment.

---

^^^ Too bad "know nothing" inexperienced idiots like this can be heard at all

His stupidity just clogs up wisdom

---

C'mon, man, Iron-O-Meters aren't built to take this kind of abuse.

Canada "Suspect the impact of millions of illegals flooding the job market would negatively impact wage growth."
I would add that it's congress that does nothing for immigration reform. Business wants low labor costs. Cheap Labor reduces those costs.
But business also want
1. highly skilled workers and that means education
2. Relief from healthcare cost for workers.
3. Roads, bridges, power grids and sources.
Investment in human capital and structural capital should be governments concern too