America's Multiple Choice Economy

Pick the correct answer from the list of true facts:

The preliminary numbers for retail sales for September 2009 show:

1. a 5.7% decline YoY

2. a 1.7% MoM decline

3. a 0.5% increase MoM if autos are excluded

4. a 10% decline in auto sales

Even though all the answers are correct, I will go with none of the above. You notice I tend to run with a lot of graphs and charts as I think it is easier for most to understand through graphics rather than data sets.

Retail sales are seasonal. The only true comparisons are through unadjusted figures – YoY. MoM comparisons require adjustments which during recessionary cycles have to be considered suspect.

The graph above compares a normal year (2007), to a beginning recession year (2008), to a recession ending year (2009). Notice optically how the yellow bar representing 2009 relates to the other bars representing 2007 and 2008.

Optically, September looks like the best month of 2009 as I see less of a difference between a normal year and 2009. I would not suggest this represents a recovery, but on the other hand this data gives you a warm feeling that we have bottomed. And this comes in a month after cash-for-clunkers, which moved auto sales which would have occurred in September into August.

This consumer spending is one of the most important data points. From my perspective, it is telling us a lot about how unemployment is impacting spending.

Logically it seems consumer spending should not be able to recover from the levels it is currently at due to unemployment. But I know from past recessions that when consumer spending does improve – it is driven by the employed wage earner who realizes he is not going to lose his job.

Unemployment this week improved slightly. There is no evidence yet that employment levels are rising – and that is a key end of recession marker.

Non-manufacturing jobs, which now make up 91% of non-farm employment, began to increase in February 2002 just three months after the.2001 recession officially ended.

The problem is the way the NBER defines a recession. It is clear that employment is not a concern as they feel that once the economy begins to re-expand – jobs follow.

We know this is true. But we also know at some level with employment – there must be a tipping point. At some point, we will not be able to expand as the weight of people not working (as a percent of population) is currently at 1980's levels).

However, we are nowhere near historical employment lows as a percent of population. There are more than enough employed to drive growth.

Even with our current methodology for establishing unemployment, the U-3 (headline) unemployment would have to rise to 20% to approach our post WWII lows employment / population ratios.

Our economy can expand with high unemployment.

Just imagine how much better it could expand if we were targeting creating real long term jobs with our stimulus money.

Note: I have been on an airplane for the last 29 hours, and my computer decided to crash (I keep my data on memory sticks so nothing lost). But my efforts this week are less than I would have preferred as I lost time installing programs while traveling.

Additional Economic Data This Week

The green shoots that the economy is expanding can be seen on this rail car count graphic. But for some reason, this positive growth in transport is not manifesting itself as strongly in the manufacturing data.

The New York Fed's October 2009 survey of manufacturers in their region which showed a slight increase in new orders (this is very good subjective survey, but this is not based on quantitative data). The Philly Fed's same report for their region also shows positive new orders, but you need a microscope to really see any growth.

September 2009 Industrial production showed a slight increase MoM of 0.7%. It was in durables, and coming after cash-for-clunkers – I would not assume this is real growth. Also, I would worry the seasonal adjustment factors are suspect because we are in a trough of a recession. We need to wait until next month to see how the data trends.

Overall, I would suggest you need to look hard for signs of improvement in manufacturing from the Federal Reserve reports. This recovery still remains very sluggish. No significant signals are appearing which would indicate an impending decline either.

There was a slight 0.2% increase in the consumer price index for September 2009. Overall, it appears the upward trend in prices are now beginning to take hold.

The rate of new mortgage applications decreased slightly this week and remained in the lower end of the range they have been in since April. The four week moving average of all mortgage loan application volume (which includes refinancing) increased 5.6% WoW. The average interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgage decreased 13 basis points to 5.02%. Based on the significant rise in long term treasuries, I would expect a big increase next week also.

Filing for Bankruptcy: none

Bank failures this week:

Economic Forecasts Published this Past Week

The Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) released their Weekly Leading Index which again gained slightly on its all-time high. Lakshman Achuthan, Managing Director at ECRI added:

Such a pronounced, pervasive and persistent upswing in the WLI and its components assures that this economic recovery can overcome any obstacles in the months ahead. Industrial Production numbers are very much in line with our April forecast that recession would end over the summer

Hat tip to Steve at MEMETICS & MARKETING™ for editing support.

Disclosures: long MMF's, GLD, IOO, EWZ, EWY, EWA, EWC, EWM, EWS, THD, FXI, PIN, UUP, Physical Gold - as well as numerous puts and calls which comprise less than 3% of my portfolio.

Comments

[Dave Wrixon:]

The problem is that for the "Recovery" to be sustained, if indeed that is what is, then monetary conditions need to be kept constant. It is a bit like being on a raft in a the eye of a Hurricane. But even Ben would go there with his bloody helicopter.

Oct 18 08:22 AM

[chap08:]

Steven, you describe 2007 retail sales as "normal". I'm not sure if you mean that, but that would imply that the associated savings ratio, consumer debt levels etc. were normal too. I think the problem is that we may come to look back on 2009 as a good year for the consumer and see 2007 as simply abnormal. I agree with you that those with jobs will return to spending, but even with them, savings will increase in importance. Equally, there is a good chance that either the dollar continues to fall, or unemployment continues to rise. If the dollar falls, this will cramp the style of the consumer even further.

Oct 18 08:43 AM

[socrateaz:]

I liked your article especially because it did not push some belief without substancial proof. I do admit Just the facts do seem somewhat dry and does not get my emotions for or against really excited but it is refreshing to see a more fact based approach with somewhat equal balance to both views

Oct 18 09:36 AM

[Anonymous12...:]

One comment I would like to make is that one must take into account incomes and debt service when forecasting retail sales. Incomes are at best stagnant, and in many cases, are actually declining. People with jobs are not seeing their incomes rise, despite commodity costs that are now rising over last year. If gas remains at its current cost through December, it will be 30% higher (or more) than last Christmas. This figures into retail sales, but is it really spending that will ultimately prevent retail bankruptcies and increase the number of retail jobs available? Finally, one must consider the cost of debt service. When we talk about interest rates, we always consider the Fed Funds Rate and the 10-yr Treasury yield. The interest rate available to consumers via credit cards is dramatically higher than last year. Any debt carried on credit cards is already causing much higher debt service payments and eating up more and more of their stagnant or declining wages. Can consumers really increase spending and borrowing further in the face of higher interest rates and debt service payments? If businesses faced a similar situation, would we expect them to increase expenditures? If consumers can accomplish this for the holidays, will the debts and servicing costs then annihilate retail sales in the post-holiday period?

Oct 18 11:20 AM

[housaf:]

Steven,
I am aware of the track record of ECRI. The rebound in the WLI is impressive. But historically isn't ECRI in unchartered territory with unprecedented stimulus that has never before been seen ? Bullishness based on this reading must be taken with a big caveat.

Oct 18 12:04 PM

[CautiousInv...:]

Steve, I think we are seeing the beginnings of a statistical recovery and it may continue for some time but it's the long term structural issues which concern me. We all know about the delevering of the consumer, government borrowing crowding out private investment, increased regulation higher taxes, a falling dollar, continued weakness in housing, stubbornly high unemployment collapsing international trade, an aging workforce and other economic imbalances.

It's the unseen structural issues lurking below the radar that concern me; it's the things we can not see that trouble me because when we see them they will appear as surprises, catching us unprepared. For example, more and more US companies are undertaking R&D overseas and I just recently read that many highly educated Chinese and Indians plan to return home rather than pursue careers and/or business interests here in the states. The cost of both could be enormous but the latter could be a sea change and a game changer in terms of innovation and sources of future jobs:

"But a growing body of evidence indicates that skilled foreign immigrants create jobs for Americans and boost our national competitiveness. More than 52% of Silicon Valley’s startups during the recent tech boom were started by foreign-born entrepreneurs. Foreign-national researchers have contributed to more than 25% of our global patents, developed some of our break-through technologies, and they helped make Silicon Valley the world’s leading tech center. Foreign-born workers comprise almost a quarter of all the U.S. science and engineering workforce and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs. It is very possible that some of the smart Indians who sat in the room with me holding their hand up on Columbus Day will start the next Google or Apple. Many of them will build companies which employ thousands. But the jobs will be in Hyderbad or Pune, not Silicon Valley."

Oct 18 12:12 PM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

We need both creative destruction which isn't happening with bailouts, distortions in the market, and Fed shennanigance and fundamental research and development and creativity to lead to a prosperous growing economy. For a long time we have been titans of biotech, pharmeceuticals, medical equipment, military hardware, aerospace, communications, technology, computer science, and software.

The world is only getting more competitive. We need to be funding high speed Internet access for everyone not auto spending sprees. We should be funding better education not bank bailouts. It is not just about government corruption and graft. By choosing to throw money away we are depriving it from going to the what we need in order to remain leaders in technology, science, and creativity. It is not just the UAW and autoworkers and blue collar workers suffering from being dispaced. It is all Americans. Government needs to be helping all Americans prepare for the challenges of tomorrow withour assets before we lose the competitive edge.

We need investment in getting computer access to all schools, high speed Internet to the majority of households, bailing out education and schools not banks to insure quality education even in poor inner city schools, and more science, technology, fundamental research, and grants to everything from economics to art. Only then can we assure that America will have competent people to lead America into the new age no matter what is venerated as important in the new economy.

Who thought search engines and blogging would be important. Or social networking 10-20 years ago. That's why people claiming they know what's good for America today most likely don't know anything. All we can say for sure is that funding all forms of education and creativity can assure us a spot at the table. Big banking, securitization, and derivatives had had their day. Let us move on and let the chips fall as they may. Why spend 10-20-30 or more percent of our economy supporting it still. If it can't find a viable model to exist then there is no reason it is neccesary for it to live. Given that most of it is zero sum game gambling, it certainly shouldn't be a 500 trillion dollar market.

Oct 18 12:41 PM

[JMBishop:]

Tim your little note about doing all this deep thinking on the fly just turned me off. What's it worth? Nada...zilch...blah......

Oct 18 01:34 PM

[untrusting ...:]

Yes LT structural issues are a hugh gaping issue and your points are well taken.

What really stands out is why.are 25% of all US science and engineering workers foreign born and why are 47% of science and engineering PhD's foreign born? We have some of the best universities in the world including the likes of MIT, Stanford, Berkley, and many others. Yes diversity and top international students are important... but should they be 25-50% ... would not maybe 10-15% be more reasonable? Yes some of these institutions are essentially private schools, but they are massively funded by taxpayers via government research grants, student loan subsidies, US infrastructure which all taxpayers pay for, and many many other forms of direct/indirect support.

Can well remember the MSFT and tech industry complaints from prior years that they could not get enough qualified US skilled computer personnel. Thus the Hb1 Visa debacle that has emerged over the years. Today, US computer personnel are essentially a dime-a-dozen, with many US skilled personnel now unemployed (didn't IBM just offshore another 5K positions just a few months ago?). Basically the issue is how do US based personnel at say $75-100K/year compete with maybe slightly lessor skilled personnel in India, China, Czechlovikia, etc at say 10-25% of the same salary base, let alone the much higher overhead burden ( payroll taxes, healthcare costs, etc) in the US. Hence the massive outsourcing wave that has devasted American employment over the last decade or so.

On the US engineering and science issue, it has been pointed out by some that the diversion of mathematical, quant, engineering type talent into Wall Street has been significant. Simply because the financial reward is so much greater for designing exotic derivatives, securitized mortgages, etc. than it is in the traditional science and engineering occupations. If memory serves correctly, the percentage of S&P earnings from finance related listed companies had grown to something like 40% of all profits vs. something like 6% several decades ago. When the country has that much misallocation of money, resources, and talent is it any wonder the US has seen the significant market crashes and wealth destruction since Long Term Capital Management in the late 1990's and in ever more rapid bust cycles?

One has to follow the money and the money has been for decades now the political-lobbyist-oli... connections and pursuit of vested self-interest at any cost or by any means necessary. Notebly Wall Street has certainly been the defacto leader in the game similar to the "robber barons" of past eras.

Unfortunately, due to the massive wealth and power effectively controlled by the defacto ruling class, what hope is there for real structural change? Probably not much short of a total meltdown, which just may well happen over time.

Or, perhaps it really will take a revolution in some form or another? Where are the leaders willing to pay the price and organize the masses? An organized mass refusal to pay Federal income taxes would do it, if tens of thousands or millions were willing to go to jail and lose property to do it. Do we have that type of leadership, not likely? Is a Ron Paul type really willing to pay this type of price to attempt radical reform?

On Oct 18 12:12 PM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> Steve, I think we are seeing the beginnings of a statistical recovery
> and it may continue for some time but it's the long term structural
> issues which concern me. We all know about the delevering of the
> consumer, government borrowing crowding out private investment, increased
> regulation higher taxes, a falling dollar, continued weakness in
> housing, stubbornly high unemployment collapsing international trade,
> an aging workforce and other economic imbalances.
>
> It's the unseen structural issues lurking below the radar that concern
> me; it's the things we can not see that trouble me because when we
> see them they will appear as surprises, catching us unprepared. For
> example, more and more US companies are undertaking R&D overseas
> and I just recently read that many highly educated Chinese and Indians
> plan to return home rather than pursue careers and/or business interests
> here in the states. The cost of both could be enormous but the latter
> could be a sea change and a game changer in terms of innovation and
> sources of future jobs:
>
> "But a growing body of evidence indicates that skilled foreign immigrants
> create jobs for Americans and boost our national competitiveness.
> More than 52% of Silicon Valley’s startups during the recent tech
> boom were started by foreign-born entrepreneurs. Foreign-national
> researchers have contributed to more than 25% of our global patents,
> developed some of our break-through technologies, and they helped
> make Silicon Valley the world’s leading tech center. Foreign-born
> workers comprise almost a quarter of all the U.S. science and engineering
> workforce and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs.
> It is very possible that some of the smart Indians who sat in the
> room with me holding their hand up on Columbus Day will start the
> next Google or Apple. Many of them will build companies which employ
> thousands. But the jobs will be in Hyderbad or Pune, not Silicon
> Valley."

Oct 18 05:50 PM

[untrusting ...:]

Moon,

Perhaps a more basic point is the decades long known shortage in America in healthcare occupations such as nurses and general practioner doctors. The US has been paying top dollar for decades to attempt to import qualified nurses and GP's from every other developed country in the world.

Why has the US not ramped up training in these area's? Surely with the aging US population it will become even more accute in coming years. After all it does not require rocket science to develop more domestic medical and nursing schools. Perhaps it is in part the significant influence of the profession itself to "limit supply" in order to maintain well above average incomes. It surely has little to do with "qualified applicants" as the acceptance rate at medical schools is something like 10-15%, but surely many of the other 85-90% not accepted are pretty bright as well. At least some percentage of these would also likely make great doctors and nurses.


On Oct 18 12:41 PM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> We need both creative destruction which isn't happening with bailouts,
> distortions in the market, and Fed shennanigance and fundamental
> research and development and creativity to lead to a prosperous growing
> economy. For a long time we have been titans of biotech, pharmeceuticals,
> medical equipment, military hardware, aerospace, communications,
> technology, computer science, and software.
>
> The world is only getting more competitive. We need to be funding
> high speed Internet access for everyone not auto spending sprees.
> We should be funding better education not bank bailouts. It is not
> just about government corruption and graft. By choosing to throw
> money away we are depriving it from going to the what we need in
> order to remain leaders in technology, science, and creativity. It
> is not just the UAW and autoworkers and blue collar workers suffering
> from being dispaced. It is all Americans. Government needs to be
> helping all Americans prepare for the challenges of tomorrow withour
> assets before we lose the competitive edge.
>
> We need investment in getting computer access to all schools, high
> speed Internet to the majority of households, bailing out education
> and schools not banks to insure quality education even in poor inner
> city schools, and more science, technology, fundamental research,
> and grants to everything from economics to art. Only then can we
> assure that America will have competent people to lead America into
> the new age no matter what is venerated as important in the new economy.
>
>
> Who thought search engines and blogging would be important. Or social
> networking 10-20 years ago. That's why people claiming they know
> what's good for America today most likely don't know anything. All
> we can say for sure is that funding all forms of education and creativity
> can assure us a spot at the table. Big banking, securitization, and
> derivatives had had their day. Let us move on and let the chips fall
> as they may. Why spend 10-20-30 or more percent of our economy supporting
> it still. If it can't find a viable model to exist then there is
> no reason it is neccesary for it to live. Given that most of it is
> zero sum game gambling, it certainly shouldn't be a 500 trillion
> dollar market.

Oct 18 06:15 PM

[The Geoffster:]

You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.
-Charles de Gaulle

Oct 18 07:38 PM

[Pat C:]

Retail Sales graph is great. I wonder how much of the total is for non-discretionary consumer spending (basic household expenses)?

Oct 18 07:45 PM

[The Geoffster:]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.


On Oct 18 01:34 PM JMBishop wrote:

> Tim your little note about doing all this deep thinking on the fly
> just turned me off. What's it worth? Nada...zilch...blah......

Oct 18 10:08 PM

[ain't no fo...:]

Every single person and family I know has drastically cut back discretionary spending, and they have all cut back on the necessities, going for generics and deep discount merchandise wherever possible. Big ticket items? Fuggedaboutit. Travel/vacation? Bull. Besides unemployment and underemployment inexorably rising, the spinsters have all kinds of other scams they're running to conceal the depth of the jobs problems - many friends are being furloughed for a week at a time, every other month, with no pay, or the entire company is cut back from 5 to 4 days, or in the case of a lawyer, he gets to keep his desk, PC and phone so he can appear employed while he looks for work... except that he hasn't had a single nibble in over 4 months... so his house is now for sale.

So who the F... is keeping retail sales numbers anywhere near as high as they appear? Statisticians and highly conflicted industry shills, that's who.

I happen to be of the opinion that the retail sales numbers put out by people who have a huge conflict of interest in this game are all just one great big crock of shit, spun up by bs artists who are not exactly unbiased or able to count very well.

Oct 19 08:46 AM

[Doug Poretz:]

How long do we keep saying "recovery from this recession is sluggish" until we start saying "this isn't a recovery at all"? If "recovery" is a synonym for "return," i do not think we are going to have a "recovery" because I do not think we are going back to what we had for at least a decade .... there have been too many cultural changes, including the accelerating (both in speed and impact) transition from a Manufacturing Economy to a global Knowledge Economy.

Oct 19 10:42 AM

[manya05:]

To untrusting who asks : "What really stands out is why.are 25% of all US science and engineering workers foreign born and why are 47% of science and engineering PhD's foreign born? "

It is a complex issue, very complex, and I will not attempt to give you the simple answer. But, a start to understand why is in market forces. In this case, the effort and remuneration involved in pursuing graduate studies in science and engineering.

In a gross oversimplification. You are a US citizen and you go to college, work hard, and get a BS degree in engineering. Depending on many factors, you will get a job paying $50-75k/year right off the bat. Stay 1-2 more years in school and get an MS and you are looking at $60-90k, maybe more. Most of the employers will be national labs or defense contractors, that will give you great benefits and top dollars. They are competing for a scarce commodity, a US citizen with a science/engineering degree, and they can only hire US citizens to do defense work.

Now, at that juncture, you are a young person and find that rosy situation in the job market. The alternative is to stay in school and pursue a PhD. You are looking at 5-6 years of hard work, being paid $20-25k/year with no benefits. True, you are getting "free" tuition and an education. But after those 5+ years, if you go become a professor, you will make LESS money than the person with the BS degree, and if you go to industry, you may get a bit over $100k/year.

For a foreign born student this is a good proposition still, you get a visa and an entry point to the US (otherwise only in your dreams), but for a US student...not so much.

This is a hard cycle to break (which I am sure you see as self-perpetuating because the US-born engineers are less and less each year, yet the need keeps growing, so salaries will keep going up). Government and universities are complicit in keeping this cycle. The government by driving the $$$ given to universities for research down (so they can give more but smaller grants to more universities). So, if a professor gets grants in the $100k/year, forget about raising stipends for students, in essence universities are operating as a slave-driving operation for the government to get its research done on the cheap..ergo, Chinese and Indians will flood the system.

A more sensible approach would be for the government to recognize that there is value in educating the US-born in science and engineering and put its money where its mouth is. Give more money to increase stipends to where somebody will think twice between staying in graduate school or going straight to an industry job. But then again, this requires more funding, or, give bigger grants to less universities (politically not a good idea, each congressperson wants the university in his/her district to receive something...even if pitiful).

And so it goes. But as I said, it is a much more complex issue where the government does not seem to care much. Traditionally, this was not a problem as Chinese and Indians came in droves, and by the most part they stayed after graduate school. But both these premises are slowly becoming false...

Oct 19 01:55 PM

[marco caricom:]

"untrusting" ....Your assertion that

"<Perhaps it is in part the significant influence of the (medical/nursing) profession itself to "limit supply in order to maintain well above average incomes.>"

is total baloney. In fact most medical schools encourage family medicine as a choice and there has been significant effort by government and schools to produce more family practice physicians. The causes for proportional representation differences in fields of specialization are complex, but your suggestion blaming the medical and nursing professions is quite off the mark and perhaps you would be better served in "following the money" to see where it really leads....


On Oct 18 06:15 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Moon,
>
> Perhaps a more basic point is the decades long known shortage in
> America in healthcare occupations such as nurses and general practioner
> doctors. The US has been paying top dollar for decades to attempt
> to import qualified nurses and GP's from every other developed country
> in the world.
>
> Why has the US not ramped up training in these area's? Surely with
> the aging US population it will become even more accute in coming
> years. After all it does not require rocket science to develop more
> domestic medical and nursing schools. Perhaps it is in part the significant
> influence of the profession itself to "limit supply" in order to
> maintain well above average incomes. It surely has little to do with
> "qualified applicants" as the acceptance rate at medical schools
> is something like 10-15%, but surely many of the other 85-90% not
> accepted are pretty bright as well. At least some percentage of these
> would also likely make great doctors and nurses.

Oct 19 02:24 PM

[marco caricom:]

"untrusting" ....Your assertion that

"Perhaps it is in part the significant influence of the (medical/nursing) profession itself to "limit supply in order to maintain well above average incomes."

is total baloney. In fact most medical schools encourage family medicine as a choice and there has been significant effort by government and schools to produce more family practice physicians. The causes for proportional representation differences in fields of specialization are complex, but your suggestion blaming the medical and nursing professions is quite off the mark and perhaps you would be better served in "following the money" to see where it really leads....


On Oct 18 06:15 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Moon,
>
> Perhaps a more basic point is the decades long known shortage in
> America in healthcare occupations such as nurses and general practioner
> doctors. The US has been paying top dollar for decades to attempt
> to import qualified nurses and GP's from every other developed country
> in the world.
>
> Why has the US not ramped up training in these area's? Surely with
> the aging US population it will become even more accute in coming
> years. After all it does not require rocket science to develop more
> domestic medical and nursing schools. Perhaps it is in part the significant
> influence of the profession itself to "limit supply" in order to
> maintain well above average incomes. It surely has little to do with
> "qualified applicants" as the acceptance rate at medical schools
> is something like 10-15%, but surely many of the other 85-90% not
> accepted are pretty bright as well. At least some percentage of these
> would also likely make great doctors and nurses.

Oct 19 02:26 PM

[marco caricom:]

"untrusting" ....Your assertion that

"Perhaps it is in part the significant influence of the (medical/nursing) profession itself to "limit supply in order to maintain well above average incomes."

is total baloney. In fact most medical schools encourage family medicine as a choice and there has been significant effort by government and schools to produce more family practice physicians. The causes for proportional representation differences in fields of specialization are complex, but your suggestion blaming the medical and nursing professions is quite off the mark and perhaps you would be better served in "following the healthcare money" to see where it really leads....


On Oct 18 06:15 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Moon,
>
> Perhaps a more basic point is the decades long known shortage in
> America in healthcare occupations such as nurses and general practioner
> doctors. The US has been paying top dollar for decades to attempt
> to import qualified nurses and GP's from every other developed country
> in the world.
>
> Why has the US not ramped up training in these area's? Surely with
> the aging US population it will become even more accute in coming
> years. After all it does not require rocket science to develop more
> domestic medical and nursing schools. Perhaps it is in part the significant
> influence of the profession itself to "limit supply" in order to
> maintain well above average incomes. It surely has little to do with
> "qualified applicants" as the acceptance rate at medical schools
> is something like 10-15%, but surely many of the other 85-90% not
> accepted are pretty bright as well. At least some percentage of these
> would also likely make great doctors and nurses.

Oct 19 02:27 PM

[marco caricom:]

My apologies for my mistaken repeats of posting...


On Oct 19 02:27 PM marco caricom wrote:

> "untrusting" ....Your assertion that
>
> "Perhaps it is in part the significant influence of the (medical/nursing)
> profession itself to "limit supply in order to maintain well above
> average incomes."
>
> is total baloney. In fact most medical schools encourage family
> medicine as a choice and there has been significant effort by government
> and schools to produce more family practice physicians. The causes
> for proportional representation differences in fields of specialization
> are complex, but your suggestion blaming the medical and nursing
> professions is quite off the mark and perhaps you would be better
> served in "following the healthcare money" to see where it really
> leads....

Oct 19 02:38 PM

[TeresaE:]

Six HUNDRED thousand people magically became un-unemployed last month as they ran out of government cash and hope. Did they find real jobs with benefits? Nope. Did they find real foodstamps with an underground cash job? More than likely.

Yep, manufacturing is "up" but you have to realize it is "up" from a minuscule percentage of what it used to be. There is not enough left to fuel any nationwide recovery, and what we are seeing is small quantity business with virtually NO production type quoting and government spending is the ONLY real work going on.

A large part of our current retail numbers include the (silent) increase in necessities from our third world "partners," and people burning out the last of their credit before they finally declare themselves bankrupt.

I notice how anyone that thinks unemployment is positive never bothers to look at the (ever) rising bankruptcy filings. Nor do they look at default rates. Nor do they realize that the number of non-contributing members of our country is expanding by leaps and bounds.

How will less than half the country be able to afford to support themselves AND the majority who produce NOTHING?

We left any hope of recovery back in the 90s. Now, nothing is left but the ups and downs we will experience as our empire crumbles.

Oct 22 03:41 PM