US economy sees sharpest contraction in decades

Discussion in 'Money and Business' started by Ranger Ray, Jul 30, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CHASINEYES

    CHASINEYES

    Messages:
    14,472
    Likes Received:
    13,359
    Location:
    lapeer, county
    That is true. I looked at the Covid numbers across South America last night. Despite the way it's being spun by the establishment who so badly wants to regain power by misleading the people saying we currently suck, S.A. looks horrible. Covid is a major burden everywhere.

    Money has been too easy. I gave up trying to find a reasonably priced used golf cart. It seems like many used recreational items in that 1-2k range has nearly doubled or has doubled in price as of late.
     
    TK81 likes this.
  2. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    8,003
    Likes Received:
    11,840
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    That's pretty optimistic considering the renewed restrictions that businesses in that area have been forced into last week. Do you think someone will jump at the chance to for career changing job that could evaporate at almost any time?

    On Thursday, I will be visiting a client to discuss the possibility of filing for bankruptcy protection, or even worse, the permanent closing of his business. A number of businesses still haven't been allowed to open yet, but the monthly bills continue to roll in. I highly doubt that the spin some folks are putting on all the jobs available will put much of a dent in the real state of the economy.
     

  3. DirtySteve

    DirtySteve

    Messages:
    10,994
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    I was thinking about a used over under for bird season. Saw many of a certain model i was looking at last December on websites used in the $900-1100 range...like dozens of them. Looked this weekend. Two for 1900. This is about $500 more than the gun sold new. Crazy.
     
    CHASINEYES likes this.
  4. DecoySlayer

    DecoySlayer Banned

    Messages:
    37,197
    Likes Received:
    37,526
    Location:
    Monroe
    A result of time off of work and tons of "free" money. It is never a good idea to pay people more for not working than they make when they are working. Puts those who are working in the hole and provides no incentive to go back to work.
     
    ohio hunter, motdean and CHASINEYES like this.
  5. CHASINEYES

    CHASINEYES

    Messages:
    14,472
    Likes Received:
    13,359
    Location:
    lapeer, county
    I've been looking to update my spoon collection. Found this a few minutes ago. I won't even bother trying to order there. Even if they indicate it's in stock, It will probably turn into a long-term wait fest.

    Screenshot_20200803-092415.png
     
  6. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,473
    Likes Received:
    8,684
    Without naming the business, can you describe what type of business it is?
     
  7. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    8,003
    Likes Received:
    11,840
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    I would feel safe saying that the business is covered in executive order 2020-160 - Section #4 described as Public Accommodations. As stated: Subject to the exceptions in sections 8 and 9, the following places are closed to entry, use, and occupancy by members of the public:

    Also if you were wondering, the business is NOT in Mecosta County.
     
  8. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,473
    Likes Received:
    8,684
    With respect to the county that it is in.....I am not trying to pinpoint the business, just simply to understand what type of business it is...Not being comfortable with stating the type of business is also acceptable.

    I simply continue to hear about this rebound, but even the few small business owners that I know remain on edge. What if somebody gets it while at their business, or if an employee facing the customers test positive, etc....

    I agree that there is still a lot of risk to be comprehended.
     
  9. November Sunrise

    November Sunrise

    Messages:
    14,540
    Likes Received:
    17,521
    Location:
    Hillsdale
    From a standpoint of consumer spending, has there been a rebound? Yes. But a rebound is a much different outcome than a full recovery. Many small businesses will need a full recovery if they're going to keep their doors open.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,473
    Likes Received:
    8,684
    I don't disagree at all....but how would you define a full recovery?

    Also, with the chart that you have posted, how much do you think that will be affected with the extra $600 per week that has now been eliminated?
     
  11. November Sunrise

    November Sunrise

    Messages:
    14,540
    Likes Received:
    17,521
    Location:
    Hillsdale
    I'm not certain what an economist would define as a full recovery but I'd define it as six consecutive months of consumer spending returning to the same or higher levels that existed during the first two months of this year. As it is now consumer spending is still at economically disastrous levels. The only reason it's not being perceived that way is we've rapidly become desensitized to all of the economic destruction that has occurred.

    If the $600/week had not been in place over the past four months I'd guess that overall consumer spending would have been appreciably lower. My opinion is that the $600/week will be renewed and continue into 2021 - I'll be shocked if the politicians don't go that route.
     
  12. zig

    zig Premium Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    Location:
    SW Michigan
    The $600 is a big deal, a really big deal. The politicians need to get off their butts and put it back in place ASAP. I understand the argument that it's a disincentive for people to go back to work. But it really is the lesser of two evils. There was an article I read that said that those facing unemployment prior to CARES Act passing saw spending decline 8%, which the article said was inline with typical spending decreases for the unemployed under previous studies, pre-pandemic, of 7%. With the passing of the Act and the related $600 benefit, spending increased 22% among those receiving benefits. That's a 29-30% increase in spending among the unemployed depending on whether you want use the 7% historical average or the 8% pandemic number. All this while spending among the employed decreased 10% during the same time. The bottom line is, sure, you want to see people get back to work. But, if all those squawking about the $600 had a crystal ball and could see out a few months what things look like without that $600, I guarantee they'd choose to continue the $600. A significant portion of that $600 is getting funneled to the currently employed, while at the same time staving off foreclosures, evictions and repossessions, the number of which could eventually get so bad we then have to start talking about banks again..... That $600 has been an essential component in propping up the economy, period. We need to let things continue to shake out a little for another 5-6 months before we seriously consider eliminating it.
     
    TK81 likes this.
  13. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    34,856
    Likes Received:
    29,674
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    If it wasn’t an election year I would say the $600/week would be dropped like a hot potato. I believe we have had unemployment filings above 1M people for the last 20 consecutive weeks. The odd part is there are help wanted signs everywhere you look but most are for jobs paying less the $968/week. Why work when you can free load off the taxpayers is the new motto of 2020.
     
    bjacobs and sureshot006 like this.
  14. Woodstock

    Woodstock

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    651
    Maybe $600 isn't the number that is needed, possibly something a little less than that. Small businesses won't survive/rebound if they have no work force.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
  15. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,936
    Likes Received:
    22,676
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    The 600 still has to come from somewhere. I consider it debt. Which should be weighed against G.D.P. to note if it is a good thing. And my feeble opinion is redflagging the altered imbalance of continuing to tack on trillions of debt while G.D.P. is reduced.
    Your opinion of where debt needs to be reigned in will vary. But there comes a point where further debt loading ,or continued reduction of national revenue generation will boil over.

    The unemployed recoup the less fuel,clothing ect. associated with working. And their time if they want to hustle a buck here and there.
    If you're not working , does that mean no work exists?

    What are folks spending that "extra" 600 on?
    Recreational dealers (quads,motor-homes,campers,boats ect) have burned through inventory at an exuberant rate.
    That should indicate a booming economy and secure debt management.
    Alas , methinks many folks have simply risen their debt loads.
    If they are paying cash and stimulating the economy , great.
    For those (and they do exist) using the "incentives" as a down payment while still holding other debt(s)? Adopting greater debt may be worse than getting by on previous unemployment income levels.
    Unemployment has never been a tool to inspire not performing.(That national debt vs. productivity thing again, though that's not unemployment's purpose either.) Yet it's purpose today is to promote nonperformance?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.