Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

Desh - this thread is a real testament to why people don't waste time finding links for you & scrambling all over the place. You're absolutely immune to facts & logic.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL - I posted a link. And not only that - YOU posted a link. YOU posted a link, that said exactly what I said.

Whassa matter, freak? Can't admit you were wrong?

You lying friggin' freak. Apologize.
Click to expand...

It's just like the sec links. She can post links but doesn't fully understand what she is posting and can't explain it in her own words
 
Thing1 said:
And?

Where does this mention the market? Or is just another one of your non-sequitor posts?
Click to expand...

It does here...

From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.

You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.

At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.

The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.
Click to expand...

So three times in Desh's own link does it state EXACTLY what we said. Yet the moronic desh still thinks it says something else.
 
evince said:
post 27
Click to expand...

From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.

You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.

At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.

The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.
 
The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.


http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../in-new-economy-jobs-lag-behind-recovery.html
 
Hmmmmmmmmmm


you seem so much more understanding about slow and or lagging employment when you don't have Obama in your brain huh
 
Superfreak said:
From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.

You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.

At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.

The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.
Click to expand...

picking and chosing facts again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top