Quote from: "seoulbro"U.S. Economy Shrank in First Quarter by Most in Five Years

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-25/economy-in-u-s-shrank-in-first-quarter-by-most-in-five-years.html">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-2 ... years.html">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-25/economy-in-u-s-shrank-in-first-quarter-by-most-in-five-years.html

Quote from: "cc li tarte"huffpoo & all of O's minion press like to quote the official  monthly unemployment Index # as it does not tell / hides  how few actually work today



You are aware that the first quarter +1 (not good) GDP initially put out by his minions has been corrected and is now officially -3 .. .that's not -0.3 .. .its -3.0 ... = really really really  really really  bad  ... = businesses do not expand = why the market is so high ... so wtf BS  is huffpoo & yoo trying to sell us?

QuoteWith all the hoopla over the Dow topping 17,000 out of the way, the market's next focus will be whether the fast-approaching earnings season can justify U.S. stocks continuing their climb further into record territory.



Many factors point to a second-quarter earnings season poised to surprise substantially to the upside, with an outside chance that profits for S&P 500 .SPX companies could return to double-digit growth for the first time in nearly three years.



On the heels of Thursday's strong U.S. employment report, some economists have begun talking up prospects for a 4.0 percent annual growth rate in gross domestic product for the April-through-June period, a dramatic snap back from the first quarter's contraction of 2.9 percent.



"It's a strong report that capped off a strong quarter. Everything in the report points to 4 percent growth in the second quarter," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh, referring to the jump in June's nonfarm payrolls.



Analysts polled by Reuters are calling for earnings growth for the second quarter of 6.2 percent, and a return to double digits in the third and fourth quarters: 10.9 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/us-usa-stocks-weekahead-idUSKBN0F82AA20140703">//http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/us-usa-stocks-weekahead-idUSKBN0F82AA20140703

Quote from: "cc li tarte"Actually, the success (or not) of their  leadership does affect it ... mainly on the US side .. as .. bad economy = high US market prices



TSX most ALWAYS follows the DOW trend no matter what economic conditions are here .... so mostly reflects little about what happens  here.

Quotethis is the weakest post recession recovery in it's history. Five years after the recession ended they still have not experienced a whole year of higher growth

QuoteWalmart CEO Says Increased Wages Are Good For Business



On Thursday, Walmart announced that it would raise all employees' base wages to at least $10 an hour by next year as well as increasing pay at other levels.



CEO Doug McMillon may have surveyed the existing research to come to the conclusion that higher pay can increase employee retention and productivity. A recent survey of research from two economists found that raises at major American companies increase productivity and performance, enhance customer service, reduce turnover, and attract better job candidates. One study they looked at even found that more than half the cost of higher wages can be offset through these improvements. A different economist has also found that companies benefit from improved efficiency because they can ask employees to work harder and that higher wages make it easier to recruit and retain workers.



And a recent study of another low-wage industry, fast food, concluded it could absorb a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour through reduced turnover, higher prices, and greater economic growth.



Walmart's sales could increase another way after its workers' wages go up: those workers will have more money to spend on the company's own products. Giving raises to low-income workers in particular tends to pump money directly back into the economy because they spend it, increasing demand by billions. Walmart's workers, even at a higher wage, would still fall into that group.



Walmart isn't the only company wagering that higher pay will bring rewards. Last year, the Gap decided to increase its lowest wages to $10 an hour to attract better job candidates, which has already played out. IKEA also decided to increase average pay to $10.76 an hour. And earlier this year, insurance company Aetna announced that it would raise pay at the bottom of its wage scale to $16 an hour to reduce turnover and and improve performance.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624818/walmart-minimum-wage-sales/">//http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624818/walmart-minimum-wage-sales/

Quote from: "Romero"

QuoteWalmart CEO Says Increased Wages Are Good For Business



On Thursday, Walmart announced that it would raise all employees' base wages to at least $10 an hour by next year as well as increasing pay at other levels.



CEO Doug McMillon may have surveyed the existing research to come to the conclusion that higher pay can increase employee retention and productivity. A recent survey of research from two economists found that raises at major American companies increase productivity and performance, enhance customer service, reduce turnover, and attract better job candidates. One study they looked at even found that more than half the cost of higher wages can be offset through these improvements. A different economist has also found that companies benefit from improved efficiency because they can ask employees to work harder and that higher wages make it easier to recruit and retain workers.



And a recent study of another low-wage industry, fast food, concluded it could absorb a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour through reduced turnover, higher prices, and greater economic growth.



Walmart's sales could increase another way after its workers' wages go up: those workers will have more money to spend on the company's own products. Giving raises to low-income workers in particular tends to pump money directly back into the economy because they spend it, increasing demand by billions. Walmart's workers, even at a higher wage, would still fall into that group.



Walmart isn't the only company wagering that higher pay will bring rewards. Last year, the Gap decided to increase its lowest wages to $10 an hour to attract better job candidates, which has already played out. IKEA also decided to increase average pay to $10.76 an hour. And earlier this year, insurance company Aetna announced that it would raise pay at the bottom of its wage scale to $16 an hour to reduce turnover and and improve performance.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624818/walmart-minimum-wage-sales/">//http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624818/walmart-minimum-wage-sales/

Quote from: "Obvious Li"n their November Wall Street Journal article, writers Chris Cox and Bill Archer explain the lack of knowledge about the unfunded liabilities as:



The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.



Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet.



To be sure, the nation's fiscal problems are a bi-partisan issue, caused by years of buying votes among specific constituencies. As a result, those constituencies are now entitled to the benefits which have yet to be paid for.



Today, while those politicians wrestle with Obama's self-induced sequestration deal, (which slashes defense spending while barely nibbling at the fat that has become the national budget), no one wants to deal with the real issue at hand: Politicians in Washington have enslaved future generations with the costs of various entitlement programs.



Perhaps it's time we raise it to their attention–seriously.

Quote from: "Shen Li"

Quote from: "Obvious Li"n their November Wall Street Journal article, writers Chris Cox and Bill Archer explain the lack of knowledge about the unfunded liabilities as:



The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.



Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet.



To be sure, the nation's fiscal problems are a bi-partisan issue, caused by years of buying votes among specific constituencies. As a result, those constituencies are now entitled to the benefits which have yet to be paid for.



Today, while those politicians wrestle with Obama's self-induced sequestration deal, (which slashes defense spending while barely nibbling at the fat that has become the national budget), no one wants to deal with the real issue at hand: Politicians in Washington have enslaved future generations with the costs of various entitlement programs.



Perhaps it's time we raise it to their attention–seriously.

BTW handsome, we were talking to a couple from the Seattle area about this very thing down in Vegas. He was no fan of Obongo, but he also didn't give the GOP any credit for addressing this issue. Starting around 2020, it will be virtually impossible for any US prez/congress to stop the deficit from growing rapidly without touching unfunded liabilities. We have a similar problem too, but for the US it is mindboggling.

Quote from: "Obvious Li"
i have to agree...the system is now feeding on itself and it really matters naught who is in power...i firmly believe there will be a worldwide collapse of all economies...i cannot see how it can be averted.....some more strident commentators predict it will lead to WW3.....i am not sure........personally i think they should just cancel all debt worldwide and start over at zero.....devalue the currency and get on with it

Quote from: "Obvious Li"

Quote from: "Shen Li"

Quote from: "Obvious Li"n their November Wall Street Journal article, writers Chris Cox and Bill Archer explain the lack of knowledge about the unfunded liabilities as:



The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.



Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet.



To be sure, the nation's fiscal problems are a bi-partisan issue, caused by years of buying votes among specific constituencies. As a result, those constituencies are now entitled to the benefits which have yet to be paid for.



Today, while those politicians wrestle with Obama's self-induced sequestration deal, (which slashes defense spending while barely nibbling at the fat that has become the national budget), no one wants to deal with the real issue at hand: Politicians in Washington have enslaved future generations with the costs of various entitlement programs.



Perhaps it's time we raise it to their attention–seriously.

BTW handsome, we were talking to a couple from the Seattle area about this very thing down in Vegas. He was no fan of Obongo, but he also didn't give the GOP any credit for addressing this issue. Starting around 2020, it will be virtually impossible for any US prez/congress to stop the deficit from growing rapidly without touching unfunded liabilities. We have a similar problem too, but for the US it is mindboggling.

i have to agree...the system is now feeding on itself and it really matters naught who is in power...i firmly believe there will be a worldwide collapse of all economies...i cannot see how it can be averted.....some more strident commentators predict it will lead to WW3.....i am not sure........personally i think they should just cancel all debt worldwide and start over at zero.....devalue the currency and get on with it

QuoteWhy Are We Not Talking About America's $123 Trillion In Unfunded Liabilities?

Quote from: "Obvious Li"some more strident commentators predict it will lead to WW3

QuoteBecause it's a load of garbage and taking away our social programs is a terrible idea.

QuoteIf Social Security, Medicare and retirement benefits are "unfunded liabilities", how can it be that in they've in fact been funded for decades?

QuoteThat's beyond crazy talk. Social Security, Medicare and retirement benefits are going to lead to WWIII?