So far, in 2024, 124,517 employees were laid off from the tech sector.

 

Bidenomics

9 hours ago, retarius said:

Misleading chart. The very low employment engineered from the Trump years in are covered by the Investing.com logo. The surge in unemployment in 2020 as anyone who reads the news knows was caused by COVID lockdowns and furloughs. Biden arrived in Jan 2021, when unemployment had dropped from 15 million plus in 2020 down to 6 million +. Unemployment then returned to normal ie under 4 million gradually over 2021 as furlough folk went back to work. It stayed below 4 million for most of Biden's flawed reign and is now back above 4 million. Show us on the chart where in the Trump years prior prior to the COVID lockdown and furloughs unemployment exceeded 4 million. 

 

Nothing above 4 million in late 2019 - if you click on the 5Y tab you can still see it. 

Harris has just blamed the jarring downtrend in jobs and teetering recession on the orange man.

 

Of course, she wants you to forget about the dozen or so times that the Biden administration had gloated and flag waved when jobs were above 200k pm (which is mediocre as well).

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Might be a good time for you to exit then.

Fully invested, all the time. The tax hit alone  moving money out and back in would destroy the 40+ year 12% average. And I'm sure I'm not smart enough to time the market. No one is.

There are a lot of Yanks in Thailand when I read all the reactions that come to posts from usa, like this and the responses to Trump, they come out of their holes again and go at it.

On 8/2/2024 at 5:25 PM, susanlea said:

Obviously Biden is sleeping while Harris is busy dancing and giggling. Great people not.

 

So long as they're not sleeping with each other....

On 8/3/2024 at 7:12 AM, susanlea said:

The unemployment rate in the United States rose to 4.3% in July of 2024 from 4.1% in the previous month, the highest since October of 2021

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Playing the old political card nonsense again in your subject title?

In the US, the Federal Reserve, independent from the White House, has been pursuing a strategy of keeping interest rates high in order to reduce inflation, even if it means that unemployment may rise as a result. The Fed has forecasted that the unemployment rate could rise to 4.4% in the coming year, which would imply that an additional 1.2 million people could lose their jobs. So this is all in their plans.

So the President can do all this? Nothing to do with Congress? Nothing to do with Intel, Google, Meta, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing... etc, etc being badly run?

8 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

So the President can do all this? Nothing to do with Congress? Nothing to do with Intel, Google, Meta, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing... etc, etc being badly run?

Make up your mind. Biden claimed he created 15m jobs 

On 8/4/2024 at 7:48 AM, gargamon said:

Those corrections are good for the market, unless you're a short term investor. Long term investors know they happen regularly. I was fully invested through black friday, the dot com bubble, Bush's housing crises, etc and still have an average return of around 12% excluding dividends over a 40 year time frame. 

        So true.  Here's my Dad's example.  He retired in 1972 and started to expand his, at the time, fairly modest stock portfolio.   His goal, as he told us 6 kids, was to leave each of us $100,000 when he and my Mom passed on.  The stocks were mostly household names and blue chips.  JNJ, WMT, BAC, AXP, WM, MO, PM, HSY, DEO, GE, PFE, LLY, DIS, BP, LOW, BA, PG, XOM, etc.  Not much tech, except MSFT, INTL, IBM, CSCO, and a few others.

        When Dad died in 2009,  his stock portfolio of about 45 stocks was worth $600, 000, so he had reached his goal.  Mom was still alive, however, so from 2009 to 2019, we kept his stock portfolio intact and the dividends paid for her nursing care, along with the money from selling their house.  Dad had done the buying, we did the 'hold' of 'buy and hold'.  In April 2011, the portfolio value had risen to $746,000.  Microsoft was selling for about $26 a share then, Lilly for around $36.

      In December 2019, when my Mom passed away, the portfolio value  was worth about 1.8 million dollars.  Soon after, covid hit and the portfolio value plummeted.  The estate was going through a very lengthy probate, however, which turned out to be a good thing.  By the time the portfolio was ready to be distributed to us kids, it had mostly recovered and the six of us each received about $300,000 in stocks.  

     So, doing absolutely nothing but holding, the portfolio went, through market ups and downs, from $600,000 in 2009 to $1.8 million in December 2019.   Had the portfolio remained intact, the present value would be $2,266,000, not counting dividends, stock splits, and company spin-offs.  By the way, those two stocks from 2011?  MSFT today, $408 a share.  LLY, $804 a share.

      

13 hours ago, gargamon said:

Fully invested, all the time. The tax hit alone  moving money out and back in would destroy the 40+ year 12% average. And I'm sure I'm not smart enough to time the market. No one is.

 

i've sold 2 houses in canada. both at the market top and my last one within 2 weeks of the exact top. 

 

in the covid bitcoin bull i hit about a 90 percent from the top.

 

however 

 

my first play into markets during the canadian cannabis boom. i cashed out at the top.....then went back in all.

 

i still hold a few stocks that are 99.9 or higher in the red. 

On 8/4/2024 at 3:46 AM, retarius said:

Misleading chart.

what about all the time before the chart started to show how low or high trumps numbers were. the chart was specifically cut off there i imagine. 

14 hours ago, gargamon said:

Fully invested, all the time. The tax hit alone  moving money out and back in would destroy the 40+ year 12% average. And I'm sure I'm not smart enough to time the market. No one is.

 

Well good luck then.

1 hour ago, stoner said:

what about all the time before the chart started to show how low or high trumps numbers were. the chart was specifically cut off there i imagine. 

 

But but but, ya dont mean.....?? 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

But but but, ya dont mean.....?? 

 

are the numbers not important to show an overall picture of what happened ? rather than a small snippet ? 

1 hour ago, newnative said:

        So true.  Here's my Dad's example.  He retired in 1972 and started to expand his, at the time, fairly modest stock portfolio.   His goal, as he told us 6 kids, was to leave each of us $100,000 when he and my Mom passed on.  The stocks were mostly household names and blue chips.  JNJ, WMT, BAC, AXP, WM, MO, PM, HSY, DEO, GE, PFE, LLY, DIS, BP, LOW, BA, PG, XOM, etc.  Not much tech, except MSFT, INTL, IBM, CSCO, and a few others.

        When Dad died in 2009,  his stock portfolio of about 45 stocks was worth $600, 000, so he had reached his goal.  Mom was still alive, however, so from 2009 to 2019, we kept his stock portfolio intact and the dividends paid for her nursing care, along with the money from selling their house.  Dad had done the buying, we did the 'hold' of 'buy and hold'.  In April 2011, the portfolio value had risen to $746,000.  Microsoft was selling for about $26 a share then, Lilly for around $36.

      In December 2019, when my Mom passed away, the portfolio value  was worth about 1.8 million dollars.  Soon after, covid hit and the portfolio value plummeted.  The estate was going through a very lengthy probate, however, which turned out to be a good thing.  By the time the portfolio was ready to be distributed to us kids, it had mostly recovered and the six of us each received about $300,000 in stocks.  

     So, doing absolutely nothing but holding, the portfolio went, through market ups and downs, from $600,000 in 2009 to $1.8 million in December 2019.   Had the portfolio remained intact, the present value would be $2,266,000, not counting dividends, stock splits, and company spin-offs.  By the way, those two stocks from 2011?  MSFT today, $408 a share.  LLY, $804 a share.

      

 

S'pose it all depends on how much time you have.

1 minute ago, stoner said:

 

are the numbers not important to show an overall picture of what happened ? rather than a small snippet ? 

 

Sarky joke. Well done with your selling,

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Sarky joke. Well done with your selling,

 

i got lots of time left at 47. buy buy buy. 

1 minute ago, stoner said:

 

i got lots of time left at 47. buy buy buy. 

 

I wish I had that time. But I have to stay out and see what happens. The world is in an unknown place right now. VIX@42!

4 hours ago, susanlea said:

Make up your mind. Biden claimed he created 15m jobs 

• The economy added more than 14 million jobs. The number is now nearly 4.9 million higher than before the pandemic. From factcheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/01/bidens-numbers-january-2024-update/

The economy added... Not the President...

 

 

Under Trump...

• The economy lost 2.7 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.7 percentage points to 6.4%. Same source... https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/

Same logic, the economy lost 2.7 million jobs, not the President.

 

22 hours ago, TedG said:

So far, in 2024, 124,517 employees were laid off from the tech sector.

 

Nothing to do with badly run companies?

10 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

• The economy added more than 14 million jobs. The number is now nearly 4.9 million higher than before the pandemic. From factcheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/01/bidens-numbers-january-2024-update/

The economy added... Not the President...

 

 

Under Trump...

• The economy lost 2.7 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.7 percentage points to 6.4%. Same source... https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/

Same logic, the economy lost 2.7 million jobs, not the President.

 

Participation rate under Trump was higher.

11 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

The economy added more than 14 million jobs. The number is now nearly 4.9 million higher than before the pandemic. From factcheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/01/bidens-numbers-january-2024-update/

 

I'm just not seeing 4.9 million...

 

More like Zero for native born workers and 4 million added for immigrants.  While adding 10+/- million immigrants...  And net gain of only 2 million total full time jobs.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12500000

 

You can believe the so called "fact checkers", or you can go to the root data.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm just not seeing 4.9 million...

 

More like Zero for native born workers and 4 million added for immigrants.  While adding 10+/- million immigrants...  And net gain of only 2 million total full time jobs.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12500000

 

You can believe the so called "fact checkers", or you can go to the root data.

 

 

 

Biden created part time and casual work. His participation and full time figures are poor for Americans. His inflation figures are terrible. It is sad America has so many Democrat supporting tv networks that lie to Americans.

16 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Biden created part time and casual work. His participation and full time figures are poor for Americans. His inflation figures are terrible. It is sad America has so many Democrat supporting tv networks that lie to Americans.

 

But if you selectively throw out numbers with no context, you can convince the MSM audience that things are ginger peachy keen.  15 million jobs, indeed.

 

Did we not bring in ten million more people? 

 

 

5 hours ago, susanlea said:

Participation rate under Trump was higher.

Oh for goodness sake. 

5 hours ago, impulse said:

You can believe the so called "fact checkers", or you can go to the root data.

 

This is not the root data. 

9 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Oh for goodness sake. 

Well, there's a well thought out response. Why not say what you mean? 

5 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

This is not the root data. 

And fact-checkers are? How do you define root data?