The Obama Economy

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bilk22

There's no debating that the 8.5% value in the fourth quarter of 2007 (prior to the recession) is better than the 11.2% seen in December 2014. As I stated (and you quoted) in my post:

I'm not saying that the recovery has been anything to write home about — everyone is familiar with the shifts in the types of employment — but lets not cherry pick.

Which of the measures of unemployment do you think Mitt Romney was referring to in this statement from his campaign page:

"We project the unemployment rate to be about 5.9 percent by the end of his first term in office"

It's actually impossible to tell but I think we can safely assume it was something middle of the road like the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the BLS puts on the first page of unemployment statistics. In either case, Obama didn't actually meet the Romney promise (not in his first term) but then again we don't know what the numbers would have been under Romney either.

I think we're on the same page. I just think it's very disingenuous by some here to paint a rosy picture of the economy. If anything, it's teetering on the razors edge and can fall precipitously should something rattle it in any way.

Some what to cite the stock market as a measure of success. It's a false measure of success and rather a measure of uncertainty as investors have no confidence of placing their investments in anything else. It also shows how week the rest of the global economies truly are. The US is actually considered a safe haven, comparatively. So the US broad markets moved up significantly, but this is going to change with the Fed abandoning QE.

Look, I own a small business and my wife works. If the economy wasn't improving or had improved, she wouldn't have a job and I wouldn't have any clients. I don't really care about the numbers being posted, some of them can be twisted to fit any agenda. The real world economy is what I look at. When it's down, crime goes up in my community, houses foreclose, I don't make any money in my business, and my wife doesn't work. It's really that simple.

The truth is that the economy tanked under Bush, perhaps not even his fault, since it was a global recession and it's improved under Obama. That's truth, right there brother. I'm living proof.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: neo96



see: ..Indigo5 stated:
"Mitt Romney promised by the end of his first term (December 2016) he would achieve... )

~~ reality being that IF Romney were elected back in his nomination cycle... his 1st term would have ended in 2012 !!!!
not 2016, as your spin wrongfully tells us



thanks for the balancing list of items there, Mr. neo96

Mitt Romney made the statement while running for President 2012...which means his first term would have ended in 2016.
www.nationalreview.com...

12+4=16

This really is bizzaro world where you guys deny reality and basic math and star eachother for it....gotta love the right wing of ATS.[

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bilk22

There's no debating that the 8.5% value in the fourth quarter of 2007 (prior to the recession) is better than the 11.2% seen in December 2014. As I stated (and you quoted) in my post:

I'm not saying that the recovery has been anything to write home about — everyone is familiar with the shifts in the types of employment — but lets not cherry pick.

Which of the measures of unemployment do you think Mitt Romney was referring to in this statement from his campaign page:

"We project the unemployment rate to be about 5.9 percent by the end of his first term in office"

It's actually impossible to tell but I think we can safely assume it was something middle of the road like the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the BLS puts on the first page of unemployment statistics. In either case, Obama didn't actually meet the Romney promise (not in his first term) but then again we don't know what the numbers would have been under Romney either.

I think we're on the same page. I just think it's very disingenuous by some here to paint a rosy picture of the economy. If anything, it's teetering on the razors edge and can fall precipitously should something rattle it in any way.

Some what to cite the stock market as a measure of success. It's a false measure of success and rather a measure of uncertainty as investors have no confidence of placing their investments in anything else. It also shows how week the rest of the global economies truly are. The US is actually considered a safe haven, comparatively. So the US broad markets moved up significantly, but this is going to change with the Fed abandoning QE.

Look, I own a small business and my wife works. If the economy wasn't improving or had improved, she wouldn't have a job and I wouldn't have any clients. I don't really care about the numbers being posted, some of them can be twisted to fit any agenda. The real world economy is what I look at. When it's down, crime goes up in my community, houses foreclose, I don't make any money in my business, and my wife doesn't work. It's really that simple.

The truth is that the economy tanked under Bush, perhaps not even his fault, since it was a global recession and it's improved under Obama. That's truth, right there brother. I'm living proof.

So do you think this is a healthy economy or an economy living on the edge? Do you see growth or numbers that just pay the bills? Can you hire more people because your business is growing? And how confident do you feel things will support new hires in the future?

The Obama Economy

Purdy good I think, with the price of gas dropping my roll of quarters will go a lot futher this week. That's "change" I can believe in.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bilk22

There's no debating that the 8.5% value in the fourth quarter of 2007 (prior to the recession) is better than the 11.2% seen in December 2014. As I stated (and you quoted) in my post:

I'm not saying that the recovery has been anything to write home about — everyone is familiar with the shifts in the types of employment — but lets not cherry pick.

Which of the measures of unemployment do you think Mitt Romney was referring to in this statement from his campaign page:

"We project the unemployment rate to be about 5.9 percent by the end of his first term in office"

It's actually impossible to tell but I think we can safely assume it was something middle of the road like the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the BLS puts on the first page of unemployment statistics. In either case, Obama didn't actually meet the Romney promise (not in his first term) but then again we don't know what the numbers would have been under Romney either.

I think we're on the same page. I just think it's very disingenuous by some here to paint a rosy picture of the economy. If anything, it's teetering on the razors edge and can fall precipitously should something rattle it in any way.

Some what to cite the stock market as a measure of success. It's a false measure of success and rather a measure of uncertainty as investors have no confidence of placing their investments in anything else. It also shows how week the rest of the global economies truly are. The US is actually considered a safe haven, comparatively. So the US broad markets moved up significantly, but this is going to change with the Fed abandoning QE.

Look, I own a small business and my wife works. If the economy wasn't improving or had improved, she wouldn't have a job and I wouldn't have any clients. I don't really care about the numbers being posted, some of them can be twisted to fit any agenda. The real world economy is what I look at. When it's down, crime goes up in my community, houses foreclose, I don't make any money in my business, and my wife doesn't work. It's really that simple.

The truth is that the economy tanked under Bush, perhaps not even his fault, since it was a global recession and it's improved under Obama. That's truth, right there brother. I'm living proof.

So do you think this is a healthy economy or an economy living on the edge? Do you see growth or numbers that just pay the bills? Can you hire more people because your business is growing? And how confident do you feel things will support new hires in the future?

It's not great but it shows steady growth, by the numbers. My clients are still coming in and my forecast for this year is pretty good. I could hire someone this year if my sales increase. Again, it's not a great economy, but part of that is out of Americans' control...such as how does Russia's economy effect ours this year, will the reduction in Fracking profits effect job growth this year? I'm in Vegas as well,...all that means is that when the national economy is down overall so goes Vegas as it's got a high percentage of Tourism Jobs...Vegas is doing really well right now. That's another key indicator, that can't be twisted to fit either a left, right or other type of Agenda.

All this means is...under Obama, the economy improved from a devestating recession that he did not cause. He did really well with the Economy. I don't think either McCain or Romney could have done as well and those were the alternative choices. That's just truth right there. What happens this year is a mystery..of course...that's in the future. Right now life is good.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Any chart or graph that does not show its math on either side, is propaganda. They have changed the formula so many times no two pieces of data are apples to apples. There is no factual argument to be had here, it's all disinformation and zealotry.

This looks pretty real and the way the data is collected and the parameters haven't changed.

????

Did you just drop a flat, arbitrary line across all three unemployment measures..Spanning 20 years...and declare it "Real" Unemployment?

Now you are just being funny? Or desperate?...I'll give you funny..

Do you know how to read a chart. I'll help. They read left to right and from bottom to top. The terminus at the right is where the red line I drew, meets the plotted data. That is pretty much at 11%. Hope that helps.

You do realize that chart is not some guy drawing lines? Like you did? There are actual formula's and data involved. Otherwise anyone could just draw lines?? can't believe I am explaining this? And spanning 20 years? You do realize the current President hasn't been in office for 20 years?

You've proven you really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's pick the numbers that you believe sell your flawed argument the best.

Table A-15

You keep scrounging around for some different measure to suit your ideological needs and every new link actually supports my OP.

At first I thought you were kidding, but I am now thinking you don't know what you are looking at?

Your link above shows U1,U2,U3,U4,U5 and U6 unemployment...and your own link shows ALL of them falling (getting lower)...which is good with an unemployment measure BTW.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bilk22

There's no debating that the 8.5% value in the fourth quarter of 2007 (prior to the recession) is better than the 11.2% seen in December 2014. As I stated (and you quoted) in my post:

I'm not saying that the recovery has been anything to write home about — everyone is familiar with the shifts in the types of employment — but lets not cherry pick.

Which of the measures of unemployment do you think Mitt Romney was referring to in this statement from his campaign page:

"We project the unemployment rate to be about 5.9 percent by the end of his first term in office"

It's actually impossible to tell but I think we can safely assume it was something middle of the road like the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the BLS puts on the first page of unemployment statistics. In either case, Obama didn't actually meet the Romney promise (not in his first term) but then again we don't know what the numbers would have been under Romney either.

I think we're on the same page. I just think it's very disingenuous by some here to paint a rosy picture of the economy. If anything, it's teetering on the razors edge and can fall precipitously should something rattle it in any way.

Some what to cite the stock market as a measure of success. It's a false measure of success and rather a measure of uncertainty as investors have no confidence of placing their investments in anything else. It also shows how week the rest of the global economies truly are. The US is actually considered a safe haven, comparatively. So the US broad markets moved up significantly, but this is going to change with the Fed abandoning QE.

Look, I own a small business and my wife works. If the economy wasn't improving or had improved, she wouldn't have a job and I wouldn't have any clients. I don't really care about the numbers being posted, some of them can be twisted to fit any agenda. The real world economy is what I look at. When it's down, crime goes up in my community, houses foreclose, I don't make any money in my business, and my wife doesn't work. It's really that simple.

The truth is that the economy tanked under Bush, perhaps not even his fault, since it was a global recession and it's improved under Obama. That's truth, right there brother. I'm living proof.

So do you think this is a healthy economy or an economy living on the edge? Do you see growth or numbers that just pay the bills? Can you hire more people because your business is growing? And how confident do you feel things will support new hires in the future?

It's not great but it shows steady growth, by the numbers. My clients are still coming in and my forecast for this year is pretty good. I could hire someone this year if my sales increase. Again, it's not a great economy, but part of that is out of Americans' control...such as how does Russia's economy effect ours this year, will the reduction in Fracking profits effect job growth this year? I'm in Vegas as well,...all that means is that when the national economy is down overall so goes Vegas as it's got a high percentage of Tourism Jobs...Vegas is doing really well right now. That's another key indicator, that can't be twisted to fit either a left, right or other type of Agenda.

All this means is...under Obama, the economy improved from a devestating recession that he did not cause. He did really well with the Economy. I don't think either McCain or Romney could have done as well and those were the alternative choices. That's just truth right there. What happens this year is a mystery..of course...that's in the future. Right now life is good.

I don't disagree with McCain. Romney I think would have done much better, but for argument's sake I'll agree right now. So if you don't mind, point to exactly what Obama did to bolster the economy. List initiatives, etc.

By the way, I know you feel Vegas is doing fine, but others have a much different opinion about that. I was just reading about AC and how the casino industry lost half it's revenue over the last 8 years. Vegas is in the same boat. Vegas has the second highest unemployment in the nation for a large city. But I guess it's all a matter of perspective?

Las Vegas made a big, bad bet on casinos


And, unfortunately unless you solve your water problem, it's returning to a ghost town.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Any chart or graph that does not show its math on either side, is propaganda. They have changed the formula so many times no two pieces of data are apples to apples. There is no factual argument to be had here, it's all disinformation and zealotry.

This looks pretty real and the way the data is collected and the parameters haven't changed.

????

Did you just drop a flat, arbitrary line across all three unemployment measures..Spanning 20 years...and declare it "Real" Unemployment?

Now you are just being funny? Or desperate?...I'll give you funny..

Do you know how to read a chart. I'll help. They read left to right and from bottom to top. The terminus at the right is where the red line I drew, meets the plotted data. That is pretty much at 11%. Hope that helps.

You do realize that chart is not some guy drawing lines? Like you did? There are actual formula's and data involved. Otherwise anyone could just draw lines?? can't believe I am explaining this? And spanning 20 years? You do realize the current President hasn't been in office for 20 years?

You've proven you really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's pick the numbers that you believe sell your flawed argument the best.

Table A-15

You keep scrounging around for some different measure to suit your ideological needs and every new link actually supports my OP.

At first I thought you were kidding, but I am now thinking you don't know what you are looking at?

Your link above shows U1,U2,U3,U4,U5 and U6 unemployment...and your own link shows ALL of them falling (getting lower)...which is good with an unemployment measure BTW.

If they weren't falling, as you put it, we'd really be screwed. I posted the government data so you could cherry pick what you like. They also explain what each metric measures so you have an understanding.

Now large numbers of people will be working less than 29 hours a week so companies are not responsible for insurance. What a great plan for the country.

a reply to: Bilk22

I don't see circumstances improving significantly in the long-term regardless of who is in political power. Not only are both parties lacking viable strategies — I've yet to see any (outward) evidence that the economic policy makers within either party have any intention of addressing the actual issues. In my opinion, the conversation should be focusing on global wage equalization and the shift from labor income to capital income.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bilk22

I don't see circumstances improving significantly in the long-term regardless of who is in political power. Not only are both parties lacking viable strategies — I've yet to see any (outward) evidence that the economic policy makers within either party have any intention of addressing the actual issues. In my opinion, the conversation should be focusing on global wage equalization and the shift from labor income to capital income.

Agree that neither party is or has done a thing to help. We gave all that money to the banks to save their azzes and they have held it back. They've instead put it at risk again rather than putting into the economy.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Any chart or graph that does not show its math on either side, is propaganda. They have changed the formula so many times no two pieces of data are apples to apples. There is no factual argument to be had here, it's all disinformation and zealotry.

This looks pretty real and the way the data is collected and the parameters haven't changed.

????

Did you just drop a flat, arbitrary line across all three unemployment measures..Spanning 20 years...and declare it "Real" Unemployment?

Now you are just being funny? Or desperate?...I'll give you funny..

Do you know how to read a chart. I'll help. They read left to right and from bottom to top. The terminus at the right is where the red line I drew, meets the plotted data. That is pretty much at 11%. Hope that helps.

You do realize that chart is not some guy drawing lines? Like you did? There are actual formula's and data involved. Otherwise anyone could just draw lines?? can't believe I am explaining this? And spanning 20 years? You do realize the current President hasn't been in office for 20 years?

You've proven you really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's pick the numbers that you believe sell your flawed argument the best.

Table A-15

You keep scrounging around for some different measure to suit your ideological needs and every new link actually supports my OP.

At first I thought you were kidding, but I am now thinking you don't know what you are looking at?

Your link above shows U1,U2,U3,U4,U5 and U6 unemployment...and your own link shows ALL of them falling (getting lower)...which is good with an unemployment measure BTW.

If they weren't falling, as you put it, we'd really be screwed. I posted the government data so you could cherry pick what you like. They also explain what each metric measures so you have an understanding.

No offense, but I don't think you understand the phrase "Cherry Pick"...unemployment has fallen significantly by every single (ever desperately changing) metric you have provided. No "cherry picking" required....to the extent where you have demonstrated that there are no cherries left amongst the data for you yourself to pick, as you have tried repeatedly on this thread only to further the truth...wait for it...unemployment is down and more so than even the GOP Candidates of 2012 had promised to deliver. That is just the truth of it.

a reply to: amazing

I'm happy you're doing well but you are far from the majority!

I own a small business and my wife works as well. Things are not as rosy as you paint them.

Every business owner I know is struggling trying to stay alive. The regulations this administration has put on small businesses is crippling. I wont bother you with all the places that have shut down or are laying people off in mass numbers, but it's eye opening and not a regional thing. Union workers and non union workers have taken a huge blow across the Nation. If you honestly think things are going good, you must be only focusing on you immediate area.

I'm no fan of Obama, just like I'm no fan of the last few administrations, but I can tell you this, we're in for major trouble if things don't change and fast.

I've planned on creating a thread on the costs of doing business, the rules and regulations I have to comply with and the apathy/entitlement attitudes of the average worker. I'll start working on that thread tonight, as to not derail this one.

Again, I'm happy you're doing well, but you are a rarity!

It kills me. Some folks (a lot of folks) simply will not accept that Obama has accomplished a damn thing, even when the record is staring them in the face. It really pisses them off that he’s had a successful run DESPITE the fact that Republicans have tried to block him at every turn. If you want to see the unemployment rate go down, guys, then bring Obama’s jobs act to the floor and pass it! There’s plenty of work to be done if you guys would just get off your butts and do something in Congress besides shut the government down, threaten to not pay our financial obligations and go on recess. I think it really tics the Republicans off that Obama has out-smarted them.

Actually I’m astonished that Obama has done so well considering the nightmare that George Dubya left him with. And to think, many here would like to revisit the good ol’ days of Bush/Cheney. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Republicans nominate Ted Nugent for President in 2016. He couldn’t be any worse than the rest of the foaming-at-the-mouth, evangelical, lunatic fringe that currently plan to run.

I think it’s obvious why Republicans hate Obama so much, but I’ll keep that one to myself...

PS: Sure, there is still much to be done. If only Congress would chip in and offer some help maybe it would go a little faster.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SpaDe_

As far as taking credit for the GDP increase, why don't we wait for January 30 when the 4th quarter numbers get released before we get all excited about the "growth".

Right..wait for January numbers before declaring a trend! Ignore the last 60 months! The GOP CHEERING FOR THE US ECONOMY TO FAIL

I see your chart and raise you

Link

You are not using a very honest chart to show the actual unemployment in this country. This is a U6 chart do you know what a U6 chart is? It counts part time workers as unemployed.
This augments U5 by including part-time workers to the unemployment rate calculation. The addition of part-time workers adds a full 2-3 percentage points to the official unemployment rate. This measure of unemployment is perhaps the most comprehensive measure of labor resource unemployment available. - See more at: portalseven.com...
Unemployed means you do not have a job. If you are working part time then you have a job and you are not unemployed.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Any chart or graph that does not show its math on either side, is propaganda. They have changed the formula so many times no two pieces of data are apples to apples. There is no factual argument to be had here, it's all disinformation and zealotry.

This looks pretty real and the way the data is collected and the parameters haven't changed.

????

Did you just drop a flat, arbitrary line across all three unemployment measures..Spanning 20 years...and declare it "Real" Unemployment?

Now you are just being funny? Or desperate?...I'll give you funny..

Do you know how to read a chart. I'll help. They read left to right and from bottom to top. The terminus at the right is where the red line I drew, meets the plotted data. That is pretty much at 11%. Hope that helps.

You do realize that chart is not some guy drawing lines? Like you did? There are actual formula's and data involved. Otherwise anyone could just draw lines?? can't believe I am explaining this? And spanning 20 years? You do realize the current President hasn't been in office for 20 years?

You've proven you really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's pick the numbers that you believe sell your flawed argument the best.

Table A-15

You keep scrounging around for some different measure to suit your ideological needs and every new link actually supports my OP.

At first I thought you were kidding, but I am now thinking you don't know what you are looking at?

Your link above shows U1,U2,U3,U4,U5 and U6 unemployment...and your own link shows ALL of them falling (getting lower)...which is good with an unemployment measure BTW.

If they weren't falling, as you put it, we'd really be screwed. I posted the government data so you could cherry pick what you like. They also explain what each metric measures so you have an understanding.

No offense, but I don't think you understand the phrase "Cherry Pick"...unemployment has fallen significantly by every single (ever desperately changing) metric you have provided. No "cherry picking" required....to the extent where you have demonstrated that there are no cherries left amongst the data for you yourself to pick, as you have tried repeatedly on this thread only to further the truth...wait for it...unemployment is down and more so than even the GOP Candidates of 2012 had promised to deliver. That is just the truth of it.

You can make all the claims you want, but they don't change the hard data. If you're happy that the unemployment rate went down based on low wage jobs, well good for you.


You might want to look at this report. I don't know the political affiliation, if any, of this organization, however they see the same problem many do - jobs, meaningful wage jobs, have not grown as they should and these are the jobs that drive a healthy economy. These are the jobs that provide the disposable income that move the economy.


The Low-Wage Recovery:
Industry Employment and Wages Four Years into the Recovery

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SpaDe_

As far as taking credit for the GDP increase, why don't we wait for January 30 when the 4th quarter numbers get released before we get all excited about the "growth".

Right..wait for January numbers before declaring a trend! Ignore the last 60 months! The GOP CHEERING FOR THE US ECONOMY TO FAIL

I see your chart and raise you

Link

You are not using a very honest chart to show the actual unemployment in this country. This is a U6 chart do you know what a U6 chart is? It counts part time workers as unemployed.
This augments U5 by including part-time workers to the unemployment rate calculation. The addition of part-time workers adds a full 2-3 percentage points to the official unemployment rate. This measure of unemployment is perhaps the most comprehensive measure of labor resource unemployment available. - See more at: portalseven.com...
Unemployed means you do not have a job. If you are working part time then you have a job and you are not unemployed.

I know exactly what it "counts". It is meaningful information to know how many people are taking jobs below their skill level just to help stay afloat. It also "counts" people who have been discouraged from finding meaningful employment. You don't think that's relevant information to judge whether or not the economy is healthy? You don't think it's a better metric than simply saying "x" about of jobs were "gained", not knowing if they're real jobs that pay mortgages, pay for big ticket items such as cars and still allow people to save? You just want to know that Bob, who used to work at XYZ as a manager is now working at Home Depot stocking shelves for 29.5 hrs/ week and he's two months behind on his mortgage payments? Is that all you need to know?

Obama: Great President or Greatest President?

originally posted by: TheArrow
Obama: Great President or Greatest President?

Obama: Great for Precedent.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: amazing

I'm happy you're doing well but you are far from the majority!

I own a small business and my wife works as well. Things are not as rosy as you paint them.

Every business owner I know is struggling trying to stay alive. The regulations this administration has put on small businesses is crippling. I wont bother you with all the places that have shut down or are laying people off in mass numbers, but it's eye opening and not a regional thing. Union workers and non union workers have taken a huge blow across the Nation. If you honestly think things are going good, you must be only focusing on you immediate area.

I'm no fan of Obama, just like I'm no fan of the last few administrations, but I can tell you this, we're in for major trouble if things don't change and fast.

I've planned on creating a thread on the costs of doing business, the rules and regulations I have to comply with and the apathy/entitlement attitudes of the average worker. I'll start working on that thread tonight, as to not derail this one.

Again, I'm happy you're doing well, but you are a rarity!

I'll agree that not everyone is doing good and not everything good is due to Obama, of course.

However, many fellow business owners are doing well, there are no foreclosures in my neighborhood, the empty store fronts are slowly filling up. But, the only point, is that the economy is improving and has been steadily since Obama took office. Why, I don't know, but it is, in most areas. I'm not saying that all people are well off or we don't have a lot more work to do, I think, though, that you are the rarity, in that you're struggling. Most people I know, in multiple states in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest, California, and East Coast are doing well...that includes friends, relatives and fellow business associates. So....what does that mean? If 80% of everyone I know is thriving in this economy. In multiple states across the entire united states...It must mean that the economy is doing well?