The Trump Economy

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

Clearly ADP is wrong, because THERE'S CONSENSUS!!!!!

[KRC]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/grossly-irresponsible-larry-summers-blasts-ex-fed-presidents-call-to-thwart-trump-in-2020.html?__twitter_impression=true&recirc=taboolainternal

 

Former New York Fed President Bill Dudley’s push for the central bank to consider the 2020 election when crafting monetary policy is “grossly irresponsible” behavior, economist Larry Summers told CNBC on Thursday.

Dudley, in a Wednesday post on Bloomberg, suggested the Federal Reserve could, and should, try to sway the election against President Donald Trump. Dudley urged current central bankers not to lower interest rates further to cover for any negative effects on the U.S. economy that may arise due to the president’s China trade war.

 

“For a former trusted official of the Fed, whose thinking is inevitably going to be tied to the Fed, to recommend that they ... [use] rates so as to subvert the economy and influence a presidential election is grossly irresponsible, and is an abuse of the privilege of being a former Fed official,” said Summers, who formerly was Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and as an economic advisor to President Barack Obama.

Summers, a longtime Trump critic who had been considered by Obama for Fed chief, said that Dudley’s remarks took the discussion “out of the realm of economics” and “into the realm of politics.”

 

Doesn't he know that you don't use the Fed to influence elections? That is why we have the FBI.

[TPS]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/us-nonfarm-payrolls-august-2019.html

 

KEY POINTS

• Nonfarm payrolls increased by just 130,000 in August, in large part to the temporary hiring of Census workers.
• The increase fell short of Wall Street estimates for 150,000, while the unemployment rate stayed at 3.7%, as expected.
• July and June job figures were also revised lower.
• Average hourly earnings increased by 0.4% in August and 3.2% over the year, better than expected.
• Excluding government hiring, private payrolls grew by just 96,000, the lowest pace since February.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/06/stocks-look-to-reclaim-their-all-time-highs-in-the-week-ahead.html?__twitter_impression=true

[TPS]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/06/stocks-look-to-reclaim-their-all-time-highs-in-the-week-ahead.html?__twitter_impression=true

It will depend on what’s tweeted next week...

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

Powell says the Fed is not forecasting or expecting a recession
 

</snip>
 

Speaking during a forum in Zurich, the central bank leader gave mostly positive reviews to where the U.S. stands now, even while much of the rest of the world weakens.
 

“The Fed has through the course of the year seen fit to lower the expected path of interest rates,” he said. “That has supported the economy. That is one of the reasons why the outlook is still a favorable one.”
 

</snip>

[Tiberius]

On 9/3/2019 at 6:42 PM, TPS said:

Yes on their Wal-Mart wages...

Trump's war on immigrants actually highlights a problem with the economy as a whole: 

 

 

Quote

 

There has long been a provision in immigration law designed to weed out applicants for citizenship who are likely to become dependent on the state — to become “public charges,” in officialese. The previous rule focused on whether immigrants made use of public cash assistance, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or required subsidized long-term care. The new rule radically expands the list of programs that legal immigrants can be penalized for using to include food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers, among other things.

 

The inadequacy of many working-class jobs today exposes the cruelty of the rule. If people who use food stamps count as public charges — as burdens on the economy — then lots of hard-working Americans, regardless of citizenship status, fall into that category.

A 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute, for instance, found that, once the elderly are excluded, more than 70 percent of all public safety-net beneficiaries — including those who receive Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid and cash assistance — are working families or individuals, not unemployed people. Nearly half the recipients of such benefits work full time. A 2015 study, by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education, found that the United States spends almost $153 billion every year on benefits for workers, most of them employed full time, and that the people who need government aid to survive include employees of large, profitable corporations such as McDonald’s, Walmart and Amazon (Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post). The study found that about half of fast-food workers, child-care workers and home health aides relied on public benefits — as did a quarter of part-time college faculty members. In New Hampshire, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah and Nebraska, more than 60 percent of all public assistance went to working families, the study found. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-cruel-irony-of-the-newpublic-charge-rule/2019/09/05/37f51896-cf5a-11e9-9031-519885a08a86_story.html

[SoCal Deek]

Tibs, I’m not sure why these basic comments are so difficult for you to grasp. In order to have an ever increasing standard of living there are bound to be people who fill the role of providing fundamental, low skilled services to those who enjoy that higher standard. It’s neither magic or cruel. It’s the natural progression of things. The difference in America is that we’ve attempted to create a system whereby you’re not stuck in a society that dictates your permanent standing as either a service ‘provider’ or a ‘receiver’. So, we collectively provide a free public education and uninhibited mobility across the country. The PROBLEM is that some people appear to have been sleeping in class and want to wallow in their momentary station in life wondering how they got there. The SOLUTION is not to artificially raise the wages at McDonald’s but rather is to encourage people to take more advantage of that same education and mobility.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Trump's war on immigrants actually highlights a problem with the economy as a whole: 

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-cruel-irony-of-the-newpublic-charge-rule/2019/09/05/37f51896-cf5a-11e9-9031-519885a08a86_story.html

From your link:

 

A 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute, for instance, found that, once the elderly are excluded, more than 70 percent of all public safety-net beneficiaries — including those who receive Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid and cash assistance — are working families or individuals, not unemployed people. Nearly half the recipients of such benefits work full time.

 

So, in other words less than or about 35% of the people receiving benefits work full time. That means about 65% of the people receiving benefits don't work full time. Oh, and the elderly are not included in these figures so we are talking about working age people. Sometimes Gleeful Gator, you should just keep quiet. For your own sake.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

A 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute, for instance, found that, once the elderly are excluded, more than 70 percent of all public safety-net beneficiaries — including those who receive Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid and cash assistance — are working families or individuals, not unemployed people. Nearly half the recipients of such benefits work full time.

 

So, in other words less than or about 35% of the people receiving benefits work full time. That means about 65% of the people receiving benefits don't work full time. Oh, and the elderly are not included in these figures so we are talking about working age people. Sometimes Gleeful Gator, you should just keep quiet. For your own sake.

 

Understanding numbers is hard....

[TPS]

22 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

A 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute, for instance, found that, once the elderly are excluded, more than 70 percent of all public safety-net beneficiaries — including those who receive Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid and cash assistance — are working families or individuals, not unemployed people. Nearly half the recipients of such benefits work full time.

 

So, in other words less than or about 35% of the people receiving benefits work full time. That means about 65% of the people receiving benefits don't work full time. Oh, and the elderly are not included in these figures so we are talking about working age people. Sometimes Gleeful Gator, you should just keep quiet. For your own sake.

FYI, based on BLS figures, over 4 million people (2.6% of the labor force) are working part-time because they can't find full-time work.  

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, TPS said:

FYI, based on BLS figures, over 4 million people (2.6% of the labor force) are working part-time because they can't find full-time work.  

Both you and I inherently know that is a meaningless figure. There are so many different factors that are involved in coming to that figure that it doesn't mean jackshit. For example, have they factored in Seattle workers who requested less hours after they got a minimum wage raise to $15 an hour? You know, the ones that lost their freebies because they were making too much. How about the people who claim they'd like to work full time but the part time hours fit their schedule better? You know that there are a myriad of different reasons for a measly 2.6% of the labor force to make those claims. Everywhere I go I see Help Wanted signs and wages are up. Basically anyone that's employable can get 40 hours a week or more one way or the other.

[TPS]

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Both you and I inherently know that is a meaningless figure. There are so many different factors that are involved in coming to that figure that it doesn't mean jackshit. For example, have they factored in Seattle workers who requested less hours after they got a minimum wage raise to $15 an hour? You know, the ones that lost their freebies because they were making too much. How about the people who claim they'd like to work full time but the part time hours fit their schedule better? You know that there are a myriad of different reasons for a measly 2.6% of the labor force to make those claims. Everywhere I go I see Help Wanted signs and wages are up. Basically anyone that's employable can get 40 hours a week or more one way or the other.

So what your saying is that your statement I responded to is meaningless as well?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

So what your saying is that your statement I responded to is meaningless as well?

No, I wasn't even disputing your figures. I simply stated that one has to look "behind" those figures. You know, like understand human nature.

[B-Man]

 

UNEXPECTEDLY? China’s exports fall unexpectedly in August, as trade war continues to slam industrial economy.

Furthermore, the much-reported 3.8 per cent depreciation of the yuan in August failed to stop the decline in exports – despite Washington’s fears that it was being used to give China’s exporters an unfair advantage.

 

It is a far cry from the double-digit expansion that characterised the export machine that powered the Chinese economy for more than two decades.

 

The weak export figures will put further pressure on China’s already slowing economy. The central bank on Friday said it would cut the amount of cash banks must hold as reserves to the lowest level since 2007 in a bid to inject liquidity into the economy and stimulate demand.

 

And that’s with American businesses front-loading their orders from China in the weeks before the new tariffs kicked in.

 

I’d also add that the consumer-driven economy China needs to develop to replace slowing export growth requires a kind of consumer-driven country which Communists have a hard time delivering — and over the long run, an impossible time accommodating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[TPS]

And then there's ....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-09/a-manufacturing-recession-could-cost-trump-a-second-term?srnd=economics-vp

 

[Tiberius]

On 9/8/2019 at 10:51 AM, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

A 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute, for instance, found that, once the elderly are excluded, more than 70 percent of all public safety-net beneficiaries — including those who receive Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid and cash assistance — are working families or individuals, not unemployed people. Nearly half the recipients of such benefits work full time.

 

So, in other words less than or about 35% of the people receiving benefits work full time. That means about 65% of the people receiving benefits don't work full time. Oh, and the elderly are not included in these figures so we are talking about working age people. Sometimes Gleeful Gator, you should just keep quiet. For your own sake.

You actually think you made a point here? 35% is pretty high number for people working full time. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You actually think you made a point here? 35% is pretty high number for people working full time. 

I'd ask you to explain yourself but I'm afraid that your head would explode.

[row_33]

4 hours ago, TPS said:

FYI, based on BLS figures, over 4 million people (2.6% of the labor force) are working part-time because they can't find full-time work.  

 

 

goodness but this factoid has been put through the wringer today 

 

 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'd ask you to explain yourself but I'm afraid that your head would explode.

You never make any sense 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You never make any sense 

Coming from you that's quite reassuring.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Coming from you that's quite reassuring.

No, seriously, you just don't have a point, you just post something and act as if it makes a point when it doesn't. Sad 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Tiberius said:

No, seriously, you just don't have a point, you just post something and act as if it makes a point when it doesn't. Sad 

 

 

Indeed - He/she/it's the Billy Joe Hobert of posters

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, seriously, you just don't have a point, you just post something and act as if it makes a point when it doesn't. Sad 

OK genius, explain what you were trying to say.

[Tiberius]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

OK genius, explain what you were trying to say.

Billy Joe, I'm not wasting my time on you 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Billy Joe, I'm not wasting my time on you 

See, this is why I didn't bother to ask you in the first place. You can't explain your (non) point. Pathetic.

[Tiberius]

[keepthefaith]

On 9/8/2019 at 8:19 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs, I’m not sure why these basic comments are so difficult for you to grasp. In order to have an ever increasing standard of living there are bound to be people who fill the role of providing fundamental, low skilled services to those who enjoy that higher standard. It’s neither magic or cruel. It’s the natural progression of things. The difference in America is that we’ve attempted to create a system whereby you’re not stuck in a society that dictates your permanent standing as either a service ‘provider’ or a ‘receiver’. So, we collectively provide a free public education and uninhibited mobility across the country. The PROBLEM is that some people appear to have been sleeping in class and want to wallow in their momentary station in life wondering how they got there. The SOLUTION is not to artificially raise the wages at McDonald’s but rather is to encourage people to take more advantage of that same education and mobility.

 

Somewhat anecdotal and a small sample but this is typical.

 

We just posted a $15/hr operations job on indeed for a week.  Got 110+ resumes.  I looked at all of them, many of them twice.  I'd say that almost 50% of the people are what I'd consider unemployable based on having a recent history of 5+ jobs with an average time in those jobs of 6 months each.  These are people with decent experience but their track record of not being able to stay in a job likely makes them a negative candidate for nearly every employer.  The quality of the resume's overall (how the resume was written) was pretty bad even when lowering expectations for a lower paid job.  Easily 30 of them terrible.  There is a field within the indeed app for applicants to basically sell themselves, write something that makes them a good candidate.  Almost nobody entered anything into that field.  Of the rest of the applicants, about 15 were contacted by phone or email, 5 or so of those never responded.  Of the remaining 10 or so, 6 agreed to an in-person interview after a phone conversation.  2 of those never showed for the interview, didn't call to cancel or re-schedule and didn't respond to follow up calls.  Of the 4 that were interviewed, only 1 sent a note after the interview thanking, etc...  This is all from the past 2 weeks. 

 

The company is in an area outside of Chicago that isn't poor.  It's economically diverse with affluent, middle and lower income people .   This is what the bottom of the economy looks like.  It's filled with people with poor skills, poor work habits/ethics/integrity and very poor job seeking skills.   It's people who rarely do their best.  It's people who put a very low priority on their career.  This population doesn't get described in statistics and in my view it's a big piece.   

Edited September 9, 2019 by keepthefaith

[bbb]

2 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Somewhat anecdotal and a small sample but this is typical.

 

We just posted a $15/hr operations job on indeed for a week.  Got 110+ resumes.  I looked at all of them, many of them twice.  I'd say that almost 50% of the people are what I'd consider unemployable based on having a recent history of 5+ jobs with an average time in those jobs of 6 months each.  These are people with decent experience but their track record of not being able to stay in a job likely makes them a negative candidate for nearly every employer.  The quality of the resume's overall (how the resume was written) was pretty bad even when lowering expectations for a lower paid job.  Easily 30 of them terrible.  There is a field within the indeed app for applicants to basically sell themselves, write something that makes them a good candidate.  Almost nobody entered anything into that field.  Of the rest of the applicants, about 15 were contacted by phone or email, 5 or so of those never responded.  Of the remaining 10 or so, 6 agreed to an in-person interview after a phone conversation.  2 of those never showed for the interview, didn't call to cancel or re-schedule and didn't respond to follow up calls.  Of the 4 that were interviewed, only 1 sent a note after the interview thanking, etc...  This is all from the past 2 weeks. 

 

The company is in an area outside of Chicago that isn't poor.  It's economically diverse with affluent, middle and lower income people .   This is what the bottom of the economy looks like.  It's filled with people with poor skills, poor work habits/ethics/integrity and very poor job seeking skills.   It's people who rarely do their best.  It's people who put a very low priority on their career.  This population doesn't get described in statistics and in my view it's a big piece.   

 

This is my experience in the very little hiring I do, but my friends who do a lot of hiring are seeing the bottom of the economy, as you call it.  

 

It seems that low unemployment isn't all great!  

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

This is my experience in the very little hiring I do, but my friends who do a lot of hiring are seeing the bottom of the economy, as you call it.  

 

It seems that low unemployment isn't all great!  

 

zero unemployment was a silly notion of the left, at least a few percent are there because they want to be for the moment, along with the terminally unemployable

 

nice of people to declare that events at their company dictate the entire economy of the country, when will they ever learn? 

 

 

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Somewhat anecdotal and a small sample but this is typical.

 

We just posted a $15/hr operations job on indeed for a week.  Got 110+ resumes.  I looked at all of them, many of them twice.  I'd say that almost 50% of the people are what I'd consider unemployable based on having a recent history of 5+ jobs with an average time in those jobs of 6 months each.  These are people with decent experience but their track record of not being able to stay in a job likely makes them a negative candidate for nearly every employer.  The quality of the resume's overall (how the resume was written) was pretty bad even when lowering expectations for a lower paid job.  Easily 30 of them terrible.  There is a field within the indeed app for applicants to basically sell themselves, write something that makes them a good candidate.  Almost nobody entered anything into that field.  Of the rest of the applicants, about 15 were contacted by phone or email, 5 or so of those never responded.  Of the remaining 10 or so, 6 agreed to an in-person interview after a phone conversation.  2 of those never showed for the interview, didn't call to cancel or re-schedule and didn't respond to follow up calls.  Of the 4 that were interviewed, only 1 sent a note after the interview thanking, etc...  This is all from the past 2 weeks. 

 

The company is in an area outside of Chicago that isn't poor.  It's economically diverse with affluent, middle and lower income people .   This is what the bottom of the economy looks like.  It's filled with people with poor skills, poor work habits/ethics/integrity and very poor job seeking skills.   It's people who rarely do their best.  It's people who put a very low priority on their career.  This population doesn't get described in statistics and in my view it's a big piece.   

  I take it the 6 month interval is for reasons other than being contract hires?  The last job I worked at before I became self-employed I learned the hard way all the out clauses that my employer held that worked in their favor.  I got let go not because of my performance or personal issues but the company was fully restructuring and decided to trim the work force.  My counterparts at two other offices in North America got let go on the same day so that took some of the sting out.  The bottom line was that it was hard to put down on any applications the reasons for the early dismissal when the former employer will not provide any verification other than dates worked.  

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

Indeed - He/she/it's the Billy Joe Hobert of posters

 

Hey now, just because he didn't bother to read the playbook that one time...

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  I take it the 6 month interval is for reasons other than being contract hires?  The last job I worked at before I became self-employed I learned the hard way all the out clauses that my employer held that worked in their favor.  I got let go not because of my performance or personal issues but the company was fully restructuring and decided to trim the work force.  My counterparts at two other offices in North America got let go on the same day so that took some of the sting out.  The bottom line was that it was hard to put down on any applications the reasons for the early dismissal when the former employer will not provide any verification other than dates worked.  

 

Maybe some of the positions were temp jobs and if that's the case people should indicate that is was temp or a contractor position.  A bunch of these particular applicants all have the same few distribution companies in their history and we're aware that those companies either don't make the contractors full hires if they don't like them or they cut the dead wood.  Either way the series of several short term job stints is a huge red flag.  We've hired some of those folks and it usually doesn't take long after they're hired to see why they can't stay employed.  They crash and burn on the very basics of doing a good job and we're pretty patient and understanding with people and won't fire as a knee jerk reaction like some companies. 

 

It's too costly for a company to hire and fire rapidly.   In Illinois I believe someone only has to be employed for 30 days for that employer to be charged for unemployment benefits.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by keepthefaith

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Maybe some of the positions were temp jobs and if that's the case people should indicate that is was temp or a contractor position.  A bunch of these particular applicants all have the same few distribution companies in their history and we're aware that those companies either don't make the contractors full hires if they don't like them or they cut the dead wood.  Either way the series of several short term job stints is a huge red flag.  We've hired some of those folks and it usually doesn't take long after they're hired to see why they can't stay employed.  They crash and burn on the very basics of doing a good job and we're pretty patient and understanding with people and won't fire as a knee jerk reaction like some companies. 

 

It's too costly for a company to hire and fire rapidly.   In Illinois I believe someone only has to be employed for 30 days for that employer to be charged for unemployment benefits.

 

Point is the political left wants to demonize employers that cut heads or don't offer better wages when there is significant portion of the workforce which frankly isn't worth the better wage or even a job given their lousy effort. 

  In my case none of the employees were temps or hired on that basis.  Also, I want to make sure that you understand that contract hire in this case does not mean being a contractor in the sense of being an independent salesperson.  Specifically, I was hired to receive and warehouse whole goods then arrange their transfer to dealers and distributors.  My job was on the employer location with infrequent duty as far as setups for trade shows and demo events.  All the contract hires at my branch were for 5 years.  I was gone slightly after 2 years.  My former boss called me to let me know he was not in the know the same day I was cut loose.  I was making 17 dollars per hour plus incentives and had 5 weeks vacation per year built up by then plus paid 2 week holiday shut down for Christmas and New Year's.  The new person came in for 11.50 per hour and none of the extra's.  That location was closed 2 years after I was let go.  I understand the need for scrutiny when a person has a series of short stints on their resume but at the same time most people are paycheck to paycheck.  Sometimes you have to eat crap to pay the bills and I did that with another employer.  

[GG]

5 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Somewhat anecdotal and a small sample but this is typical.

 

...

 

  This is what the bottom of the economy looks like.  It's filled with people with poor skills, poor work habits/ethics/integrity and very poor job seeking skills.   It's people who rarely do their best.  It's people who put a very low priority on their career.  This population doesn't get described in statistics and in my view it's a big piece.   

 

This population shows up in the statistics as the part timers who can’t get a full time job.

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  In my case none of the employees were temps or hired on that basis.  Also, I want to make sure that you understand that contract hire in this case does not mean being a contractor in the sense of being an independent salesperson.  Specifically, I was hired to receive and warehouse whole goods then arrange their transfer to dealers and distributors.  My job was on the employer location with infrequent duty as far as setups for trade shows and demo events.  All the contract hires at my branch were for 5 years.  I was gone slightly after 2 years.  My former boss called me to let me know he was not in the know the same day I was cut loose.  I was making 17 dollars per hour plus incentives and had 5 weeks vacation per year built up by then plus paid 2 week holiday shut down for Christmas and New Year's.  The new person came in for 11.50 per hour and none of the extra's.  That location was closed 2 years after I was let go.  I understand the need for scrutiny when a person has a series of short stints on their resume but at the same time most people are paycheck to paycheck.  Sometimes you have to eat crap to pay the bills and I did that with another employer.  

 

If that company location closed thereafter then it seems like you were a casualty of cost cutting in a company that had a losing operation.  The folks I'm talking about literally show a different job every year or less.  In their cases there is likely a performance issue.  Today though we found a great candidate. 

 

Hopefully you're in a better place now.  If not invest some time in yourself and prepare for and look for a better opportunity.  It's rarely been easier to get hired in many parts of the country than it is now.  It won't happen all by itself though. 

[SoCal Deek]

15 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

This is what the bottom of the economy looks like.  It's filled with people with poor skills, poor work habits/ethics/integrity and very poor job seeking skills.   It's people who rarely do their best.  It's people who put a very low priority on their career.  This population doesn't get described in statistics and in my view it's a big piece.   

This is very much to my point. If you assume that the people who applied are American citizens then they’re all the product of a free public education and by definition should not be unemployable. What we’re experiencing is a total breakdown of the education system. Those bottom High School graduates are simply not being prepared for the work force. Yet ‘Big Education’ keeps churning out this horrific product year after year with no pushback from anyone. Instead this unemployable mass is demanding a pay raise!

[ALF]

Ford debt has been downgraded to junk

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/business/ford-downgrade-junk/index.html

 

hmmm

[B-Man]

 

 

US household income finally matches 1999 peak, while poverty rate hits lowest point since 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

they are afraid to push into 26,900 territory