Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (353637)	10/4/2007 2:42:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577920

Again your attacking an argument that I'm not making. A lot of those things can be indicators of economic growth, none of them are perfect proxies for it. As for high paying jobs I said nothing about them not being an indicator of growth, they would certainly be a better indicator than federal revenues (which wouldn't even be a great indicator if the tax laws didn't change, and which becomes a poor indicator when you have tax cuts or increases). My point is that high paying jobs have increased in number, not decreased. The best indicators are probably real GDP, and real GDP per capita. Increases in those are direct representations of economic growth (with the later obviously being per capita growth). They aren't perfect either, because the data going in to the calculations isn't and can't be perfect, but obvious some unusually strong fault in a particular series of data those would be the best stats to use, if the question is something like "Is the economy growing?" or "How fast is the economy growing?"