I'm not sure if this is legit or just an SEO consultant's wet dream. There are roughly 100 sentences, but 44 mentions of the word "depression", and 36 mentions of the word "recession".
That's not true. There's still a sweet spot for keyword density-it's between 3% and 5%.
Although, none of the on site stuff matters anymore without incoming links. Get the links and the on-site SEO right (high content/code ratio, keyword rich copy that still reads well, shallow website architecture, human-readable URLs and proper use of <h> tags) and watch out!
Having said all that, I'm not sure how well this reads, and yes 2009recession.com is a little over-optimized to my eyes, but I'm hardly unbiased since I'm an seo/sem. What else are they going to call it, though? How would you brand a recession analysis website? 2009recession.com pretty much nails it.
That PDF is some killer link-bait, though. A lot of time and research went into that. These are just first impressions, I only looked at it for a minute or two before clicking "back." (I must admit I'm here for the community much more than the content, sometimes.)
I have not links to this besides from Digg. And I have almost no out links so what's with all the SEO talk? Just want to get the information out thats it.
Please put a tldr - cultural upheaval, the generation gap, and dynamic business shifts (like energy and the internet) create a transition period that devalues the older generation's skills and production faster than the newer generation can come in to replace them. In turn, the older generation resists the change using their existing political and investment power, which further disrupts economic activity.
Nice try - it needs some work before it is an essay. I think I would agree with the conclusion, but there is way too much rambling, anecdotal evidence, and personalization - and you sound like you can't contain yourself at some points, which makes it sound on the whole unprofessional. Also, give us a summary in the introduction - we don't want to read it all as it is way too long for its own good.
Sorry some things you should take the time to read. Or if you are quick enough just look at the PDF and you should see a trend or eerily similar trends.
This article is of extremely poor quality. It's just all over the place, jumping from one cliched argument to another, without finishing a thought or connecting the evidence. Running out of oil is a very serious concern, but it has zero to do with the depression. And the idea of some sort of "civic generation" is hooey. FDR was a cold blood politician just like all the others, not some dewy eyed savior.
Yes, I am a mediocre copywriter. I am just a developer who found a pattern in the data. Please, don't judge me on my writing skills as I am the first to admit that
I suck at writing. You should of seen it before my wife got hold of it (to edit it).
And no I didn't think about SEO I am a Flex/Flash developer and do not know the first thing about SEO.
My blog is at www.flairjax.com
Again, try to see past my horrible writing skills and see if you can understand the message or information.
The problem with relying on economists is that they tend to rely on things such as GDP, housing starts, and price of gold, all of which focus on the past. These also happen to be items that can be easily combined into a mathematical equation. What economists struggle with is the ability to see, or take into consideration, the average American’s thoughts, fears, education, and progress, or things that can’t be counted.
Depends on the school of economists. Austrian economics is all about that kind of stuff; the Law and Economics school (surely the most entertaining -- you do realize that selling children ought to be legal, right?) also does; the heterodox lefty types tend to talk about that kind of thing when discussing why cash incentives don't always work and how income inequality kills.
So maybe jgervin should listen to some other economists.
jgervin, I suggest adding a lot of footnotes. Pretend you are a skeptical Wikipedia reader who loves to stamp "citation needed" everywhere. There are a lot of figures mentioned - they all need sources. You mention a Center For American Progress study and a ComScore study - you should link to those. I know you have a list of sources at the end, but that's kind of an archaic paper-like solution for a medium with hyperlinks.
I suspect this would be more persuasive to skeptical readers if you moderate the tone. Avoid terms like "outrageous" and "orgy of oil consumption". I would prefer it to be just facts - facts I can check by following hyperlinks!
Also, put your email address on there somewhere, or some other way for people to contact you (other than direct messages via your Twitter account). Many people will have suggestions, from spelling mistakes (like "different generations that grow and dye" should be "different generations that grow and dye") to factual and logical criticisms.
jgervin - or someone - can you please explain this part?
Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%, increased dramatically during both presidential terms. The ratio increased from 7.1% in 1928 to 7.8% in 1932 under Hoover, and from 6.8% in 2001 to an outrageous 7.9% in 2006 under Bush, the year the Center For American Progress study was conducted.
I don't understand the numbers. Surely the ratio between the top 10% of wage earners and the bottom 90% is always 1:9? I get that it must be a measure of the different amount of income earned by each group, but I can't think of what the number might be measuring.
Your current text is "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%"
You need it to be "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%"
But the linked article doesn't make sense either, or maybe I'm just not getting it. It put it this way:
"Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932."
Ratios are when you compare two quantities, like 1:9. Percentages are fractions of a whole. So it's strange to express a ratio as a percentage. The obvious interpretation is to say that a ratio of 7% means a ratio of 7:93. But I don't think that's what they're saying, because in the same paragraph they say:
"These periods of high-income inequality sharply contrast the period 1942–1987, when the ratio of top incomes to the incomes of most Americans never exceeded five."
Which would imply a percentage of 17%, if we're using this strange ratio/percentage conversion. That is: 17:73, i.e. 1:5. But they seem to think that higher is worse, so that can't be it.
Maybe they never meant to put percentage symbols in there, and they just meant that the average income of the top 10% is 7.9 times higher than the bottom 90%. If that's the case, I would distrust that source if I were you. That's a basic error.
I understand ratios. Thanks for your help. I believe they are focusing in the inequality as in average income. Meaning $ figures increased or decreased within those two groups. They are still the 90% and 10% groups so the rich got richer and poor got poorer.
They wrote: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932."
They meant:
"Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 in 1929 to 7.8 in 1932."
This confusion of ratios and percentage makes me doubt the competence of the authors.
I suggest you alter your wording to fix the ratio/percentage confusion. You should probably also check any other figures you used from that article.
Also, that article doesn't seem to describe a study. Are you sure your terminology is correct? You might want to call it an article rather than a study. I'm confused about what you meant by "the year the study was conducted". You might be talking about a paper by Saez, Emmanuel and Thomas Piketty, which was referenced by the article?
This, quite frankly, is just poorly written and poorly researched. Just within the first few paragraphs:
"They are usually math experts and they say math can predict the future so, if that’s true, why didn’t they see this coming?"
Most of the finance people who didn't see this coming were either simply bad at math, or distorted the math so heavily to fit their preconceived notions of what the world was like that it no longer made any sense. The people who do know the most math- Renaissance Technologies, led by former math professor Jim Simons- were up 80% during 2008 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/138283-barron-s-top-100-rank...).
"Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%, increased dramatically during both presidential terms. The ratio increased from 7.1% in 1928 to 7.8% in 1932 under Hoover, and from 6.8% in 2001 to an outrageous 7.9% in 2006 under Bush, the year the Center For American Progress study was conducted."
I presume what he means here is that the richest 10% now have an average income which is 7.9 times higher than that of the bottom 90%; using "percent" in this context makes no sense at all.
"Further, Both Bush and Hoover took steps to either deport and/or restrict Mexicans from immigrating to America, which is a key signal I will discuss in detail."
Wait... what? I don't know enough about Hoover to say, but there hasn't been any significant change in US immigration policy under Bush, and in any case, Mexican immigrants are a small percentage of the American economy (maybe 5%?).
"Finally, both Bush and Hoover took steps to inhibit certain forms of new energy – Hoover passed prohibition, which eliminated ethanol, and Bush refused to pass any bills that promoted renewable energy."
Prohibition was passed during 1919, a full nine years before Hoover became president; at the time, Hoover was preoccupied with keeping the Russians from starving after the Bolshevik revolution.
"Some examples of things that can’t be easily counted that can indicate that a major recession or depression is looming are lawsuits filed by established companies that seek to block competition or progress (RIAA, AP)"
Companies have always done that, during good times and bad, dating back to Standard Oil and their monopoly over the refining business.
"U.S. citizens complaining about Mexican immigrants taking their jobs, "
"In the US, every 40 to 80 years a Civic Generation (or “Joshua Generation”) appears that looks to re-energize social, political, and government institutions to solve neglected national issues, usually by dramatically expanding government."
This is a very far-reaching claim with absolutely no evidence.
"As a result, when we have an election with a large, deep, and stressing fracture between the two parties, you will see a pause or decline in business and the stock market, as people wait to see if the country is taking a step toward progress, or a step back toward the Idealist status quo."
The previous presidential election (2004) was extremely divisive, yet the stock market and business went up for the next three years.
"With all pre-Boomers retired, corporations lost a lot of supervisors, managers, and directors, or those in power positions."
Generations don't work like that; they're continuous, not discrete. There's no large group of people who all retire at the same time; the generation before the Baby Boomers was unusually small (http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/Fertility1.jp...), so if anything it should be the opposite.
"When combined with Generation X, they will own 70%+ of the workforce, so their 70% take of the available income, which drives the economy, will dictate what products, brands, businesses, and industries will be viable."
What is really depressing is the fact this impoverished article made it to the front page of Hacker News.
What do you suppose we can do about that, now? How do you fight corruption of this sort on a site like this? Do we need basic research and reasoning skills tests for users?
I'm serious. What can we do we do to save Hacker News?
Your last point kind of illustrates you have no clue what you are talking about.
If boomers are such great spenders, I can assume you think they have the most buying power? Then we shouldn't see any decline in the things they buy such as newspapers, all those old brands of cars,....
Again if you actually read the entire article I address and argue a lot of your points backed with data.
Generations are usually continuous, but the boomers were less so because they were largely the result of a discrete event: the end the war. Because they were all born at a similar time and there were a large number of them they had a lot more power as a generation than most generations (hence the unrest of the 60s).
Generations are defined not by a strict date, but by the events, technology, the things of the time. As an example, someone who grew up on Atari is probably dramatically different than someone 10 years before them. My sister was 16 when the Atari came out and I was 7. She skipped it as she was interested in boys. She doesn't get or understand technology or why we have a gaming industry. Thus, she is just out of Generation X and a totally different view on life.
Thats what you get for skimming. Take to the time to read the entire thing, digest it, recheck your facts.
Yes, I am sticking my neck out on this. Feel free to come chop it off in 3 years if we don't hit a depression, if my predictions don't come true, and if my estimates in the chart don't come true.
At that time I will be happy to tuck my tail between my legs and you can throw pie in my face.
I wrote about what is happening now in 2006, new president with new movement, redistribution of wealth coming, and old media going away. (www.flairjax.com) you will have to search for it.
Again, I suggest stop skimming and read the entire thing.
Let me break it down for you since you like bullet points.
I will talk slowly...
Hoover deported Mexicans.
Bush would have but they didn't want to lose the election so he built a fence (billions in $) so it is a major step up from Americans just complaining about Mexicans.
See my comment above should have been 'upheld' prohibition not 'passed' my bad.
Yes, generations are continuous, but those in power and those industries created and run by Idealist Generations, such as railroad owners, newspaper owners, etc don't have all the power and money. Why do think blogs are struggling? When newspapers die blog will take their place and skyrocket. Just as the automobile did against the railroad.
Maybe if you slowed down you might actually learn something. Your opinions aren't facts. Yes, I have my opinions, but they are supported by data.
Where is your data?
So all these numbers are just one big coincidence?
Come chop my neck in three years if I am wrong its sticking out on this one. Go ahead mark your calendar!
- I agree that a depression is likely, but that doesn't change any of the things I pointed out.
- None of the stuff you mention is specific enough to constitute a prediction. If Bloomberg had won in 2008, would you be talking about how this represented a "new movement"? What about Huckabee? Edwards?
- Hoover did not have the constitutional authority to end Prohibition; the 18th Amendment could only have been repealed by another amendment, with the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of
the states, as indeed happened in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.
- Its a prediction because I say it is. That is why I wrote it. ( will update it to be more specific)
- You just proved my point nobody would have beat Obama (read the article again) it was because the civic generation made it so.
- You are correct he didn't have the authority, but he backed it and his counter parts during his election years said they wanted it repealed. Hoover didn't so what does that say about Hoover?
- What do you consider not struggling? Compared to the billions newspapers make and the power newspapers have (though dwindling) they are struggling. Again read the article thoroughly (see the mention of Rupert). You need to slow down and not skip things.
- The numbers in the article ( those things that aren't letters ) Also see the BIG graph.
"both Bush and Hoover took steps to inhibit certain forms of new energy – Hoover passed prohibition, which eliminated ethanol, and Bush refused to pass any bills that promoted renewable energy."
Sorry should have been 'upheld' not 'passed'. And please show me where in history ethanol wasn't kept out of the market with a heavy burdensome tax, making it to expensive?
Also show me a bill passed by the Bush administration that gave more subsidies to renewable energy than to big oil?
