Clusterstock has the goods. I recently realized that over the past few weeks, without really noticing, I've slipped quite naturally into referring to the current crisis as "the Depression". I also realized that no one I've spoken to has challenged that description.
You're just so young.
You seem to think that this is like the "depression".
Not yet but with your boy Obama transgressing his way thru the presidency - soon.
Well I challenge it. It would be easier to challenge if the word had a decent definition in the economic context, but at current levels of unemployment, income, wealth, and consumption, I say it's not even close to being a depression.
The last "biggie" (1929 onwards) is known as the "Great Depression". Taking a cue from "The Great War" (1914-1918) vs "World War II (WW2)" (1939-1945), shouldn't this now be "World Depression II (WD2)" ?
Well, I'm sure they love calling it a Depression in Washington.
It's sort of like my mother-in-law, who was a young single woman in New York City during World War II. While for many, World War II is remembered as a time of rationing, danger, death, or at least absent family members, my mother-in-law remembered it as a time when she had lots and lots of dates. (New York being full of young officers about to debark, or directing various war-related activities.) Really her golden era.
Likewise, though much of the country suffered during the Depression, for Washington, it was a time when complaints about taxes and regulation were discredited, other power centers were economically crippled, and legislators and executive officials ruled supreme. So I would expect that usage to thrive in Washington.
Well, part of our hopes of emerging from this economic dip/dive depend on getting our expectations on an improving trend. The quickest way to do that is to take the fall in expectations as quickly as possible (just as the best way out of a financial crisis includes recognising losses as soon as possible). There is then no way for expectations to go except up.
In that light, "Depression" (or perhaps "Really Great Depression")is the term of choice, for now.
y81 might like to note that, after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA. The economy was expanding at what we now think of as Chinese rates, and American confidence was swelling even faster.
"after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA."
Actually, my father missed his father, who was in the service, and several hundred thousand gold star mothers missed their sons for ever and ever. My mother-in-law's perspective was silly and superficial.
I've slipped quite naturally into referring to the current crisis as "the Depression". I also realized that no one I've spoken to has challenged that description.
That's probably because all the sources you read or hang out with have also done so.
We're just looking past it, like we do all the rest of the sensationalism that is constantly thrown at us: stocks "crash" or "nose-dive" when they drop two points...gas prices and interest rates "soar" when they move up two points...
I haven't lived through a depression, but I have lived through a couple recessions, and there were always a lot of people around saying, "No, this is a depression."
Question about unemployment. Given that more layoffs only weaken the economy further. Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of reducing staff by 10%, companies kept their employees and payed them 10% less? If all companies did this, there would be more people able to buy goods and services and more economic activity. once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs.
once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs.
If companies can't lay off, they won't hire, either, which will both slow recovery and retard growth in good times. Plus, introducing a cutoff will encourage anticipatory layoffs in order to beat the cutoff.
The intrade definition of a depression is "a cumulative decline in GDP of more than 10.0% over four consecutive quarters." That seems like a fine one to use.
The odds of that happening in 2009 are apparently 32%, which should be sufficiently scary.
"the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs."
Speaking as a generally pro-regulation liberal, this is an utterly retarded idea that wouldn't in any way help the situation.
Tiffany: Why do you imagine that layoffs weaken "the economy" more?
If a company cannot profitably employ N people, but only .9N, then paying N people the same amount as .9N won't make "the economy" better - it will just mean that the statistics look different.
But just because the unemployment numbers will be lower doesn't mean that prodction won't be down, which is the real key to the economy's health.
(For that matter, laying people off is helpful, in that it sends a much clearer signal as to where labor is actually useful, and encourages the marginal workers [the first let go] to seek a more productive mode of labor.
It sucks for them, but so does a 10% pay cut for everyone, combined with the sclerosis inherent in "full employment" policies of any sort.
Or, as a thought experiment, imagine a case where a company only needed 10% of its staff, rather than 90%.
Does it really make sense to keep everyone on, but pay them a pittance, to avoid "unemployment"?
For that matter, would it "help the economy" to provide make-work from the State to prevent unemployment, somehow, ala the WPA?
I think the fundamental issue here is mistaking the symptom (job loss and unemployment) for the cause (less demand for production/service).
The health of the economy is in production of good and provision of services, not in the percentage of people employed at any instant; the latter decreases with demand for production*.
* Assuming unchanged productivity, but at this rate this is becoming an economics primer.)
I hope that you are applying that word with a hefty serving of snark, because a look at actual unemployment numbers will reveal that we are in fact at the worst levels since ... THE EARLY NINETIES! I don't recall that being labeled a depression (Nor, for that matter, do I recall people outpouring sympathy around 2000ish for all the laid off dot-comers ... where was their bailout?). Also bear in mind that we went through the late seventies and early eighties hitting double digit unemployment. Yes, of course it could get worse ... but a Depression comparable to the "great one", we ain't in yet.
If the term sticks it will be because the current economic cratering causes the sort of systemic disruption for which only depression seems like the appropriate term.
One qualitative difference between the Great Depression and subsequent downturns can help us understand whether or not we are in a depression. During the Depression, monetary policy was crippled by deflation (falling prices).
To understand this, you first have to understand what a real interest rate is. Short form: the spread between the rate of price change (inflation/deflation) and the nominal interest rate on the most secure bonds.
Monetary authorities had trouble affecting the economy during the Depression because of what is now known as a 'liquidity trap'. In effect, the perceived return to holding money exceeds the perceived return on any other investment. People 'stuff their money in the mattress', because it is rationally prudent.
When prices are falling at a 20% annual rate, as they are now (as of November '08), monetary authorities cannot achieve a real interest rate lower than 20% (0% - (-20%)). The real interest rate is usually somewhere in the range of 5%, so 20% is very, very high. It's the sort of rate that induces sharp economic contractions.
Are we in a Depression? We are certainly in a liquidity trap, and a period of falling prices, which are significant qualitative differences between the Depression and recessions.
The whole thing seems to depend heavily on geography and industry. 2001-2002 were absolutely horrible for hi-tech here in Dallas: both telecoms and airlines cratered and that accounted for A LOT of lost hi-tech jobs around here. Right now, things don't look nearly as bad, even though new investment is down to a trickle. At least not just yet. I'm sure the 'streeters and rust belters would beg to differ.
It's always a depression when you or yours lose their jobs. Given that the two industries that Megan is closest to, Financial Services and Media, are in total melt-down and retrenchment respectively, it's not surprising that she feels this way.
So far, the tech industry is doing ok. It's obviously a tough time, but this is nothing like 2001-2002 for us. It might get that way, but I sort of doubt it (knocks on wood, throws salt over shoulder, etc.)
How were things back during the 1974-75 recession. I would have to think things looked a lot darker then. But I don't know, I was -1 at the time.
You youngins didn't appreciate the depth of that one, shielded, as you were, by your extreme youth, but I am here to tell you that one was bad! Why, my third grade class had to cancel our Halloween party due to budget cuts.
Given that more layoffs only weaken the economy further. Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of reducing staff by 10%, companies kept their employees and payed them 10% less? If all companies did this, there would be more people able to buy goods and services and more economic activity.
The problem with this view is that it is too static. It assumes the same number of available jobs, the same number of employees, and the same amount of cumulative wages to be paid out. In this case, whether you cut jobs or by 10% is irrelevant to the economy. Now, it's not irrelevant to the laid off workers, but that can be fixed by taxing the 90% with jobs and giving handouts to their unemployed former colleagues.
But chances are that some significant portion the 10% of laid off workers won't remain jobless for very long. This will remove them from the unemployment rolls. So instead of the employed workers having their pay taxed 10% to pay for the laid off workers, they will only have their pay reduced by 5% (if half of the unemployed workers find new jobs). In other words, you get the same outcome -- everyone is employed or supported by the public dole -- for half the cost to the employed workers.
Tiffany's idea isn't entirely horrible-- though forcing it through one-size-fits-all government fiat would be terrible. But there are companies which have a no-layoff policy; they adjust labor expenses either through wage cuts or hours reductions. Many of them have been in business for a long time so such a policy can work.
One of the problems with a recession (and this applies doubly to a depression) is that the cost is borne very unevenly. If you keep your job (and don't have too much money in bad investments) you suffer nothing more than anxiety. The people who lose their jobs though bear the brunt of the downturn, often quite unjustly. It would be good if we could devise some way to spread the pain more evenly, though blunt-edged government regulation is not the answer.
As for the person who argued that unemployment is just a symptom and therefore we should not bother to do anything about it, I'm glad you are not a doctor. Yes, one should look for and treat deeper causes, but often enough symptoms MUST be treated first. Fevers are symptoms after all-- and they can kill (ditto for diarrhea, internal hemorrhaging, tachycardia etc.)
Finally, any insight as to why so few businesses rehire laid-off workers? I've worked in offices where layoffs were followed (two or three months later) by new hirings. Why not just bring back the original workers? That would save firms tons of money in recruiting and training expenses. Am I not seeing something, or is this penchant for permanent layoffs followed by new hirings one of the true "Dilbert" stupidities of American business these days? (I am assuming that the layoffs were not "for cause" and that wage scale differences are not too extreme)
I remember the recession of the early 1990s (which bore some similarities to the current one, e.g., it had a real estate bust, a credit crunch, Citi in hot water, etc.), and locally this doesn't look anywhere near as bad, at least not yet. The parking lots at the local malls and restaurants are still mostly full, and the Hackensack Houston's still has two-hour waits on Saturday night. Back then we didn't have a Houston's, but the malls were deserted. Real estate also took a bigger dive back then, e.g., one-bedroom condos plummeting from about $200k to $80k. Real estate is down here now, but nothing like that (at least not yet).
"y81 might like to note that, after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA. The economy was expanding at what we now think of as Chinese rates, and American confidence was swelling even faster."
You were probably employed and making decent money, but what could you buy with that money? Weren't there plenty of shortages, due to the war? Years ago, I found an old cookbook from that era in my grandmother's house. It was full of recipes designed to work-around shortages of various common foodstuffs.
any insight as to why so few businesses rehire laid-off workers? I've worked in offices where layoffs were followed (two or three months later) by new hirings. Why not just bring back the original workers?
I've seen companies bring back original workers, sometimes, usually in a completely different position.
There are considerations which sometimes apply:
* the skill set needed for new hires does not match the skill sets of the original workers
* the original workers have already found other jobs
* the original workers were the least-competent on the team and thus chosen for layoffs.
* original workers no longer interested in working again for the company that laid them off and/or would forfeit a large severance package if rehired within [time frame]
I remember the 80-81 recession feeling (and looking) a lot worse than what we have now. In fact, other than media hysterics, it doesn't *feel* any worse right now than the immediate aftermath of the dotcom bust, which we seemed to recover from fairly quickly. I remember reading a couple of months ago an essay - now I can't remember where or who wrote it - about our present economy as being a succession of mini-bubbles: dramatic, quick, survivable.
"Once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs."
I'll omit the obscene response that this remark deserves, but will only point out its similarity to Directive 10-289 in Atlas Shrugged. One of the novel's characters aptly called this directive "the moratorium on brains."
It's sad testimony to the failure of the education system as a whole and the lack of curiosity and knowledge on the part of most people who seem to consider themselves intelligent that the current economic situation is referred to as a depression. I was starting to make a list but it's too pathetic an exercise. We're going to have a tough economic year, unless the government contrives to make it worse, but that's about it.
When you're a middle-class person who would be happy to take a job doing anything, including working as a busboy, cutting yards, house-painting, sewing, working in a laundry, etc. and still can't get a job, and look around you and see a bunch of other middle-class people in the same boat, and you literally--using the word in its correct sense--can't afford to eat 3 meals a day, and then eat even less so your kids can have something to eat, and you live in the park when the weather's nice so you can save rent money, then we're in a depression. Until then, stop embarrassing yourselves.
On the plus side, the TED spread is now at 1.28, down from nearly 5 in October.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=.TEDSP:IND
Megan,
You're just so young.
You seem to think that this is like the "depression".
Not yet but with your boy Obama transgressing his way thru the presidency - soon.
thedaddy
It's much too early to refer to this as a Depression.
Well I challenge it. It would be easier to challenge if the word had a decent definition in the economic context, but at current levels of unemployment, income, wealth, and consumption, I say it's not even close to being a depression.
Sure, why not? Anything to freak people out into more government spending on crap.
The last "biggie" (1929 onwards) is known as the "Great Depression". Taking a cue from "The Great War" (1914-1918) vs "World War II (WW2)" (1939-1945), shouldn't this now be "World Depression II (WD2)" ?
Well, I'm sure they love calling it a Depression in Washington.
It's sort of like my mother-in-law, who was a young single woman in New York City during World War II. While for many, World War II is remembered as a time of rationing, danger, death, or at least absent family members, my mother-in-law remembered it as a time when she had lots and lots of dates. (New York being full of young officers about to debark, or directing various war-related activities.) Really her golden era.
Likewise, though much of the country suffered during the Depression, for Washington, it was a time when complaints about taxes and regulation were discredited, other power centers were economically crippled, and legislators and executive officials ruled supreme. So I would expect that usage to thrive in Washington.
Well, part of our hopes of emerging from this economic dip/dive depend on getting our expectations on an improving trend. The quickest way to do that is to take the fall in expectations as quickly as possible (just as the best way out of a financial crisis includes recognising losses as soon as possible). There is then no way for expectations to go except up.
In that light, "Depression" (or perhaps "Really Great Depression")is the term of choice, for now.
y81 might like to note that, after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA. The economy was expanding at what we now think of as Chinese rates, and American confidence was swelling even faster.
"after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA."
Actually, my father missed his father, who was in the service, and several hundred thousand gold star mothers missed their sons for ever and ever. My mother-in-law's perspective was silly and superficial.
I've slipped quite naturally into referring to the current crisis as "the Depression". I also realized that no one I've spoken to has challenged that description.
That's probably because all the sources you read or hang out with have also done so.
We're just looking past it, like we do all the rest of the sensationalism that is constantly thrown at us: stocks "crash" or "nose-dive" when they drop two points...gas prices and interest rates "soar" when they move up two points...
Just call it "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
I haven't lived through a depression, but I have lived through a couple recessions, and there were always a lot of people around saying, "No, this is a depression."
How were things back during the 1974-75 recession. I would have to think things looked a lot darker then. But I don't know, I was -1 at the time.
Why is it that everyone always assumes that the "Great Depression" is the worst financial crisis that has ever faced or will ever face this country?
What should we call a worse crisis? Apocalypse?
Question about unemployment. Given that more layoffs only weaken the economy further. Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of reducing staff by 10%, companies kept their employees and payed them 10% less? If all companies did this, there would be more people able to buy goods and services and more economic activity. once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs.
once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs.
If companies can't lay off, they won't hire, either, which will both slow recovery and retard growth in good times. Plus, introducing a cutoff will encourage anticipatory layoffs in order to beat the cutoff.
The intrade definition of a depression is "a cumulative decline in GDP of more than 10.0% over four consecutive quarters." That seems like a fine one to use.
The odds of that happening in 2009 are apparently 32%, which should be sufficiently scary.
"the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs."
Speaking as a generally pro-regulation liberal, this is an utterly retarded idea that wouldn't in any way help the situation.
Tiffany: Why do you imagine that layoffs weaken "the economy" more?
If a company cannot profitably employ N people, but only .9N, then paying N people the same amount as .9N won't make "the economy" better - it will just mean that the statistics look different.
But just because the unemployment numbers will be lower doesn't mean that prodction won't be down, which is the real key to the economy's health.
(For that matter, laying people off is helpful, in that it sends a much clearer signal as to where labor is actually useful, and encourages the marginal workers [the first let go] to seek a more productive mode of labor.
It sucks for them, but so does a 10% pay cut for everyone, combined with the sclerosis inherent in "full employment" policies of any sort.
Or, as a thought experiment, imagine a case where a company only needed 10% of its staff, rather than 90%.
Does it really make sense to keep everyone on, but pay them a pittance, to avoid "unemployment"?
For that matter, would it "help the economy" to provide make-work from the State to prevent unemployment, somehow, ala the WPA?
I think the fundamental issue here is mistaking the symptom (job loss and unemployment) for the cause (less demand for production/service).
The health of the economy is in production of good and provision of services, not in the percentage of people employed at any instant; the latter decreases with demand for production*.
* Assuming unchanged productivity, but at this rate this is becoming an economics primer.)
Megan,
I hope that you are applying that word with a hefty serving of snark, because a look at actual unemployment numbers will reveal that we are in fact at the worst levels since ... THE EARLY NINETIES! I don't recall that being labeled a depression (Nor, for that matter, do I recall people outpouring sympathy around 2000ish for all the laid off dot-comers ... where was their bailout?). Also bear in mind that we went through the late seventies and early eighties hitting double digit unemployment. Yes, of course it could get worse ... but a Depression comparable to the "great one", we ain't in yet.
Is this technically a depression; not yet.
If the term sticks it will be because the current economic cratering causes the sort of systemic disruption for which only depression seems like the appropriate term.
One qualitative difference between the Great Depression and subsequent downturns can help us understand whether or not we are in a depression. During the Depression, monetary policy was crippled by deflation (falling prices).
To understand this, you first have to understand what a real interest rate is. Short form: the spread between the rate of price change (inflation/deflation) and the nominal interest rate on the most secure bonds.
Monetary authorities had trouble affecting the economy during the Depression because of what is now known as a 'liquidity trap'. In effect, the perceived return to holding money exceeds the perceived return on any other investment. People 'stuff their money in the mattress', because it is rationally prudent.
When prices are falling at a 20% annual rate, as they are now (as of November '08), monetary authorities cannot achieve a real interest rate lower than 20% (0% - (-20%)). The real interest rate is usually somewhere in the range of 5%, so 20% is very, very high. It's the sort of rate that induces sharp economic contractions.
Are we in a Depression? We are certainly in a liquidity trap, and a period of falling prices, which are significant qualitative differences between the Depression and recessions.
The whole thing seems to depend heavily on geography and industry. 2001-2002 were absolutely horrible for hi-tech here in Dallas: both telecoms and airlines cratered and that accounted for A LOT of lost hi-tech jobs around here. Right now, things don't look nearly as bad, even though new investment is down to a trickle. At least not just yet. I'm sure the 'streeters and rust belters would beg to differ.
It's always a depression when you or yours lose their jobs. Given that the two industries that Megan is closest to, Financial Services and Media, are in total melt-down and retrenchment respectively, it's not surprising that she feels this way.
So far, the tech industry is doing ok. It's obviously a tough time, but this is nothing like 2001-2002 for us. It might get that way, but I sort of doubt it (knocks on wood, throws salt over shoulder, etc.)
jmo asks:
You youngins didn't appreciate the depth of that one, shielded, as you were, by your extreme youth, but I am here to tell you that one was bad! Why, my third grade class had to cancel our Halloween party due to budget cuts.
Given that more layoffs only weaken the economy further. Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of reducing staff by 10%, companies kept their employees and payed them 10% less? If all companies did this, there would be more people able to buy goods and services and more economic activity.
The problem with this view is that it is too static. It assumes the same number of available jobs, the same number of employees, and the same amount of cumulative wages to be paid out. In this case, whether you cut jobs or by 10% is irrelevant to the economy. Now, it's not irrelevant to the laid off workers, but that can be fixed by taxing the 90% with jobs and giving handouts to their unemployed former colleagues.
But chances are that some significant portion the 10% of laid off workers won't remain jobless for very long. This will remove them from the unemployment rolls. So instead of the employed workers having their pay taxed 10% to pay for the laid off workers, they will only have their pay reduced by 5% (if half of the unemployed workers find new jobs). In other words, you get the same outcome -- everyone is employed or supported by the public dole -- for half the cost to the employed workers.
Tiffany's idea isn't entirely horrible-- though forcing it through one-size-fits-all government fiat would be terrible. But there are companies which have a no-layoff policy; they adjust labor expenses either through wage cuts or hours reductions. Many of them have been in business for a long time so such a policy can work.
One of the problems with a recession (and this applies doubly to a depression) is that the cost is borne very unevenly. If you keep your job (and don't have too much money in bad investments) you suffer nothing more than anxiety. The people who lose their jobs though bear the brunt of the downturn, often quite unjustly. It would be good if we could devise some way to spread the pain more evenly, though blunt-edged government regulation is not the answer.
As for the person who argued that unemployment is just a symptom and therefore we should not bother to do anything about it, I'm glad you are not a doctor. Yes, one should look for and treat deeper causes, but often enough symptoms MUST be treated first. Fevers are symptoms after all-- and they can kill (ditto for diarrhea, internal hemorrhaging, tachycardia etc.)
Finally, any insight as to why so few businesses rehire laid-off workers? I've worked in offices where layoffs were followed (two or three months later) by new hirings. Why not just bring back the original workers? That would save firms tons of money in recruiting and training expenses. Am I not seeing something, or is this penchant for permanent layoffs followed by new hirings one of the true "Dilbert" stupidities of American business these days? (I am assuming that the layoffs were not "for cause" and that wage scale differences are not too extreme)
I remember the recession of the early 1990s (which bore some similarities to the current one, e.g., it had a real estate bust, a credit crunch, Citi in hot water, etc.), and locally this doesn't look anywhere near as bad, at least not yet. The parking lots at the local malls and restaurants are still mostly full, and the Hackensack Houston's still has two-hour waits on Saturday night. Back then we didn't have a Houston's, but the malls were deserted. Real estate also took a bigger dive back then, e.g., one-bedroom condos plummeting from about $200k to $80k. Real estate is down here now, but nothing like that (at least not yet).
"y81 might like to note that, after mid-1942, World War II was a tremendous time to be living in the USA. The economy was expanding at what we now think of as Chinese rates, and American confidence was swelling even faster."
You were probably employed and making decent money, but what could you buy with that money? Weren't there plenty of shortages, due to the war? Years ago, I found an old cookbook from that era in my grandmother's house. It was full of recipes designed to work-around shortages of various common foodstuffs.
Finally, any insight as to why so few businesses rehire laid-off workers?
Because they're pissed off at you and unlikely to be loyal workers?
any insight as to why so few businesses rehire laid-off workers? I've worked in offices where layoffs were followed (two or three months later) by new hirings. Why not just bring back the original workers?
I've seen companies bring back original workers, sometimes, usually in a completely different position.
There are considerations which sometimes apply:
* the skill set needed for new hires does not match the skill sets of the original workers
* the original workers have already found other jobs
* the original workers were the least-competent on the team and thus chosen for layoffs.
* original workers no longer interested in working again for the company that laid them off and/or would forfeit a large severance package if rehired within [time frame]
I remember the 80-81 recession feeling (and looking) a lot worse than what we have now. In fact, other than media hysterics, it doesn't *feel* any worse right now than the immediate aftermath of the dotcom bust, which we seemed to recover from fairly quickly. I remember reading a couple of months ago an essay - now I can't remember where or who wrote it - about our present economy as being a succession of mini-bubbles: dramatic, quick, survivable.
"Once unemployment gets above a certain level, the government should not permit employers to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak by engaging in further layoffs."
I'll omit the obscene response that this remark deserves, but will only point out its similarity to Directive 10-289 in Atlas Shrugged. One of the novel's characters aptly called this directive "the moratorium on brains."
It's sad testimony to the failure of the education system as a whole and the lack of curiosity and knowledge on the part of most people who seem to consider themselves intelligent that the current economic situation is referred to as a depression. I was starting to make a list but it's too pathetic an exercise. We're going to have a tough economic year, unless the government contrives to make it worse, but that's about it.
When you're a middle-class person who would be happy to take a job doing anything, including working as a busboy, cutting yards, house-painting, sewing, working in a laundry, etc. and still can't get a job, and look around you and see a bunch of other middle-class people in the same boat, and you literally--using the word in its correct sense--can't afford to eat 3 meals a day, and then eat even less so your kids can have something to eat, and you live in the park when the weather's nice so you can save rent money, then we're in a depression. Until then, stop embarrassing yourselves.