If there was News of jobs being created, the News of so many Job loses wouldn't be News. If there was News of Jobs being created I would certaintly post about it.
Another it's only Supply and Demand pundit. Well there's your answer, leave the United States. That is exactly what is beginning to happen. First people were moving State to State to find work now we have to leave the Country, brilliant.
So you are advocating companies keep too many expensive employees rather than offer them an early retirement package.
I guess you also advocate that verisin keep 1/3 pf its employees as managers. IT seems you would be much happier if these companies did not trim the fat and go bankrupt and layoff 100% of their employees.
That's exactly what is happening, this Dirtboy must work in the current Administration or a head on one of the Big Corporations with the Execs at the top reaping the huge profits from all the rape they are doing.
Most of the Big Corps especially the ones that have sent the jobs overseas are the very same Company opening up a Company in the Foreign Country under a different name. For example BellSouth is closing down all it's Phone Centers and shipping the jobs to Moraine India to a Company called Berry Company, the parent Company is BellSouth. So when you call for Internet Tech support or your phone isn't working in Georgia you will be talking to a Phone worker in India. There is no way any the resident "experts " in here can justify that. I've never heard of someone in India having to talk to a rep say in Japan to get their phone fixed in India. Only American Corporations could come up with such bird brained thinking.
--------------------
If Dirtboy and the others in here that like all this are either in the Administration or Fat and Happy Execs of a Corporation reaping all the rape rewards, then their butt won't go bye bye and they don't care. They'll be sipping Mai Tai's on an Miami Beach.
Thread posts from Off Topic Job Networking thread showing even people posting in here are considering moving overseas to find work.
-----------------------------
GTaudiophile
Diamond Member
Posts: 8476
Joined: Oct 2000
10/01/2003 5:35 PM
Anyone here have any tips on getting hired in Germany?
I'm also looking in GA, CA, SC, and VA.
As usual, resume at my web site.
hans007
Diamond Member
Posts: 9555
Joined: Feb 2000
10/02/2003 3:25 AM
its just not competitive to do work in america anymore.
the place my dad works might be moving a lot of work to mexico also. i mean nafta makes it very easy to do.
-------------------------
heatwares
my computers
UCLA Alumni
10-2-2003 Hurrican Isabel blamed for Jobless increase
Economists see claims over that key level to be a sign the labor market is deteriorating.
-------------------------------
Ya think?
395,000 Jobs lost a week, Holy Sh1T, I had no idea it was that high. We're not heading into DEPRESSION, we are firmly in it.
-----------------------------
GTaudiophile
Diamond Member
Posts: 8476
Joined: Oct 2000
10/01/2003 5:35 PM
Anyone here have any tips on getting hired in Germany?
I'm also looking in GA, CA, SC, and VA.
As usual, resume at my web site.
hans007
Diamond Member
Posts: 9555
Joined: Feb 2000
10/02/2003 3:25 AM
its just not competitive to do work in america anymore.
the place my dad works might be moving a lot of work to mexico also. i mean nafta makes it very easy to do.
-------------------------
heatwares
my computers
UCLA Alumni
10-2-2003 Hurrican Isabel blamed for Jobless increase
Economists see claims over that key level to be a sign the labor market is deteriorating.
-------------------------------
Ya think?
395,000 Jobs lost a week, Holy Sh1T, I had no idea it was that high. We're not heading into DEPRESSION, we are firmly in it.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I don't see it that way.. ya gotta put the shoe on the foot that it fits on.. The management of the various companies have a duty to the owners to increase wealth or at least preserve wealth. They should do what is in the owners best interest.. going to Egypt if that is what it takes is their job.. The fact that they are forced to do this is the fault of the Government folks whose duty, it seems to me, is to insure the American people have an economy that provides the opportunities for the standard of living we have evolved to..
If Dirtboy and the others in here that like all this are either in the Administration or Fat and Happy Execs of a Corporation reaping all the rape rewards, then their butt won't go bye bye and they don't care. They'll be sipping Mai Tai's on an Miami Beach.[/quote]
You get raped by the state of Florida and now because you're not rich guy in some high paying job, you come here insulting everyone and spreading your fear...haha you are such a loser.
I concur about the points where ceos of companies and the likes have the duty to increase wealth and preserve wealth, which why sometimes I found its ironic ppl are raising hell about losing their job, and in the same time curse the performance of their stocks if the company didn't do well enough.
As for blaming the Govt, I don't think thats entirely true. With rising cost of living & expense, people simply have to have better wages, which is happen in the US. Can't blame the government for a fresh graduate in CS wanting to make 40-50K/yr, while in India they only make 10K/yr.
As for the rest of ppl that keep emphasizing the loss of jobs in the US and how evil the companies that are on moving jobs overseas, what do you suppose these companies need to do about it then? Its quite simple, reduce cost = greater profits, and the more profits they make, the better the company is.
Since when? Since when idiot? If it's so uncompetitive, why are there even businesses in America? Can't answer that, can you.
And let's talk about NAFTA moron. Lot's of people, idiots like you, thought it would take American jobs away due to cheap Mexican labor. boo hoo What actually happened? A few jobs left, but after NAFTA, trade between Canada, the US and Mexico increased. When trade increases...JOBS increase. Wow.
When there are people starving on the street and half of all American's are out of work, then you can say we are in a depression. We aren't. Look at the stock market, it's been recovering from the burst. If we were in a depression, none of us would have Internet access because we couldn't afford it. We'd all lose our homes, but somehow the housing market is booming. Now explain to me how people are building new homes in the middle of a depression, because that didn't happen in the Great Depression.
What fear??? I never said or used the word fear. Also if you would read you would see positive posts as well, just so happens there aren't that many to post since we are in a DEPRESSION. No fear in that, it is reality.
Why don't you do us a favor and move to a socialist country, because that is what you must really like. Like it or not, the economy does work off of supply and demand. People have moved state-to-state for years, that is nothing new. You wouldn't know, because you and your ignorance live under a rock from which you spread your blatent stupidty. I don't see people leaving the country. You see two people on this forum talk about leaving, and you interpret that as everyone is leaving. See how stupid you are?
Considering you're the only person in the world saying it, it's fear. Nobody agrees with you. hahaha Fool.
It's called fear, fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand the economy, so when you hear news that you also don't understand, you misinterpret it and run here in hopes that someone will listen to your stupidity, because nobody else will.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I think as a start to what could be a meaningful discussion from the various perspectives of usins, we do a few things. The first is to use the economic terms that are generally accepted to define an economic condition and/or be specific as to a location (s) relative to the use of the term when the economic condition is not nation wide. I tried to allude to this earlier in saying "if I lost my job it would be a depression but if my neighbor did it might be a recession.." I know it may be picky but in reading the posts by many I can see the point if I focus on a narrower or broader picture as the case may be. The second is that many folks can see the same data set and conclude differently. If Art Laffer and I were having a discussion on just about anything I'd agree with many of the under lying assumptions assigned to the various data but, I'm certain I'd disagree on some and to some extent not agree with the conclusion. Another and lastly is and I'll use the latin... (cuz I can ) "post hoc ergo propter hoc" A lot of what we say should occupy volumes but, we are limited in time and space. Because of this limitation folks go bonkers when they read a post and assume the poster intended to link the first event with causing the second because the first statement came before the second. I do this all the time and when I read what I wrote avoid the edit by thinking.. well, they'll know what I meant. I can see from this thread that ain't always the case.. This I think will eliminate the frustration and flames.
We also jump from micro to macro in the same sentence.. and I get so confused... (because I'm simple)
) "post hoc ergo propter hoc" A lot of what we say should occupy volumes but, we are limited in time and space. Because of this limitation folks go bonkers when they read a post and assume the poster intended to link the first event with causing the second because the first statement came before the second. I do this all the time and when I read what I wrote avoid the edit by thinking.. well, they'll know what I meant. I can see from this thread that ain't always the case.. This I think will eliminate the frustration and flames.We also jump from micro to macro in the same sentence.. and I get so confused...
(because I'm simple)While I agree that we are heading for/IN a depression, that number is extremely misleading.
The number of jobs lost has to be compared against the number of jobs gained for a NET employment change figure.
395,000 jobs a week = 20,540,000 jobs a year.
Assuming 1/3 of Americans would be gainfully employed if possible, that's about 90,000,000 people in the employment pool, for an average employment length of just over 4 years before they start looking for another job. Crappy, but not that extreme.
The number of jobs lost has to be compared against the number of jobs gained for a NET employment change figure.
395,000 jobs a week = 20,540,000 jobs a year.
Assuming 1/3 of Americans would be gainfully employed if possible, that's about 90,000,000 people in the employment pool, for an average employment length of just over 4 years before they start looking for another job. Crappy, but not that extreme.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
rufruf44
I said:
I don't see it that way.. ya gotta put the shoe on the foot that it fits on.. The management of the various companies have a duty to the owners to increase wealth or at least preserve wealth. They should do what is in the owners best interest.. going to Egypt if that is what it takes is their job.. The fact that they are forced to do this is the fault of the Government folks whose duty, it seems to me, is to insure the American people have an economy that provides the opportunities for the standard of living we have evolved to..[/quote]
You said:
I concur about the points where ceos of companies and the likes have the duty to increase wealth and preserve wealth, which why sometimes I found its ironic ppl are raising hell about losing their job, and in the same time curse the performance of their stocks if the company didn't do well enough.
As for blaming the Govt, I don't think thats entirely true. With rising cost of living & expense, people simply have to have better wages, which is happen in the US. Can't blame the government for a fresh graduate in CS wanting to make 40-50K/yr, while in India they only make 10K/yr.
As for the rest of ppl that keep emphasizing the loss of jobs in the US and how evil the companies that are on moving jobs overseas, what do you suppose these companies need to do about it then? Its quite simple, reduce cost = greater profits, and the more profits they make, the better the company is.[/quote]
Well I guess the gross answer is the either refine and remedy the 'global' or the 'national' approach to our economic future. Some of this and some of that ain't gonna cut it. I don't care which way we go, either will work for us but, not as it is currently 'played'. Since we have all the treaties and rules and everything else in place for the 'global' economy, we ought to start with recognizing that the use of foreign labor makes sense but, is that nation elevating the standard of living of the workers so that in time they will be on par with us or is the reverse going to occur in time. We need getting the Commerce folks off their butts along with the Trade folks and see what is going on in each of these countries. Mexico has not done diddly (IMO) to raise the folks working along the border. This is a must if we are to advance our own standards. This of course, does not mean that we will always be ahead.. not at all but our standard should grow and the emerging nations grow at a greater rate.
edit: The idea is to have a market to sell our goods into... and if their standard stagnates so will our ability to sell into it... while they pump goods into our market...
I said:
I don't see it that way.. ya gotta put the shoe on the foot that it fits on.. The management of the various companies have a duty to the owners to increase wealth or at least preserve wealth. They should do what is in the owners best interest.. going to Egypt if that is what it takes is their job.. The fact that they are forced to do this is the fault of the Government folks whose duty, it seems to me, is to insure the American people have an economy that provides the opportunities for the standard of living we have evolved to..[/quote]
You said:
I concur about the points where ceos of companies and the likes have the duty to increase wealth and preserve wealth, which why sometimes I found its ironic ppl are raising hell about losing their job, and in the same time curse the performance of their stocks if the company didn't do well enough.
As for blaming the Govt, I don't think thats entirely true. With rising cost of living & expense, people simply have to have better wages, which is happen in the US. Can't blame the government for a fresh graduate in CS wanting to make 40-50K/yr, while in India they only make 10K/yr.
As for the rest of ppl that keep emphasizing the loss of jobs in the US and how evil the companies that are on moving jobs overseas, what do you suppose these companies need to do about it then? Its quite simple, reduce cost = greater profits, and the more profits they make, the better the company is.[/quote]
Well I guess the gross answer is the either refine and remedy the 'global' or the 'national' approach to our economic future. Some of this and some of that ain't gonna cut it. I don't care which way we go, either will work for us but, not as it is currently 'played'. Since we have all the treaties and rules and everything else in place for the 'global' economy, we ought to start with recognizing that the use of foreign labor makes sense but, is that nation elevating the standard of living of the workers so that in time they will be on par with us or is the reverse going to occur in time. We need getting the Commerce folks off their butts along with the Trade folks and see what is going on in each of these countries. Mexico has not done diddly (IMO) to raise the folks working along the border. This is a must if we are to advance our own standards. This of course, does not mean that we will always be ahead.. not at all but our standard should grow and the emerging nations grow at a greater rate.
edit: The idea is to have a market to sell our goods into... and if their standard stagnates so will our ability to sell into it... while they pump goods into our market...
I see you are still insulting people here while posting some of the most idiotic thing I've ever read.
You are the one who doesn't know what is going on. Do you know the current president is on track to be the first since president Hoover to lost jobs during his 4 years? Guess when Hoover was president. 1929~1933, does that ring a bell?
Do you know we are running record government deficit, record jump in national debt, record trade deficits during this few years and if nobody do something about those, we will soon become like Argentina, you do know where is Argentina and what is happenning there recently don't you?
The only thing you know seems to be, yeah we always have trade deficit , yeah we always have unemployment, so what is the big deal. Well the big deal is the amount of trade deficit we have is much higher than what we have before and we don't have a strong economy anymore to support the deficit. The unemployment level haven't been this high for almost ten years, and no one know if we have the social structure and policy to support this kind of unemployment. The worst thing is, the unemployment doesn't seems to improve with economy, and we may only have higher unemployment even if the economy recovers. That will not be good for society. And before you go and say Europe have much higher unemployment number, they use different way to account for the number, and their society has much better safty net for those unemployed. So don't go compare our number with other people.
So, it's not that dmcowen674 is spreading fear. He just know better, unlike you who are clueless about what's going on in American.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The NBER (the folks who identify the turning points and business cycles) have a definition of recession:
"A period of significant decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy". Of course there is the old stand by "A decrease in the GDP that lasts for at least two quarters"
The 'great depression' is really the worst of all our recession periods.. I might use the term depression to define a recession that is world wide and an order of magnitude greater than the normal recessions that occur over time. But, it really has wide and differing definitions.
IMO we are not in a depression but, some of the indicators of the NBER would point toward recession but, not all... The stock market is not an NBER indicator as such... it,among other things is a predictor of events and NBER looks at historical data.
"A period of significant decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy". Of course there is the old stand by "A decrease in the GDP that lasts for at least two quarters"
The 'great depression' is really the worst of all our recession periods.. I might use the term depression to define a recession that is world wide and an order of magnitude greater than the normal recessions that occur over time. But, it really has wide and differing definitions.
IMO we are not in a depression but, some of the indicators of the NBER would point toward recession but, not all... The stock market is not an NBER indicator as such... it,among other things is a predictor of events and NBER looks at historical data.
Interesting that while the number of jobs on employees' payrolls are going down, the number of employed people is going up. I've already mentioned this, so you can read about the details in a thread I started a few weeks ago.
We had a recession back in 2001/2002 where we had 3 consecutive quarters of declining GDP. Since then we have a few positive quarters in terms of GDP growth, but our employment and trade hasn't return to normal level.
Depression is much bigger then recession, the usual definition is when GDP has declined more than 10%. We have not experienced a depression since WW2.
Having said that, it is important to make sure our government is doing the right thing to steer us away from depression. We had a recession, we still have unemployment problem. Our production/output are moving out of our country. Our consumers are loosing job, piling up debts and scare of spending. Our government is still heavily pro-business, pro-high income class in the expense of mass middle/lower income class. What is that going to do to our economy in the long run. I certainly do not want to wait until depression is here to find out.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Dirtboy,
I said:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You bet! Problem here is that we have a growing population and a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs. We need to protect against the loss of more jobs. Consider, if we could reduce the income tax because we were at full employment and had revenue levels creating vast surplus we could use this money to pay the cost differential US made products would create. Or, inflation which over time equalizes the standard if the fiscal and monetary policies are intelligent. As the middle class goes lower the tax burden increases on them and others all of which makes for bad times. Someone has to pay for the government and that someone is the folks with jobs... earning less but paying more in tax or it goes to debt and then we get into another chain of logic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said
Quote:
Well, I don't know about a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs. If anything, I see a shrinking of lower class jobs. Again, I don't know where you're getting your data from, nor what you consider middle class.
Reducing income tax puts more money in people's pocket. When people have more money, they will buy more things. When they buy more stuff, they create more jobs.
We already subsidize enough things, giving business diferentials really doesn't get us anything.
Would you believe that the top 50% of US taxpayers pay 96% of the tax burden? Would you believe the top 1% of taxpayers pay 50% of the tax burden? It's true. I don't see a shrinking middle class. If anything, I see an increaseing middle class, primarily due to two incomes[/quote]
I see a number of classes; Poverty, Lower, Middle, Upper and Ultra. But, I suppose from the poverty level to the upper level is the middle class although, some economists figure Middle is between 2 and 6 times the poverty level which implies something inbetween - like lower. So your point is a good one. I could mean anything.. couldn't I..
It used to be based on a family of four. But here again we have the problem of where the folks live. If they live in Alaska HHS would say about 25K$ is the poverty line but, in the 48 contig's it would be near 22K$
Lets settle on single earner with him and 3 dependents and at: poverty to 24k, lower to 38K, middle to 125k and upper beyond 125k. Or give me your numbers that you like.. 24K$ is just under 10$ per hour.
When I say we have a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs it is related to the above thresholds and the population. If the growth of middle income level earning jobs decreases related to population growth then I say it is shrinking. The shrinkage may result in going up or down. If you wish to define only three classes or broaden the $figures then I'd have to change my assumptions too.. I can't easily debate till I know what the $ are..
I said:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You bet! Problem here is that we have a growing population and a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs. We need to protect against the loss of more jobs. Consider, if we could reduce the income tax because we were at full employment and had revenue levels creating vast surplus we could use this money to pay the cost differential US made products would create. Or, inflation which over time equalizes the standard if the fiscal and monetary policies are intelligent. As the middle class goes lower the tax burden increases on them and others all of which makes for bad times. Someone has to pay for the government and that someone is the folks with jobs... earning less but paying more in tax or it goes to debt and then we get into another chain of logic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said
Quote:
Well, I don't know about a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs. If anything, I see a shrinking of lower class jobs. Again, I don't know where you're getting your data from, nor what you consider middle class.
Reducing income tax puts more money in people's pocket. When people have more money, they will buy more things. When they buy more stuff, they create more jobs.
We already subsidize enough things, giving business diferentials really doesn't get us anything.
Would you believe that the top 50% of US taxpayers pay 96% of the tax burden? Would you believe the top 1% of taxpayers pay 50% of the tax burden? It's true. I don't see a shrinking middle class. If anything, I see an increaseing middle class, primarily due to two incomes[/quote]
I see a number of classes; Poverty, Lower, Middle, Upper and Ultra. But, I suppose from the poverty level to the upper level is the middle class although, some economists figure Middle is between 2 and 6 times the poverty level which implies something inbetween - like lower. So your point is a good one. I could mean anything.. couldn't I..
It used to be based on a family of four. But here again we have the problem of where the folks live. If they live in Alaska HHS would say about 25K$ is the poverty line but, in the 48 contig's it would be near 22K$
Lets settle on single earner with him and 3 dependents and at: poverty to 24k, lower to 38K, middle to 125k and upper beyond 125k. Or give me your numbers that you like.. 24K$ is just under 10$ per hour.
When I say we have a shrinking quantity of middle class jobs it is related to the above thresholds and the population. If the growth of middle income level earning jobs decreases related to population growth then I say it is shrinking. The shrinkage may result in going up or down. If you wish to define only three classes or broaden the $figures then I'd have to change my assumptions too..
I can't easily debate till I know what the $ are..TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter