Jack Welch bails from Fortune / Reuters after bipartisan criticism

[shira]

Self-important economic buffoon Jack Welch's feelings got hurt after his absurd, not-a-shred-of-evidence claim that last Friday's BLS jobs numbers were "manipulated" was soundly ridiculed by virtually everyone with a brain, and slam-dunk refuted by the BLS itself (see my other thread on this subject). And attention has now been drawn to his job-destroying tenure at GE. Looks like Jack Welch can't take it when people much smarter than he pretends to be dare to ridicule his nonsensical blatherings.

Good riddance, you jackass.


http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/jack-welch-takes-column-goes-home-181843415.html

Turns out Jack Welch can't take the heat after all.

On Tuesday it was reported that the former General Electric CEO and his wife -- former Harvard Business Review editor-in-chief, Suzy Welch -- would no longer be writing their joint, biweekly column for Fortune magazine and Reuters.com, informing the editors of both publications via email that they were terminating their contract because they felt that they would get better "traction" for their writing elsewhere. The couple's articles have been running on Fortune since March 2012.

The move came after days of withering criticism from both sides of the aisle in response to Welch's tweet last Friday in which he suggested that the Obama administration had possibly manipulated the September jobs report number. "Unbelievable jobs numbers .. these Chicago guys will do anything .. can't debate so change numbers," Welch wrote. The insinuation, which Welch doubled down on after the fact, was that the president wanted to make the economy look healthier than it actually is heading into the November election.

The response was quick and critical (although he has found some supporters), with the White House calling his assertions "ludicrous." Fortune Managing Editor Andy Serwer called Welch out on the Monday morning episode of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," saying that, as far as the data are concerned, he feels the state of the U.S. economy is "exactly the opposite of what Jack Welch is saying. Things are actually improving."

The last straw for Welch was apparently an article that appeared on Fortune.com on Tuesday, which called Welch a job destroyer and highlighted the 100,000-plus jobs that he cut at GE during his 20 years at the helm.

Welch has become something of a media star since retiring from GE in 2001, appearing regularly on the cable news circuit and writing op-eds for a variety of print and online outlets. That trend will likely continue long term, but for now at least "Neutron Jack" has decided to take his ball and go home.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Soon to be exclusively seen on the Conservative Talk circuit?

 

[xBiffx]

When all else fails, attack the messenger.

Here is an interesting piece on the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They aren't manipulated, they are just inherently flawed. If I give everyone a job at minimum wage one can legitimately claim a zero unemployment rate. I wouldn't be bragging about that.

 

[dank69]

They aren't manipulated, they are just inherently flawed. If I give everyone a job at minimum wage one can legitimately claim a zero unemployment rate. I wouldn't be bragging about that.

Ignoring the fact that unemployment is much lower amongst the educated, are we?

 

[SandEagle]

the real unemployment is probably over 22%. good move and good luck, jack.

 

[Texashiker]

Ignoring the fact that unemployment is much lower amongst the educated, are we?

While the term "educated" usually refers to college educated, I would like to point out that people with a trade skill, such as welding and metal working are usually able to find gainful employment.

From what I am seeing, its the people with no skills, no certifications and no college education that have problems finding jobs.

AS for the OP, it seems rather cowardly to leave because of a statement. If the statement was incorrect, apologize and move on.

We are human, and being such we all make mistakes from time to time.

 

[Jaskalas]

Democrats were arguing that it was a bad number under Bush, Republicans are arguing it's a bad number now. I expect it'd be a great number again if Romney were in office.

 

[Munky]

Yawn... someone dares question the status quo, and the puppets attack in packs. Then attempt to draw attention away from the issue by unrelated crap like his tenure at GE. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ignoring the fact that unemployment is much lower amongst the educated, are we?

What is happening to the median income? Are average wages for jobs equivalent to the ones lost? "Sorry, but you are uneducated and the recovery doesn't apply to you"? What about benefits for these positions? Show me how that is reflected in a single number of 7.8%, which is what seems to be the only important figure and I'll reconsider my statement.

 

[dank69]

What is happening to the median income? Are average wages for jobs equivalent to the ones lost? "Sorry, but you are uneducated and the recovery doesn't apply to you"? What about benefits for these positions? Show me how that is reflected in a single number of 7.8%, which is what seems to be the only important figure and I'll reconsider my statement.

All that shit is down because Republicans keep blocking legislation to close loopholes for offshoring jobs:

The SEIU is correct that Republicans did fight against Democratic plans to close tax loopholes on multinational corporations.

Dems tried to close the loophole that allows corporations to write off expenses incurred from moving an office even if the move is overseas. Republicans blocked it.

 

[Texashiker]

All that shit is down because Republicans keep blocking legislation to close loopholes for offshoring jobs:

Dems tried to close the loophole that allows corporations to write off expenses incurred from moving an office even if the move is overseas. Republicans blocked it.

Dems tried to close the loophole? That is laughable.

Didn't bill clinton sign nafta and gatt? Last I heard clinton was a democrat.

Here is the thing about offshoring of jobs, the president negotiates trade treaties, the senate ratifies the treaty. What trade treaty has obama negotiated?

 

[dank69]

Dems tried to close the loophole? That is laughable.

Didn't bill clinton sign nafta and gatt?

Last I heard clinton was a democrat.

Last I heard, NAFTA was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, opposed mostly by Democrats. Clinton did however add some restrictions to it before signing it so you can thank him that things are not worse than they are now.

 

[soulcougher73]

I have blinders for sale to GOP for when the truth hurts their eyes.

 

[Texashiker]

Last I heard, NAFTA was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, opposed mostly by Democrats, and even if Clinton wanted to veto it, it passed the senate by something like 90-8. Clinton did however add some restrictions to it before signing it so you can thank him that things are not worse than they are now.

Clinton signed nafta, and that was after running on a platform of anti-free trade.

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

But for some reasons republicans push free trade?

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Without the democrats help, free trade agreements would have never passed.

 

[Matt1970]

Last I heard, NAFTA was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, opposed mostly by Democrats, and even if Clinton wanted to veto it, it passed the senate by something like 90-8. Clinton did however add some restrictions to it before signing it so you can thank him that things are not worse than they are now.

That would mean there were 10 or so Democrats in the Senate?

 

[dank69]

Clinton signed nafta, and that was after running on a platform of anti-free trade.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

But for some reasons republicans push free trade?

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Without the democrats help, free trade agreements would have never passed.

That would mean there were 10 or so Democrats in the Senate?

I misspoke, I was thinking of the repeal of glass steagal with those numbers. I have edited my post.

What I did say though, which is true, is that most of the opposition to it was from Democrats. I did not say all Democrats opposed it.

 

[Thump553]

Dems tried to close the loophole? That is laughable.

Didn't bill clinton sign nafta and gatt? Last I heard clinton was a democrat.

Here is the thing about offshoring of jobs, the president negotiates trade treaties, the senate ratifies the treaty. What trade treaty has obama negotiated?

Columbia, South Korea and Panama. Shame on you for accepting another of Romney's bald faced lies as truth. When dealing with such an unreliable source everything must be independently verified. It's a shame that a major candidate for the US President is so untruthful, but wishes turning into facts seems to be a GOP standard these days.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-trade/index.html

 

[Texashiker]

I misspoke, I was thinking of the repeal of glass steagal with those numbers. I have edited my post.

What I did say though, which is true, is that most of the opposition to it was from Democrats. I did not say all Democrats opposed it.

I will restate my stance, without the democrats help, free trade would have never passed.

"If" democrats were really against free trade, bill clinton would not have signed nafta.

Bill clinton ran on a campaign of anti-free trade, it was probably on of the issues that got him elected. But once elected, billy flip-flopped on the free trade issue.

If you look at national debt and trade stats, there was a rise in the 1980s. In the 1990s, shortly after nafta was passed, the trade deficit took off like a rocket.

 

[Texashiker]

Columbia, South Korea and Panama. Shame on you for accepting another of Romney's bald faced lies as truth. When dealing with such an unreliable source everything must be independently verified. It's a shame that a major candidate for the US President is so untruthful, but wishes turning into facts seems to be a GOP standard these days.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-trade/index.html

Thank you,

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-trade/index.html

Obama secured congressional approval of free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and signed them in October 2011.

And, china still has most favored nation trade status.

 

[dank69]

I will restate my stance, without the democrats help, free trade would have never passed.

"If" democrats were really against free trade, bill clinton would not have signed nafta.

Bill clinton ran on a campaign of anti-free trade, it was probably on of the issues that got him elected. But once elected, billy flip-flopped on the free trade issue.

If you look at national debt and trade stats, there was a rise in the 1980s. In the 1990s, shortly after nafta was passed, the trade deficit took off like a rocket.

That's enough of your dancing. The point was that Democrats tried to close a specific loophole and Republicans blocked it. NAFTA has nothing to do with that.

 

[Texashiker]

That's enough of your dancing. The point was that Democrats tried to close a specific loophole and Republicans blocked it. NAFTA has nothing to do with that.

Democrats tried to close loopholes while negotiating free trade agreements?

That does not make any sense.

 

[dank69]

Democrats tried to close loopholes while negotiating free trade agreements?

That does not make any sense.

It most definitely makes sense, unless you think we should continue to help pay for companies to relocate overseas?

 

[Texashiker]

It most definitely makes sense,

No it does not make sense.

Closing loop holes in free trade is like saying you are anti-gun, but go out an buy an AK-47.

Free trade is a loop hole, a major hole that jobs are sucked through.

 

[Blackjack200]

Democrats tried to close loopholes while negotiating free trade agreements?

That does not make any sense.

Are you going to address the point he raised in his link?

Some Democrats are steamed that businesses closing U.S. operations can deduct the closing costs as standard business expenses. "The law, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and offices and move those jobs overseas to take a tax deduction for the costs associated with moving the jobs to China or India or wherever," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., last year.

PolitiFact Rhode Island delved into Whitehouse's statement in some detail and ruled his statement True. In general, businesses can deduct any costs they face in the course of doing business. And the costs of shuttering a factory in the United States are not exempt.

Whitehouse supported legislation to change that by disallowing exemptions associated with offshoring, which an official summary defines as "any transaction in which a taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business in connection with the start-up or expansion of such trade or business outside the United States." The bill failed in the Senate because it couldn't get the 60 votes required to cut off the threat of filibuster and move the bill toward final passage. The bill failed on a 53-45 vote, largely along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it.