-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
'U.S. market sees major decline in job quality'
- Thread starter Ferocious
- Start date
DealMonkey
Lifer
Or perhaps (from the linked article):
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
There's no such thing as inflated wages*. Whatever the market will bear is the proper price for any good or service.
*(except for bribes, embezzlement, etc.)
imported_Aelius
Golden Member
I'm not surprised.
Every time I hear soandso number of jobs created, and hey look we are doing a good job by making the economy work, it makes me cringe.
It makes me cringe because I know that most of those jobs were created at the expanse of good jobs that vanished.
At least that's the case in Canada.
They eliminated three or four hundred thousand well paying jobs (this was years ago), including a very large number of government jobs (again years ago), and they said that they were tightening the belt on government and other sectors to be more competative, yet claimed they will create lots of jobs.
They did create lots of jobs. Lots of low wage jobs, the vast majority of which were (and still are) part time and seasonal jobs.
As far as government jobs were concerned they couldn't possibly eliminate hundreds of thousands of critical government jobs, or else the whole system would have collapsed, so they outsourced. Those same employees then went on to either earning a little more or the same, to usually somewhat less. The majority of profits, since that's what contracts are out for, cost (and still costs) Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
The average Joe got hoodwinked out of their tax money and it went to fill the pockets of business owners whom were either previous in the government or had exellent government ties to secure those fat contracts.
What pisses me off even more is that the average tax payer doesn't even understand this simple concept and they still don't know this is happening.
Every time I hear soandso number of jobs created, and hey look we are doing a good job by making the economy work, it makes me cringe.
It makes me cringe because I know that most of those jobs were created at the expanse of good jobs that vanished.
At least that's the case in Canada.
They eliminated three or four hundred thousand well paying jobs (this was years ago), including a very large number of government jobs (again years ago), and they said that they were tightening the belt on government and other sectors to be more competative, yet claimed they will create lots of jobs.
They did create lots of jobs. Lots of low wage jobs, the vast majority of which were (and still are) part time and seasonal jobs.
As far as government jobs were concerned they couldn't possibly eliminate hundreds of thousands of critical government jobs, or else the whole system would have collapsed, so they outsourced. Those same employees then went on to either earning a little more or the same, to usually somewhat less. The majority of profits, since that's what contracts are out for, cost (and still costs) Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
The average Joe got hoodwinked out of their tax money and it went to fill the pockets of business owners whom were either previous in the government or had exellent government ties to secure those fat contracts.
What pisses me off even more is that the average tax payer doesn't even understand this simple concept and they still don't know this is happening.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Not necessarily. For instance, the typical CEO from the 80s had inflated wages . . . in the 90s they were grossly inflated . . . in the 00s they are obscenely inflated. But the business community (and the public) tolerate it.
The other part of the equation is that in technology, companies begged and pleaded with Congress to expand the H1-B visa program. One could argue this was an attempt to lower wages but an equally important aspect is that there were PLENTIFUL job opportunities but insufficient skilled labor to fill the positions. In our current reality, there is an excess of skilled labor (domestic and global) and/or a paucity of opportunities. Accordingly, wages are being depressed.
Shut up. This thread clearly is another degenerate Liberal attempt at treasonous defeatism. All is well in BushWorld. There are no flaws in Bush's immaculate concept. Everything BushGod says is true. Dear BushGod, preserve Us from the perversions of our LiberalCommunist Enemies who are set to steal my Money. 😕
It is hard to speculate what Gore would have done but it is extremely unlikely he would have pursued irresponsible and reactionary policies like those of tax cuts designed to enrich the already rich. Nobel Laurate Akerlof described the tax cut policy as a kind of 'looting'. These tax cuts were also partly designed to make Bush look good in time for the 2004 election. Nor is it likely that Gore would have pursued a fascist policy of illegal warfare partly to boost the coffers of weapon makers and industrial owners connected to the Bush regime. This policy is called Military Keynesianism. Those two are clear examples of what Gore would not do that has a dramatic and longterm effect on the economic situation. Gore would not have designed economic, juridical and military policies that would openly aim to shelter and strengthen a plutocracy, at least not to the extreme degree Bush has done. Bush's ideal state seems to be spiritually modelled on Pinochet's Chile with a super wealthy and powerful elite pitched against the rest of the population.
--------------
Akerlof
Akerlof: There is a systematic reason. The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting.
Military Keynesianism
"The administration is conducting a highly irresponsible fiscal policy, and there is no legitimate economist on the face of the earth who doesn't say the tax cuts are just loony," said Kent Sims, a San Francisco economic consultant and public policy expert. "The chosen weapon for dragging the economy off the floor - now that an election is coming - is the deficit. Military expenditure is usually the least effective of short-run ways of spending money, because it doesn't build infrastructure that give you returns over time.But it does create a short-term lift."
"Military-fuelled growth, or military Keynesianism as it is now known in academic circles, was first theorised by the Polish economist Michal Kalecki in 1943. Kalecki argued that capitalists and their political champions tended to bridle against classic Keynesianism; achieving full employment through public spending made them nervous because it risked over-empowering the working class and the unions.
The military was a much more desirable investment from their point of view, although justifying such a diversion of public funds required a certain degree of political repression, best achieved through appeals to patriotism and fear-mongering about an enemy threat - and, inexorably, an actual war.
At the time, Kalecki's best example of military Keynesianism was Nazi Germany. But the concept does not just operate under fascist dictatorships. Indeed, it has been taken up with enthusiasm by the neo-liberal right wing in the United States."
...
Ronald Reagan famously resorted to deficit spending, using talk of the Evil Empire and communist threats from Central America as his excuse to ratchet up the military budget. In 1984, the deficit rose to a whopping 6.2 per cent of GDP. Consequently, the economy grew by more than 7 per cent that year, and he was re-elected by a landslide.
The corollary of the Reagan military boom was a sharp cutback in social spending, something that was not reversed under Bill Clinton and is now back on the agenda with George Bush. State and local budgets are all in crisis because of the recession of the past two years. The fact that the White House is not using federal dollars to help them finance schools, hospitals and police forces hurts all the more because these things have now been underfunded for a generation."
---------------
These two policies clearly prove that the Bush administration is waging a kind of economic warfare against the majority of the US population.
Akerlof
Corn
Diamond Member
Sorry GrGr, linkie no workie........but for all Akerlof's hysterical BS a shining example stands out for all to see, shedding light on the author's lack of competency when discussing economic policy:
For someone opining on economic policy, one would expect he understand the basic definition of what constitutes a recession--that being 2 or more consecutive quarters of contracting GDP. Hell, its debatable whether or not the US was ever in a literal recession (since the GDP only contracted for 1 quarter in 2001), let alone the preposterous assertion that we had 2 years of recession.
What a joke, but then again, it's from commiedreams. I expected no less.
For someone opining on economic policy, one would expect he understand the basic definition of what constitutes a recession--that being 2 or more consecutive quarters of contracting GDP. Hell, its debatable whether or not the US was ever in a literal recession (since the GDP only contracted for 1 quarter in 2001), let alone the preposterous assertion that we had 2 years of recession.
What a joke, but then again, it's from commiedreams. I expected no less.
Nice try, Corn, but your chosen definition of "recession" is more than a little simplistic, clearly selected to defend a position rather than to express the truth...
And a not so clever avoidance of the topic at hand. Yeh, sure, the economy is recovering, particularly for those at the top of the pile, for whom it never really was very bad. The rest of us get the leftovers-
http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
And a not so clever avoidance of the topic at hand. Yeh, sure, the economy is recovering, particularly for those at the top of the pile, for whom it never really was very bad. The rest of us get the leftovers-
http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
Corn
Diamond Member
My chosen definition of "recession" is the accepted definition of recession. You are free to look up the definition at any refrence website you wish. The fact is that NBER has adopted their own definition, possibly selected to defend a position rather than to express the truth.
But........the NBER report you linked merely refutes Akerlof's claim of a 2 year recession anyway, by their standards. Sooo what was your point again?
But........the NBER report you linked merely refutes Akerlof's claim of a 2 year recession anyway, by their standards. Sooo what was your point again?
DealMonkey
Lifer
It was widely reported that the U.S. entered its latest recession in March 2001 thus ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States.
There's a nice chart that shows the quarters of negative growth. The chart is from this article concerning the idea that NBER was considering moving back the start date of the recession and also provided some info on the factors NBER looks at when determining recession start/end dates. I thought it was interesting that they didn't start considering GDP figures until October of 2003...
A quick glance at the chart reveals there were 3 quarters of negative GDP in 2001. It's widely accepted that Q2/Q3 of 2001 were recessionary and that the economy pulled out in Q4.
There's a nice chart that shows the quarters of negative growth. The chart is from this article concerning the idea that NBER was considering moving back the start date of the recession and also provided some info on the factors NBER looks at when determining recession start/end dates. I thought it was interesting that they didn't start considering GDP figures until October of 2003...
A quick glance at the chart reveals there were 3 quarters of negative GDP in 2001. It's widely accepted that Q2/Q3 of 2001 were recessionary and that the economy pulled out in Q4.
Ok I fixed the link. The Akerlof interview is from July 2003. Another quote from it:
"Akerlof: That may be, but Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election."
"Akerlof: That may be, but Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election."
No, it's from Der Spiegel.
Ok, if you have a deeper understanding of the US economy than Nobel Laureate Akerlof then please tell us how the US is going to deal with it's economic problems.
So with the huge deficit now a reality in the US economy when, not if, the next recession comes the US economy will have run out of room to maneuver. And with the government unable to pay for Medicare and SS, again thanks to the huge deficit, the majority of American citizens will suffer through unemployment or crappy jobs, and the failure of Social Security and Medicare will hit the elderly. So the tax cuts essentially looted the future US economy of it's resources to deal with problems, especially problems for those that actually need help the most, the majority of Americans who do not belong to the wealthy.
Akerlof says that this is the time the US should be saving, but Bush is not saving, he is intentionally doing the opposite. The reason of course is that it serves two political purposes. It enriches the already rich, that is himself and his plutocratic supporters, and it permanently weakens the opposition to his rule, the majority of the US people.
Bush's policies are aimed at creating a Mega Banana Republic controlled (policed) by the wealthy elite. Dissent will not be tolerated (see the Patriot Acts).
sandorski
No Lifer
Though Corn's definition of "Recession" is correct, that being X amount of quartely economic contraction, if the economy still hasn't expanded beyond the initial contraction caused by the "Recession", the economy is still in a Recessed state. AKA, still < than prior to the "Recession". So Corn's point is kind of Moot, as the recovery took 2ish years to move back beyond the prior state.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
