Watch the unemployement rate drop!

[Slew Foot]

Just goes to show you the Dems have no business experience. No one in their right mind is going to hire someone for 30K+ just to get a 5k tax credit, unless they were going to hire them anyway. CHeck that, I can see a whole bunch of people hiring multiple family members to game the system.

 

[rudder]

That has been suggested, but not Proved. Any Data to back that up?

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/NACUSummary/

Some good data. Dec 2009 saw 50,000 less cars built than Dec 2008. Overall it was down 2 million units for the year.

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01summary.xls

Overall sales in the United States down from 2008 to 2009 by roughly 3 million units.

Here is the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penton_Media

 

[alphatarget1]

I think what a lot of people fill find out is that the economy simply does not need so many workers to function. When the economy was running on 70% consumer spending and that drops off, of course we'll have to adjust. Everything is tied to consumer spending. Adjustments take time.

When companies become more efficient, the need to hire the same amount of workers to accomplish the same tasks diminishes. Businesses exist to make a profit, period, and why should they hire more workers if it doesn't make sense for them?

It's a painful transition, but I think it'll be good for us in the long run, provided that the government makes smart decisions and stop throwing money at the problem. I would assume a Republican presidency/congress will also try to improve the economy by means of policies, but sooner or later we'll have to live with the fact of life that maybe high unemployment is here to stay for a while. Getting the average voter to understand this would be a futile attempt.

 

[Hacp]

30k restriction? WTF? No, you give them a tax cut for hiring any worker. I'd say 10k is a good bottom limit. Obama is ruining the economy once again.

I read in the NY times that democrats didn't want people firing one worker to replace him with 2. WTF? Thats exactly what businesses should be doing. More workers working=more productivity=higher gdp. Does Obama not understand?

 

[highland145]

Edmonds was way wrong. Their methodology was in error. Here's a counter perspective

I knew there was a question but I figured you post it for me.

Look at what this guy says

By my estimates virtually all the automobiles sold under the Cash for Clunkers program can be attributed to the effects of this policy. Judged by that prism, the program must be viewed as a success.

No shit. All cars sold under the Clunker program were because of the Clunker program.

 

[sandorski]

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/NACUSummary/

Some good data. Dec 2009 saw 50,000 less cars built than Dec 2008. Overall it was down 2 million units for the year.

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01summary.xls

Overall sales in the United States down from 2008 to 2009 by roughly 3 million units.

Here is the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penton_Media

It was very clear that 2009 was going to be a very bad year. There were even estimates at one time of <10 million Sales being possible. This Data doesn't really address the effects of C4C.

 

[sandorski]

I knew there was a question but I figured you post it for me.

Look at what this guy says

No shit. All cars sold under the Clunker program were because of the Clunker program.

He was merely pointing out that C4C was primarily responsible for most of the Sales. How many of those were People holding off or buying early is a more difficult thing to figure out.

 

[Hacp]

I think what a lot of people fill find out is that the economy simply does not need so many workers to function. When the economy was running on 70% consumer spending and that drops off, of course we'll have to adjust. Everything is tied to consumer spending. Adjustments take time.

When companies become more efficient, the need to hire the same amount of workers to accomplish the same tasks diminishes. Businesses exist to make a profit, period, and why should they hire more workers if it doesn't make sense for them?

It's a painful transition, but I think it'll be good for us in the long run, provided that the government makes smart decisions and stop throwing money at the problem. I would assume a Republican presidency/congress will also try to improve the economy by means of policies, but sooner or later we'll have to live with the fact of life that maybe high unemployment is here to stay for a while. Getting the average voter to understand this would be a futile attempt.

You're ignoring the millions of jobs being shipped to China, India, and mexico.

 

[Hacp]

He was merely pointing out that C4C was primarily responsible for most of the Sales. How many of those were People holding off or buying early is a more difficult thing to figure out.

Great, so responsible people who put off buying a new car ended up paying for someone's new BMW.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What whining. I own my own business and there's no way I'll hire someone I don't need for a paltry $5k. Even a one for one wouldn't cut it. No benefit if I can't use them. Give me the $5k in tax breaks and I would be more than willing to be required to spend it on expansion/equipment/advertising.

Summer lemonade stands don't count. And you intentionally miss the point of hiring help you do need and getting a tax rebate to help cover the costs. Dimwit!!

 

[highland145]

I think what a lot of people fill find out is that the economy simply does not need so many workers to function. When the economy was running on 70% consumer spending and that drops off, of course we'll have to adjust. Everything is tied to consumer spending. Adjustments take time.

When companies become more efficient, the need to hire the same amount of workers to accomplish the same tasks diminishes. Businesses exist to make a profit, period, and why should they hire more workers if it doesn't make sense for them?

It's a painful transition, but I think it'll be good for us in the long run, provided that the government makes smart decisions and stop throwing money at the problem. I would assume a Republican presidency/congress will also try to improve the economy by means of policies, but sooner or later we'll have to live with the fact of life that maybe high unemployment is here to stay for a while. Getting the average voter to understand this would be a futile attempt.

10% is here for a while. Especially considering the "more efficient" argument. A bunch of people are going to have to be retrained for other jobs because their old one doesn't exist anymore. Middle managers --->skilled trades.

 

[highland145]

Summer lemonade stands don't count. And you intentionally miss the point of hiring help you do need and getting a tax rebate to help cover the costs. Dimwit!!

I would be dangerous if I were as smart as you. I netted 29.7% on my outstanding last year. Oh, woe is me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The cash for clunkers merely compressed sales. The people most likely to be the ones to purchase a new car simply made that purchase sooner than planned. No jobs were created. Most of the auto manufacturers had excess inventory above what they would normally would carry. This simply burned off the excess. The GM plant near me still closed down.

That has been suggested, but not Proved. Any Data to back that up?

Look at the charts of car sales in 2008.
Notice the blip during the cash for clunkers.
Now look at the sales afterwords.
The level is less than before.

Even taking into account the fuel price impact - sales did not remain at the "clunker" levels and actually went below the "pre-clunker" level.

That indicates that the "clunker" period pulled sales in from the "post-clunker" period.

Then at the end of 2010; one can start looking at the repo trends which will start climbing.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This will have little impact on unemployment.

Unemployment will never return to lower levels until we acknowledge that the free market capitalism and tax cutting policies of the last few decades have ravaged this country. These policies did not create wealth, they consolidated wealth in the hands of a few and caused devastation to the majority of working class people.

Recognition is the first step to addressing a problem, and we still have our heads in the sand regarding the unemployment problem. Those in power choose to ignore and misdirect while they count the money they have lifted from the working class over the last many years. For the wealthy and well connected unemployment (like social security) is a hot button political issue that everyone wants to talk about and blame someone else for political gain, but they have no real desire or stomach for truly addressing the problem.

 

[rudder]

It was very clear that 2009 was going to be a very bad year. There were even estimates at one time of <10 million Sales being possible. This Data doesn't really address the effects of C4C.

Well i can present data and economists opinions all day long. The short of it is cash for clunkers cost $3 billion and created 0 jobs. During the August 2009 push automakers and parts suppliers shed 15,000 jobs, Sorry you cannot see that.

Anywho, this new stimulus will be more of the same.

 

[sandorski]

Look at the charts of car sales in 2008.
Notice the blip during the cash for clunkers.
Now look at the sales afterwords.
The level is less than before.

Even taking into account the fuel price impact - sales did not remain at the "clunker" levels and actually went below the "pre-clunker" level.

That indicates that the "clunker" period pulled sales in from the "post-clunker" period.

Then at the end of 2010; one can start looking at the repo trends which will start climbing.

September was down sharply, but both October and November compared very favorably Year-Year with a small single digit drop. Some of the Automakers blamed the September Drop on other things besides C4C. Closed Brands(GM) and low Showroom stock was partially blamed, for eg. Besides the one month of September there doesn't appear to be much negative impact of C4C. Most of the Automakers were expressing growing confidence looking forward. I don't really see any major problems with the program.

We'll see if Repos become a problem. I doubt it will be significantly beyond normal, but we'll see soon enough.

 

[sandorski]

Well i can present data and economists opinions all day long. The short of it is cash for clunkers cost $3 billion and created 0 jobs. During the August 2009 push automakers and parts suppliers shed 15,000 jobs, Sorry you cannot see that.

Anywho, this new stimulus will be more of the same.

Pretty bold statement. I suspect it at last created short term Employment, but that wasn't really the point of the Program. The extra Volume no doubt secured some Employment, at least temporarily.

 

[rudder]

Pretty bold statement. I suspect it at last created short term Employment, but that wasn't really the point of the Program. The extra Volume no doubt secured some Employment, at least temporarily.

As Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow – a key supporter of the law – put it, “This is a jobs program first.”

Jobs were the only reason for the cash for clunkers program. It was an attempt to spur auto sales which would make the manufacturers produce more autos and have a need for more employees. But as I said earlier.. it compressed sales and emptied an existing overabundance of inventory. Not much more I can say about it.

 

[sandorski]

As Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow – a key supporter of the law – put it, “This is a jobs program first.”

Jobs were the only reason for the cash for clunkers program. It was an attempt to spur auto sales which would make the manufacturers produce more autos and have a need for more employees. But as I said earlier.. it compressed sales and emptied an existing overabundance of inventory. Not much more I can say about it.

I'm sure all kind of Senators said all kinds of things that were ill advised about the program.

 

[alphatarget1]

You're ignoring the millions of jobs being shipped to China, India, and mexico.

What are you advocating instead? I mean, developing countries have a right to develop and bring their people out of poverty.

We as a country is encouraging mediocrity by means of things such as affirmative action. A lot of people/kids this generation think they are entitled to everything just because they are born in America. There are in for a rude awakening.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Hmm, there is a way we can have an ATOT effect on this program. Someone could hire 100 ATOTers for a salary of $4500.00, then earn $50K on hireing the 100 workers, who in actuallity would not have to do any work. Then each of the ATOTers could start their own company and hire the original business owner and the other 99 employees. Then keep this going until everyone has reached the $500K max. Not what I'd really do, but just a thought.

 

[alphatarget1]

10% is here for a while. Especially considering the "more efficient" argument. A bunch of people are going to have to be retrained for other jobs because their old one doesn't exist anymore. Middle managers --->skilled trades.

Off topic but this is *precisely* why our society should not be pushing every single soul into higher education. People who study sociology and psychology can't find jobs with a bachelors degree and arguably these degrees are pretty worthless from an economic standpoint. We'll soon be giving away loans to people to study these subjects, many of which are just mediocre students. We need to focus on making school affordable to those who deserve to be there by merit, not because everyone is entitled to a free higher education. A lot of kids are better off learning skilled trade, and the society (especially liberals) should stop looking down on people who build houses, fix their plumbing, etc.

Liberals = mostly consists of people who majored in worthless crap, can't find jobs, or are lawyers who don't produce anything meaningful in our society. There is a place for lawyers in this country, but there clearly are too many of them.

 

[Ldir]

When the dems solutions consist solely of throwing so much money around that they have to continually raise the debt ceiling... I see a problem with that.

Did you see a problem with it when the Republicans did it? Both parties have been constantly raising the debt ceiling ever since Ronald Reagan started running record deficits.

 

[highland145]

Off topic but this is *precisely* why our society should not be pushing every single soul into higher education. People who study sociology and psychology can't find jobs with a bachelors degree and arguably these degrees are pretty worthless from an economic standpoint. We'll soon be giving away loans to people to study these subjects, many of which are just mediocre students. We need to focus on making school affordable to those who deserve to be there by merit, not because everyone is entitled to a free higher education. A lot of kids are better off learning skilled trade, and the society (especially liberals) should stop looking down on people who build houses, fix their plumbing, etc.

Liberals = mostly consists of people who majored in worthless crap, can't find jobs, or are lawyers who don't produce anything meaningful in our society. There is a place for lawyers in this country, but there clearly are too many of them.

2 thoughts:
1. My bro with his 10th grade education is clearing $250K as plumber. Granted he knows what he's doing.
2. When I was a kid, my mom's cousin lived in Japan. Their education system decided what direction a child's schooling took based on test scores/abilities.

 

[highland145]

Did you see a problem with it when the Republicans did it? Both parties have been constantly raising the debt ceiling ever since Ronald Reagan started running record deficits.

Hell yes.