Where is the US economy headed?

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Job losses by month since things really started to deterioriate (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics):
9/2008: -321,000
10/2008: -380,000
11/2008: -597,000
12/2008: -681,000
1/2009: -741,000 (revised upward 4/3 by something like 60,000)
2/2009: -681,000 (revised 5/8 from 651,000)
3/2009: -699,000 (revised 5/8 from 663,000)
4/2009: -539,000

4 Replies

@realjohnboy,

That is markedly less. Hopefully we'll see the beginning of a bottom.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Which makes that blurb I posted even more curious. Is it better to reduce wages across the board or hold the line for everybody than it is to lay people off to add to the jobless statistics? Should workers collectively agree to lower wages and reduced benefits to save the jobs for some? Of course those with heads on the chopping block would almost certainly say yes. But would those is 'safe seats'? Would it be appropriate to accept lower wages and reduced benefits if the alternative was that your employer would close up shop altogether and everybody would be out of work? And is it appropriate for the Obama administration to dictate to the states what they have to pay their workers so long as the federal minimum wage is accommodated?

I recall years ago, a unionized machine shop (I think in Missouri) was being pressured for a large wage increase by the union. The owner brought in the union bosses and the workers and opened their books, showed their P & Ls, and explained that they could not afford the demanded wage increase and stay competitive. The union was unimpressed and threatened strike. So the owner sold the building, packed up the equipment, moved to another state (I think Arkansas) and set up a non union shop that thrived.

Unfortunately states, counties, and municipalities don't have that option.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

There's really not many choices on where companies can offshore their offices or business; it depends upon many factors including the educational level, train-ability, infrastructure, and the skilled labor to produce the products and services to expand their business. Even in China when they were experiencing huge economic gains, they closed thousands of factories when the world economy tanked. Cheap labor alone is not the panacea people make it out to be; it also has to do with the world economy. If the US economy suffers, so does the world economy. Although we represent only five percent of the world population, we consume over 25% of the world's goods and services.

China and India both have the greatest potential, but the unlimited increase in consumption will ruin the world's ecology and deplete the limited raw materials of this planet much faster.

We as Americans have enjoyed a long and prosperous country, but the world competition will be more challenging in the future.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

This is kind of interesting. Next to the job losses by month for the whole economy (source: BLS) I have put in the % of those job losses that were attributable to the 500 largest publicly owned companies in the U.S. (source: Forbes), with Sept and Oct not being available:

9/2008: -321,000
10/2008: -380,000
11/2008: -597,000 16%
12/2008: -681,000 29%
1/2009: -741,000 22%
2/2009: -681,000 19%
3/2009: -699,000 6%
4/2009: -539,000 4%

This suggests to me that, for the big companies, the worst may be over. Here is how it looks on "Main Street:"

Job losses by month excluding the 500 largest companies:

11/2008: 501,000
12/2008: 484,000
1/2009: 361,000
2/2009: 552,000
3/2009: 657,000
4/2009: 517,000

1 Reply

All we need to do now is tell everybody to go out and spend; for necessities, of coarse!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, let me ask you - why relocate to Reno? Why didn't you just go right out of the country? After all, Reno tax and labor laws are amazingly high and restrictive compared to other countries. So what stopped you?

Labor laws, associated taxes on labor and Corporate taxes on profits are MUCH lower in Nevada than California. We could still serve the same clients, providing the same services (engineering & science) and do so with much higher margins. Moreover, we have found we can get equally talented people who are often much more adaptable and better motivated than here.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Software development is one thing - code can be written anywhere, even on an island in the South Pacific. It's just not the same as manufacture of physical goods.

Nonsense. Take a look at data on all the factories across the border in Mexico that manufacture everything from cellphones to automobiles, clothing and a huge variety of coinsumer goods - all destined for the U.S. market. Even with all the current security issues in Mexico they are doing very well indeed. The truth is that increasingly in the modern world anything can be done almost anywhere.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If your company decided that they could make more money by relocating to another country completely, would you support this?

Depends on the country and whether I would like to live there. We are planning to open an office in Dubai though.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the alternative to poor working conditions and low wages is to see industries go overseas, then let them go. It is not worth keeping shitty jobs.

Right. Then everyone can get a good job slinging burgers at MacDonalds - or working for the government.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, let me ask you - why relocate to Reno? Why didn't you just go right out of the country? After all, Reno tax and labor laws are amazingly high and restrictive compared to other countries. So what stopped you?
Labor laws, associated taxes on labor and Corporate taxes on profits are MUCH lower in Nevada than California. We could still serve the same clients, providing the same services (engineering & science) and do so with much higher margins. Moreover, we have found we can get equally talented people who are often much more adaptable and better motivated than here.

Sure; but by your construction you could be saving even more money and providing the same services by moving out of the country completely. After all, if higher taxes are the deciding factor, why not just keep going?

I think the answer to that question will show you why few companies will relocate out of America.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If your company decided that they could make more money by relocating to another country completely, would you support this?
Depends on the country and whether I would like to live there. We are planning to open an office in Dubai though.

I think you have finally hit on the number one reason that American companies will not relocate overseas in any large amount: those who run them do not wish to leave America. There are perks to locating one's company here which are difficult to enjoy in other regions of the world.

This is why I wish to call the bluff of the Corporations: remove tax breaks for offshoring, remove loopholes allowing them to hide funds in other countries, and dare them to leave. I am willing to be that the vast majority will not do so.

I am unswayed by the idea that the alternative to taking crappy, low-wage, low-benefit jobs is working at McDonalds. I think this is a bit of exaggeration on your part.

Is your company opening an office in Dubai, in order to attempt to move your home base there and hide from taxes, a la Halliburton? I hope not. That would be a deeply dishonorable thing to do and I would like to think that you wouldn't be party to such a thing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

Quote:

Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.

Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.

Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.

The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

This is part of the reason our taxes are so high.

5 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

Quote:
Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.

Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.

Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.

The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

This is part of the reason our taxes are so high.

Heaven forbid we slow the spread of one the deadliest diseases we know of. I mean, you could have paid 50 cents less in taxes last year if we just didn't give a **** about such things. Sounds like a great world you have envisioned.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mm, Our taxes are not high; you're going to get a tax cut under Obama's tax reduction plan. The debt is high, because Bush got into very costly wars, and it's still costing two billion dollars every week. It's really funny you are able to point out $400,000 and complain that Obama plans to cut $100,000 from his administration, and another $17 billion from other government spending.

Your hat is sitting on your head a little crooked.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

The lack of funding of prevention programs is part of the reason why our taxes are so high.

The cost of drugs alone to treat one HIV positive person is more than $1000 a month and can be more than $3000.

Quote:

Medicaid is an entitlement program providing low-income Americans access to health care. Medicaid is one of the most important programs for people living with HIV/AIDS, providing access to health care for over 53% of all adults with HIV disease and over 90% of all children living with HIV/AIDS.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art33569.html

<sarcasm>
We sure wouldn't want to spend money trying to prevent HIV being spread when it so clearly is cheaper to just treat them.</sarcasm>

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Where did I ever say that the study wasnt worth it?
Where did I ever say that AIDS should be allowed to run rampant?
Where did I ever say that people should be allowed to die from this disease?

NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT, surely even you must admit that going to Argentina to conduct the study is a waste of time and money.
There is a large gay community here in this country, especially in NY and San Francisco.
Why couldnt this same study have been conducted here?
It would have cost less money and been just as effective.

Now, since you think I want people to die from AIDS, I defy you to find even one post from me where I ever said that, or anything even close to that.

You are letting your own prejudice and hatred of gays affect your judgement.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's really funny you are able to point out $400,000 and complain that Obama plans to cut $100,000 from his administration, and another $17 billion from other government spending.

Not to criticize, but you really need to rewrite that sentence.
The way its written, it doesnt make any sense, and I dont want to respond unless I am sure about what you meant.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

BUT, surely even you must admit that going to Argentina to conduct the study is a waste of time and money.
There is a large gay community here in this country, especially in NY and San Francisco.
Why couldnt this same study have been conducted here?
It would have cost less money and been just as effective.

Maybe the bars in Argentina are cheaper than the ones in New York....

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Where did I ever say that the study wasnt worth it?
Where did I ever say that AIDS should be allowed to run rampant?
Where did I ever say that people should be allowed to die from this disease?

NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT, surely even you must admit that going to Argentina to conduct the study is a waste of time and money.
There is a large gay community here in this country, especially in NY and San Francisco.
Why couldnt this same study have been conducted here?
It would have cost less money and been just as effective.

Now, since you think I want people to die from AIDS, I defy you to find even one post from me where I ever said that, or anything even close to that.

You are letting your own prejudice and hatred of gays affect your judgement.

Uh, not so much there on the last sentence, so I'm just going to ignore it rather than wade in.

As for the rest,

Quote:

There is a large gay community here in this country, especially in NY and San Francisco.
Why couldnt this same study have been conducted here?
It would have cost less money and been just as effective.

I don't know why. But I have been involved in the Science field long enough to know that experimental setup often takes into account many factors which are hard to understand unless you have a depth of knowledge of the field in question. It is entirely likely that the researchers are well aware of large gay communities in America and chose the Argentinian communities for a reason. The fact that the Fox article you quoted didn't give that reason doesn't mean a good one doesn't exist, yet you seem to assume that it doesn't. I doubt the researchers just decided to waste a bunch of money on a whim.

When you post something, and say 'this is why we pay high taxes,' it generally indicates disapproval.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, I'm sure the motivation to open an office in Dubai has very little to do with "tax breaks," and more to do with location of opportunity. Dubai is not exactly a cheap country to live in. A friend of ours went to lunch in that famous building we see in Dubai, and they paid US$300. The cruise line offered dinner for $1200, and they sold out. Even in the US $300 for lunch is way beyond most people's income level.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, I'm sure the motivation to open an office in Dubai has very little to do with "tax breaks," and more to do with location of opportunity. Dubai is not exactly a cheap country to live in. A friend of ours went to lunch in that famous building we see in Dubai, and they paid US$300. The cruise line offered dinner for $1200, and they sold out. Even in the US $300 for lunch is way beyond most people's income level.

Sure - but no taxes. You don't have to move a lot of people there, just open an office and declare it your corporate headquarters. Then you can operate in whatever country you like and pay virtually no taxes whatsoever on the income. A convenient little dodge.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We all know mm was trying to tell us that Obama is wasting tax dollars. He didn't make a peep when Bush misplaced $1 trillion dollars. How come?

From SFGate:

Quote:

Military waste under fire $1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, May 18, 2003

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Actually, I didnt say anything about Obama, nor did I connect him to this study at all.

If you had bothered to actually READ the article, you would have seen that it was authorized in Sept of 2008.
Bush was President then, not Obama.
Unless, you are now blaming Obama for something that Bush did.

BTW, do you have a link to that article?
I would like to read it.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know