Where is the US economy headed?

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how Obama has added jobs.
Using simple math, we see it has not happened.

If there are 10,000,000 unemployed when you take office, and that number goes up to 15,000,000 in 2 years, and then drops to 13,000,000 in your third year, how have you added jobs?
You still have a net loss of 3,000,000 jobs.

BTW, those numbers are strictly for making my point, I dont know what the actual numbers are. I do however, know what the percentages are.

So I dont see how anyone can honestly say that Obama has added jobs.

And as for CI claiming to put me on ignore, its his loss.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

'Fraid so. If the company doesn't survive, no one has jobs or plants to go to. Unlike governments, companies can't operate on borrowed money forever.

I am surprised that you question this.

2 Replies

@roger,

Given that businesses on the whole are now sitting on a lake of cash of well over a trillion dollars there is something odd in crying about them running out of cash to remain in business.

0 Replies

@roger,

I'm not questioning it at all.
But so many people on here dont seem to accept that premise, they feel its up to companies to give you a job for life.

I have no problem with companies moving overseas where labor and material costs are lower, because they do need to survive also.

(Now I will duck before the fur starts flying over my comment).

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Thank you. My faith wasn't shattered, but I was seeing some cracks.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I have no problem with companies moving overseas where labor and material costs are lower, because they do need to survive also.

LOL and given that the economy is driven by consumers demands once the middle class had been destroy and we only have the very rich and the very poor who had near zero buying power then what my friend?

Other then a social revolution that would make the French Revolution look like a tea party.

Oh well I had downloaded the plans for the model 1793 French guillotine just in case of need.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's up to the management of the company to ensure the survival of their company. If the company goes broke, it means management did not do their jobs properly. Demands by labor must be balanced against the interest of the company. These are simple concepts that many CEO's and officers of companies fail to understand.

It's the same with government; they have failed to control spending, and have increased their deficit while cutting back on services. They have failed their responsibilities also.

In all cases, it's called fiduciary responsibilities.

I agree with that. However when confronted by a strike from a union that enjoys a government-enforced monopoly on employment and a very competitive situation vis-a-vis competing companies, there wasn't much else they coulld do.

In the cases of both government and the U.S. auto industry it is chiefly the labor unions that are preventing effective measures to control costs. They stedfastly resist flexible work rules, accountability for their work product, productivity enhancements and often sorely needed reductions in staff. Moreover they use their ample political leverage and money (deposited dutifully in their accounts every payday by the employers) to get their way. They are the problem. The result is that our industries are out competed by foreign producers and our government services are expensive and generally of poor quality.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how Obama has added jobs.

You are getting confused, Jeff, by looking at the number of people unemployed as opposed to the number of people WHO HAVE JOBS. Here are some numbers from the BLS as of January of the year shown (non-farm):
2002: 130.6Mn (as in 130,591,000)
2008: 138.0Mn
2009: 133.6Mn
2010: 129.3Mn
2011: 130.5Mn
2012: 132.5Mn (preliminary)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

auto industry it is chiefly the labor unions that are preventing effective measures to control costs

What right wing websites are you getting those talking points from?

Sorry the auto unions was a minor part of the problem the major part being poor management in doing such things as placing most of resources into SUV and pickup trucks for larger short term profits and the whole economy going into the toilet where few could buy new cars thanks to the GOP and we will not regulated the mortgage market or such business as Enron or the stock markets or...............

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I think what is telling about those numbers is the boost in 2008 which was really a false increase in jobs, because of the higher (false) demand in financial institutions, banking, and the housing industry. Those false "wealth" also created greater demand on our economy until the housing industry collapse and liquidity disappeared.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

So let me get this straight.

Jan 2001 Unemployment 4.2 (Bush enters office)
Jan 2009 Unemployment 7.8 (Bush leaves, Obama enters office)
Jan 2012 Unemployment 8.3

So we should vote Republican because of those numbers?

1 Reply

@parados,

What you're missing is that unemployment continued to climb when Obama took office from 7.8% in January to 9.9% in December.

Only conservatives look for miracles under these circumstances that took GW Bush 8 years to destroy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

They want Obama to fix the unemployment problem in less time than it took GW Bush to destroy jobs.

Job creation under GW Bush was the worst since the Great Depression. People seem to forget this FACT when looking at the first three years of Obama's administration that actually INCREASED JOBS.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/OBAMAJOBS017.jpg

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's up to the management of the company to ensure the survival of their company. If the company goes broke, it means management did not do their jobs properly. Demands by labor must be balanced against the interest of the company. These are simple concepts that many CEO's and officers of companies fail to understand.

It's the same with government; they have failed to control spending, and have increased their deficit while cutting back on services. They have failed their responsibilities also.

In all cases, it's called fiduciary responsibilities.

I agree with that. However when confronted by a strike from a union that enjoys a government-enforced monopoly on employment and a very competitive situation vis-a-vis competing companies, there wasn't much else they coulld do.

In the cases of both government and the U.S. auto industry it is chiefly the labor unions that are preventing effective measures to control costs. They stedfastly resist flexible work rules, accountability for their work product, productivity enhancements and often sorely needed reductions in staff. Moreover they use their ample political leverage and money (deposited dutifully in their accounts every payday by the employers) to get their way. They are the problem. The result is that our industries are out competed by foreign producers and our government services are expensive and generally of poor quality.

False assertions regarding the auto industry. Instead, I would submit that decades of mis-management by the corporate leaders have led to their problems to a far greater degree than the unions.

Our industries are out-competed by foreign companies because overseas locations have no safety standards and practically no environmental regulations. And also because our executives and management demand a FAR higher share of the profits than those in foreign companies. I never once hear you mention that last part, though. Wonder why?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

By the way,

For those who say that Obama has presided over a spending explosion...

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20168e8c8fa5d970c-550wi

... You are totally wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

All true: the safety standards in the US as compared to say, China, is the difference between black and white - or 180 degrees. There's no comparison, and the cost associated with those same safety standards does impact the cost of production - and competitiveness.

Management should be aware of the short-term and long-term planning for the interest of the company and its workers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

All big business and corporations want to make as much money as they can, not for the stockholders but so the CEO,s and upper management can demand ungodly bonuses.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

So?

If they make lots of money and it enables them to get big bonuses, the shareholders still benefit.

You seemed to be locked into a silly notion that people should not act to advance their self-interest, but, instead, work to better the lots in life of those with less than them.

Is that what you do?

I'd doubt it, but if so it's very noble of you, but it is only noble because you have a choice. Take away the choice and you take away nobility, generosity and compassion.

Of course you will never be able to establish a society where everyone shares equally in the bounty of work divided unequally, and yet you keep pushing for it (I won't say "working" for it because most of the people who claim they want it to happen don't spend a minute or a dime trying to establish it).

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Your post is, per your norm, just one big straw man from beginning to end

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Not all, but I'll say "most." Unfortunately, that trend has been going on for several decades, and that's the reason the middle class has not kept up with inflation, while the CEO's and Officers became the 1%.

Their greed is unforgivable; they forget that the middle class workers are the ones that are creating the profit for their company.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Their greed is unforgivable; they forget that the middle class workers are the ones that are creating the profit for their company.

That maybe true, but if someone had not originally invested their time, sweat, and money to create the company in the first place, then those jobs wouldnt exist.
So, isnt the person or people that created the company in the first place allowed to profit as much as possible from their hard work?

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know