PDA

View Full Version : Jobs, jobs, jobs



Henry V
04-02-2010, 11:36 PM
Employers Added Most Jobs in 3 Years in March... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/employers-added-jobs-years-march-jobless-rate-holds-percent/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4483656985_560ee43cf5.jpg

I know, I know, the stimulus programs have played no role in this trend and are just part of the socialist plot.

T. Mac
04-03-2010, 01:01 AM
Employers Added Most Jobs in 3 Years in March... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/employers-added-jobs-years-march-jobless-rate-holds-percent/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4483656985_560ee43cf5.jpg

I know, I know, the stimulus programs have played no role in this trend and are just part of the socialist plot.

and a mere 25% of them were part time/temporary census workers.

Meanwhile, California prepares for an estimated 25,000 more school employee layoffs, and an untold number of state, and local government workers to be laid off, including approx 300 from the Sacramento regional transit. Reports are that the city of LA alone will be laying off 20,000 employees.

Things may be getting better elsewhere, but the west coast is not predicting an appreciable upturn until at least 2012.

paul young
04-06-2010, 02:20 PM
well, the "in" trend among conservatives is to nix any increases to school budgets and also to cut workers in local and state jobs (particularly blue collar ones) in order to balance the budget rather than ask the public to pay for the services they provide.

this is the norm here in Ct. is it any different in Ca.?

when people say they want smaller government, i often wonder if they really know what they are suggesting in terms of the impact to themselves and their communities.-Paul

Franco
04-06-2010, 02:34 PM
They must be counting the tens-of-thousands of new Federal employess that will be hired to police the new Health Care package.

Yes, the problems we are faced with is because government is too big!

YardleyLabs
04-06-2010, 02:38 PM
They must be counting the tens-of-thousands of new Federal employess that will be hired to police the new Health Care package.

Yes, the problems we are faced with is because government is too big!
How much bigger is government now than it was in the mid- to late-1990's when the economy was booming? What is you measure of size and how has that changed over time?

Franco
04-06-2010, 03:08 PM
How much bigger is government now than it was in the mid- to late-1990's when the economy was booming? What is you measure of size and how has that changed over time?

It is about the same size but, getting ready to get a whole lot bigger with Health Care reform.

The economy of the 90's was built on a house of cards. First, we had Clinton who changed the way we calulated our deficits. We also had Wall St pumping up the high-tech boom which started crashing in March 2000. We had Rob Rich letting his x employer Goldman Sachs package the subprime loans encourged by the Clinton Administration.

Just too much govenment interference and not enough free market!

Don't get me wrong, we have plenty we can pin on the Bush Administration too.

YardleyLabs
04-06-2010, 03:32 PM
It is about the same size but, getting ready to get a whole lot bigger with Health Care reform.

The economy of the 90's was built on a house of cards. First, we had Clinton who changed the way we calulated our deficits. We also had Wall St pumping up the high-tech boom which started crashing in March 2000. We had Rob Rich letting his x employer Goldman Sachs package the subprime loans encourged by the Clinton Administration.

Just too much govenment interference and not enough free market!

Don't get me wrong, we have plenty we can pin on the Bush Administration too.
We know that the "boom" is the mid years of GWB was fueled by massive government deficits, irresponsible consumer borrowing, and hyper-inflated housing values leading to the second worst economic collapse in more than 100 years.

We know that a portion of the Clinton boom was fueled by the Internet bubble, resulting in unwarranted growth in stock valuations. However, the collapse in the market resulted in only a mild recession with massive net economic growth over the eight year period of his presidency.

We know that the economic boom in the middle years of the Reagan administration was fueled by a raiding of pension fund assets that we are still paying for, a raiding of the assets of the savings & loan industry for which we are still paying, hypergrowth of stock speculators fueled by the junk bond market, and massive government deficits that added together to create the recession that plagued Bush senior and lasted into the first couple of years of the Clinton administration.

Each of these hyper growth periods occurred in conjunction with massive deregulation that contributed directly to the balloons that later popped (Deregulation of pension accounting rules, banking, and corporate accounting rules under Reagan, continued banking and accounting deregulation under Clinton, and further banking deregulation and financial markets deregulation under Bush.). At some point, one has to ask two questions: With the results we have seen from deregulation, what makes you think we need more? When did we last have a period of sustained growth that did not evaporate when the bubble popped?

dnf777
04-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Just ONCE, I'd like to hear a republican say something like, "gee, I'm happy to see at least a glimmer of good news!"

Nobody is claiming we're back on "easy street", but at least the trend appears to have hit bottom and is headed in the right direction. Is that too much to concede, even if you follow the great one, who hopes he fails?

As for gov't size, wasn't it your favorite VP, Al Gore, who was tasked and succeeded in downsizing the gov't payrolls to their lowest levels since Nixon? And who, pray tell, raised them to the largest in US history? Give you a hint, he wasn't a democrat! Now before I'm accused of picking on Bush, I'M NOT. I just want to make sure he get his due credit for his accomplishments, when I hear people talking about things such as increasing the size of the gov't. Obama may be good, but he ain't THAT good! Hail Bush!

Franco
04-06-2010, 03:46 PM
At some point, one has to ask two questions: With the results we have seen from deregulation, what makes you think we need more? When did we last have a period of sustained growth that did not evaporate when the bubble popped?



Great questions!

One of the big problems is that many are out to make a quick buck. I was taught while growing up that a secure investment portfolio is what was best and to be happy with a 4%-6% annual return. I still believe in that investment plan and it works for me though I have benefited by some windfalls and consider myself lucky via my prudence.

Because there is little ethics/honesty in the investment community, they do need regulation and oversight. But, they don't need to be burdened by too much regulation, just enough to make them honest. Because they won't be honest on thier own (Goldman Sachs for an example).

In regards to your second question, the only way to real growth is to be realistic. Investors need to stop thinking that the only good investment is one that returns 35% plus a year, because that can not be sustained! The get rich quick mentallity is poison and many investers suffer with it.

YardleyLabs
04-06-2010, 04:05 PM
Great questions!

One of the big problems is that many are out to make a quick buck. I was taught while growing up that a secure investment portfolio is what was best and to be happy with a 4%-6% annual return. I still believe in that investment plan and it works for me though I have benefited by some windfalls and consider myself lucky via my prudence.

Because there is little ethics/honesty in the investment community, they do need regulation and oversight. But, they don't need to be burdened by too much regulation, just enough to make them honest. Because they won't be honest on thier own (Goldman Sachs for an example).

In regards to your second question, the only way to real growth is to be realistic. Investors need to stop thinking that the only good investment is one that returns 35% plus a year, because that can not be sustained! The get rich quick mentallity is poison and many investers suffer with it.
I agree on both your points. The fact is that there is no honest way to achieve double digit profit growth over a period of years within a single business or business segment.

J Hoggatt
04-06-2010, 04:10 PM
well, the "in" trend among conservatives is to nix any increases to school budgets and also to cut workers in local and state jobs (particularly blue collar ones) in order to balance the budget rather than ask the public to pay for the services they provide.

this is the norm here in Ct. is it any different in Ca.?

when people say they want smaller government, i often wonder if they really know what they are suggesting in terms of the impact to themselves and their communities.-Paul

Well Paul -
I am not sure how old you are - but let's go back to American History and American Government High Schools classes.............

Summarized----- "States Rights" VS "Federal"

Conservatives believe in limited Federal Authority and more States Rights..
Government for the people, by the people..... who are close to the people....

So go back and uses those fundamentals in representing logic....... or do you want to "spin" your point of view like 99.9% of us?

brandywinelabs
04-06-2010, 05:12 PM
when people say they want smaller government, i often wonder if they really know what they are suggesting in terms of the impact to themselves and their communities.-Paul

People don't want small government, just affordable government. ie. no AFSCME. Pay unskilled workers (road crews) unskilled wages. If they don't like it there are plenty of unemployed that can do that job. Pay office workers office workers wages. etc.

Eric Johnson
04-06-2010, 05:38 PM
...leading to the second worst economic collapse in more than 100 years.

I believe I heard something about 4 months ago that this was not the second worst economic collapse. As I recall, the arguement was made that the period of the Carter administration was worse than this one.

So I guess the question is....how do you measure one vis a vis another one? Each will have some indicator that is worse but how do you weigh all the indicators and make one the worst and another the second and another.....

In short, the only meaningful "economic collapse" is the one we're in now. All the others are simply prologue to this one....and this will be prologue to the next one.

Eric

luvmylabs23139
04-06-2010, 07:21 PM
well, the "in" trend among conservatives is to nix any increases to school budgets and also to cut workers in local and state jobs (particularly blue collar ones) in order to balance the budget rather than ask the public to pay for the services they provide.

this is the norm here in Ct. is it any different in Ca.?

when people say they want smaller government, i often wonder if they really know what they are suggesting in terms of the impact to themselves and their communities.-Paul

Well it is about darn time!!!!! A ditch digger should not make more money than a person with a college degree. The idiots at CT DMV make good money but they do not earn it. Those idiots should be paid what they are worth which is less than min wage. Get rid of the darn unions that protect the useless idiots and let the hard worker have the job.
CT sucks!!!!! I am so glad I got out of that rat hole more than 15 years ago.

YardleyLabs
04-06-2010, 07:48 PM
I believe I heard something about 4 months ago that this was not the second worst economic collapse. As I recall, the arguement was made that the period of the Carter administration was worse than this one.

So I guess the question is....how do you measure one vis a vis another one? Each will have some indicator that is worse but how do you weigh all the indicators and make one the worst and another the second and another.....

In short, the only meaningful "economic collapse" is the one we're in now. All the others are simply prologue to this one....and this will be prologue to the next one.

Eric
During one quarter of 1980, the GDP growth rate was -7.9%, which was a steeper decline than during the current recession. However, the following quarter the growth rate was -0.7% and in the quarter after that the economy grew by 7.6%, and 8.1% in the quarter after that. In the current recession, shrinkage was:


2008/Q1: -0.7
2008/Q2: 1.5
2008/Q3: -2.7
2008/Q4: -5.4
2009/Q1: -6.4
2009/Q2: -0.7
2009/Q3: 2.2
2009/Q4: 5.6


Thus, technically the recession lasted four quarters versus two quarter in 1980 and the total shrinkage of the economy during the recession was much greater in those four quarters than during the Carter recession. (Source Bureau of Economic Analysis: National Economic Accounts Database. All data inflation adjusted.)

Buzz
04-06-2010, 08:30 PM
Someone sure worries a lot about what other people make, and what they pay in taxes...

I think I lose a few brain cells every time I read about it.

luvmylabs23139
04-06-2010, 08:36 PM
Someone sure worries a lot about what other people make, and what they pay in taxes...

I think I lose a few brain cells every time I read about it.

Some people are sick and tired of having their money taken from them and given to the animals in the jungle.
Some people do not want to have their money stolen from them by the socialists and given to the slime.
Some people work hard for their money and want to keep it.
Some people would like people to pay for the services that they use and do not want to pay for services that they DO NOT USE.
some people do not want to pay for other people. SCREW THAT !!!!!

Buzz
04-06-2010, 08:53 PM
I would guess that a lot of people who would prefer to only pay for the services they use would discover that they could not afford to pay for them.

luvmylabs23139
04-06-2010, 09:07 PM
I would guess that a lot of people who would prefer to only pay for the services they use would discover that the could not afford to pay for them.

Maybe then the animals in the jungle would stop multiplying like rabbits.
Imagine if they actually had to pay for food, shelter, education etc for their spawn.

Marvin S
04-06-2010, 10:45 PM
well, the "in" trend among conservatives is to nix any increases to school budgets and also to cut workers in local and state jobs (particularly blue collar ones) in order to balance the budget rather than ask the public to pay for the services they provide.

this is the norm here in Ct. is it any different in Ca.?

when people say they want smaller government, i often wonder if they really know what they are suggesting in terms of the impact to themselves and their communities.-Paul

It's obvious your knowledge of the above subject is meager. So I'll pass on a quote from a now NJ Gov Chris Christie regarding the plight of the public employee!!!!!!!!!

"One state retiree, 49 years old, paid over the course of his career with this state a total of $124,000 toward his retirement & health benefits. NJ will pay him $3.300,000 in pension payments over his life & another $500,000 for health care benefits. ---------------. The total unfunded pension & health benefits for NJ are $90,000,000,000". There's more, but I edited so you wouldn't have difficulty understanding!!

Your defense of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility is very sad :(.