Job Market improves

[macfan881]

with many people were expecting the uneployment rate to get biger the rate actauly shrunk a few points from 10.2 to 10% and the amount of Jobs lost for the month were actaully the lowest sicne the Start of of the rescission

heres a article of the full numbers.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/04/news/economy/jobs_november/index.htm

[Unspoken Demise]

Progress is progress...
.2% is nothing to scoff at. Im glad some people were able to find jobs in time for the holidays.

[Tesselator]

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3318926

http://www.shadowstats.com/

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif


http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/04/news/economy/jobs_november/index.htm
Job market shows big improvement
November job losses fewest since start of the recession. Unemployment rate decline is biggest in more than three years.


Uh-huh... sure. :p

[leekohler]

Good. Let's hope it continues to improve.

[pilotError]

Let's hope for the improvement, but it doesn't count people who gave up looking for the Holidays.

It's also supposed to rise again in the coming year.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Let's hope for the improvement, but it doesn't count people who gave up looking for the Holidays.

It's also supposed to rise again in the coming year.

Does it include people who are only employed seasonally? After being out of paid work for nearly a year I managed to find a Christmas gig, but come January I'll probably be back on the out-of-work boat.

[abijnk]

Does it include people who are only employed seasonally? After being out of paid work for nearly a year I managed to find a Christmas gig, but come January I'll probably be back on the out-of-work boat.

I'd say this is more of the reason than what pilotError said. By that I mean that temporary holiday jobs have soaked up a fair amount of people rather than they have simply stopped looking.

That said, I find it interesting that the holiday season (no matter the reason) would be able to make such an impact. As someone else said, .2% isn't something to snub you nose at and I wonder is there is more of an underlying trend to the numbers.

Time will tell, but I remain cautiously optimistic.

[Shivetya]

Progress is progress...
.2% is nothing to scoff at. Im glad some people were able to find jobs in time for the holidays.

Yeah, Macy's needed extra cashiers for the holidays.

[Unspoken Demise]

Yeah, Macy's needed extra cashiers for the holidays.

Im sorry, are you insinuating in this job market that any job is any less valuable to the person than another?

I'd be really interested in your motives with this comment, you obviously know I work under contract for Macy's.

[leekohler]

Im sorry, are you insinuating in this job market that any job is any less valuable to the person than another?

I'd be really interested in your motives with this comment, you obviously know I work under contract for Macy's.

Don't feed the troll.

He'll just type "LOL" at you, and walk away.

[Unspoken Demise]

Don't feed the troll.

He'll just type "LOL" at you, and walk away.

Thats fine. Ive got a few key words i'd like to share with the forums anyhow.

[leekohler]

Thats fine. Ive got a few key words i'd like to share with the forums anyhow.

Or maybe he won't say anything at all. That's usually his MO- post and run.

[obeygiant]

Well that is good news, of course we just went from abysmal to just bad.


.2%

[Tomorrow]

Does it include people who are only employed seasonally? After being out of paid work for nearly a year I managed to find a Christmas gig, but come January I'll probably be back on the out-of-work boat.

Typically the unemployment numbers are always seasonally adjusted, taking out normal annual fluctuations. So the employment gains are real.

Let's just hope that the trend continues.

[hulugu]

Well that is good news, of course we just went from abysmal to just bad.


.2%

I keep thinking "we're on a plane plummeting to earth, but now we're just falling less fast." I hope this continues and maybe we even out and begin climbing. It's a step, sure. A really little one.

Typically the unemployment numbers are always seasonally adjusted, taking out normal annual fluctuations. So the employment gains are real.

Let's just hope that the trend continues.

Exactly right. The season has been accounted for according to an interview I heard this morning, the difficult question is whether this trend continues as some seasonal jobs disappear and retail sales begin to sag post-holidays.

I feel more hopeful after a meeting at a local "green" business last night, they're hiring as many technicians as possible, trying to get their installations done.

[Zombie Acorn]

People are hiring for seasonal work, this will be short lived. I hardly call the "least lost jobs" in months an improvement. No real progress can be made when you set the bar so low. Not to mention there are so many people who are only holding their jobs right now because they are knocked down to part time, on top of the fact that many people are not included in the unemployment numbers.

The fact that we lost jobs at all over the holiday season and didn't gain is painfully telling. Rumors of a second stimulus? No.

[Zombie Acorn]

Typically the unemployment numbers are always seasonally adjusted, taking out normal annual fluctuations. So the employment gains are real.

Let's just hope that the trend continues.

They don't adjust for the amount that our businesses have leaned out employees and now need the help back while the economy is decent for 1-2 months. This isn't a typical year.

[MyDesktopBroke]

The "big improvement" phrase is misleading. They are referring to the fact that job losses in the past month are lower than they have been since 2007.

Of course, it could mean that everyone in a disposable position was already fired.

Anyway, fingers crossed that this keeps going.

[Tomorrow]

They don't adjust for the amount that our businesses have leaned out employees and now need the help back while the economy is decent for 1-2 months. This isn't a typical year.

I agree that this year isn't typical, but re-hiring when business picks back up is exactly what job market recovery is. The key is whether the seasonally-adjusted economy is bouncing back for good, or if we double-dip.

I've been reading that the Black Friday numbers have beaten the pants off of last year's. Even with seasonal adjustment, that's a big improvement.

[Rodimus Prime]

with many people were expecting the uneployment rate to get biger the rate actauly shrunk a few points from 10.2 to 10% and the amount of Jobs lost for the month were actaully the lowest sicne the Start of of the rescission

heres a article of the full numbers.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/04/news/economy/jobs_november/index.htm


It means JACK ****. What U6 do? People are giving up looking it is so bad right now and legitmently giving up. Hunting for a job for months and not getting any interview or even a call back takes it toll on people and they are giving up. this Depression we are in is just getting worse.

Also Novemeber was another 150k job loss month so do not feed me that line of bull ****. the ecomony is still getting worse. the Job market is still getting crappier.

Until a 150k new jobs are added a month it is just getting worse. last month it was -300k just to break even in the job market. I love the media BULL **** they report. they need to report the truth. it is still getting worse.

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree that this year isn't typical, but re-hiring when business picks back up is exactly what job market recovery is. The key is whether the seasonally-adjusted economy is bouncing back for good, or if we double-dip.

I've been reading that the Black Friday numbers have beaten the pants off of last year's. Even with seasonal adjustment, that's a big improvement.

I would like to point out that beating last year is not saying much at all. Last year was a really bad year.
It is still below what it was 3-4 years ago so it is still crappy.

[Zombie Acorn]

Hey at least wall street will probably rally around this.

[iGary]

Let's hope it continues to fall ... it's rough out there.

[Tomorrow]

I would like to point out that beating last year is not saying much at all. Last year was a really bad year.
It is still below what it was 3-4 years ago so it is still crappy.

So in your mind, it's not improvement until we're at or above where we were 3-4 years ago? I just want to understand.

Keep in mind that recessions happen when markets need to self-correct. The Dow Jones was implausibly high, and stocks were overvalued. The real estate market was riding a bubble that was going to burst eventually. Credit was flowing far too freely to be sustained in any kind of equilibrium. These things were all destined to pop, and unfortunately they all popped at the same time.

In any event, your expectations of a "recovery" being where we were 3-4 years ago - to the overinflated levels that couldn't be sustained - is implausible.

[Rodimus Prime]

So in your mind, it's not improvement until we're at or above where we were 3-4 years ago? I just want to understand.

Keep in mind that recessions happen when markets need to self-correct. The Dow Jones was implausibly high, and stocks were overvalued. The real estate market was riding a bubble that was going to burst eventually. Credit was flowing far too freely to be sustained in any kind of equilibrium. These things were all destined to pop, and unfortunately they all popped at the same time.

In any event, your expectations of a "recovery" being where we were 3-4 years ago - to the overinflated levels that couldn't be sustained - is implausible.

My expectations of a recovery is when the job market starts improving. This media report is the typical lieing bull **** they report.
Job Market is improving. we only LOST 150k jobs last month. Talk about improvement.

As for messuring a holiday season like black friday compared to last year is worthless and tells me nothing it is is on a level of 4-5 years ago if it is not below it still. We have a larger population since then and even then it can not pull something from 5 years ago. last year was one of the worse years for black Friday for long time so beating it does not say anything.

So yeah I am damn right it is not worth even saying much if it is better than last year if it is still piss poor. It says nothing. Job market is still sheading 6 figure a month. It is still 300k away from just breaking even.....

Oh and it is not a rescission it is a depression. A depression brought on by over a at least 2 decades of corruption in our political system just passing the buck. I am not going to blame one person but the system. It feeds corruption and they just do what ever they want for there own good.

[Macaddicttt]

My expectations of a recovery is when the job market starts improving. This media report is the typical lieing bull **** they report.
Job Market is improving. we only LOST 150k jobs last month. Talk about improvement.

And overall, unemployment FELL. That's an improvement no matter what your standard is.

[stubeeef]

If I remember hearing correctly, I think there has been over 4 million people that have lost their jobs since the "stimulus to create them".
Now, we are losing fewer jobs, which of course is good. But remember there are fewer employed as well. Eventually you can continue to lose jobs and only lose one job instead of 450,000 when the last job is lost.
These numbers are constantly revised-and this may be revised up or down depending on conditions, and politics of course.;)
I know a lot of friends out of work, all of them tell me there is nothing out there for what they used to make.

[Rodimus Prime]

And overall, unemployment FELL. That's an improvement no matter what your standard is.

No it is not. Just tells me more people are giving up. As long as the job market is sheading jobs it is getting worse not better.

There needs to be 125-150k new jobs added a month just to keep up with the people entering the work force. So I do not care what the so call bs Unemployment number is at this point because it is at best a 1/2 truth. The real telling number is the job lost.

Try being unemployed for 9 months with out a call back. It starts making you see the real truth in the numbers. Job loss = it is getting worse not better no matter how you cut it.

If I remember hearing correctly, I think there has been over 4 million people that have lost their jobs since the "stimulus to create them".
Now, we are losing fewer jobs, which of course is good. But remember there are fewer employed as well. Eventually you can continue to lose jobs and only lose one job instead of 450,000 when the last job is lost.
These numbers are constantly revised-and this may be revised up or down depending on conditions, and politics of course.;)
I know a lot of friends out of work, all of them tell me there is nothing out there for what they used to make.


here is some food for though. Job losses may be shinking but there are fewer people out there who can even loss there jobs since so many already have lost them.

[Tomorrow]

I know a lot of friends out of work, all of them tell me there is nothing out there for what they used to make.

This isn't unusual. I'm still employed, but we took pay cuts to stay that way. Many (not all) businesses are doing it.

It's still an employer's market, no doubt. Markets are based on supply and demand, and the labor market is no different. When employers know there's a surplus of labor available, they aren't going to over-pay for it.

[Rodimus Prime]

This isn't unusual. I'm still employed, but we took pay cuts to stay that way. Many (not all) businesses are doing it.

It's still an employer's market, no doubt. Markets are based on supply and demand, and the labor market is no different. When employers know there's a surplus of labor available, they aren't going to over-pay for it.

And that shows what is massively wrong with american company and business practice. they show ZERO loyalty to there employees and will do layoff with record profits.

They demand loyalty from there employee but show none in return. People are starting to see the truth and will do what is in there best intersted not the company. My view of the world has been tainted by this. ANd many others are seeing the truth about companies in the US. The people are seeing that if it is in there best interested for the company go bankrupt they will act accordingly.

[leekohler]

And that shows what is massively wrong with american company and business practice. they show ZERO loyalty to there employees and will do layoff with record profits.

They demand loyalty from there employee but show none in return. People are starting to see the truth and will do what is in there best intersted not the company. My view of the world has been tainted by this. ANd many others are seeing the truth about companies in the US. .

Now that is the truth. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.

[it5five]

And that shows what is massively wrong with american company and business practice. they show ZERO loyalty to there employees and will do layoff with record profits.

They demand loyalty from there employee but show none in return. People are starting to see the truth and will do what is in there best intersted not the company. My view of the world has been tainted by this. ANd many others are seeing the truth about companies in the US. The people are seeing that if it is in there best interested for the company go bankrupt they will act accordingly.

Try being unemployed for 9 months with out a call back. It starts making you see the real truth in the numbers. Job loss = it is getting worse not better no matter how you cut it.

Agreed on both accounts.

Official unemployment numbers aren't reliable, in my opinion, since they don't count people who have given up looking for work. I don't know how many of you have been unemployed for long periods of time, but it gets discouraging after a while. You reach a certain point where you don't care anymore, and stop trying to find a job.

I graduate this December. Although I'm applying to graduate school, I still need to find work for the 8-9 months in between graduation and the beginning of graduate school. There is nothing right now, especially for new graduates. I'm not even looking for a job in the private sector, since almost every employer wants someone with years of experience. I have only been applying for government jobs, since I can at least substitute education for experience in most cases (GS-4 and GS-5 jobs).

[Rodimus Prime]

Now that is the truth. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.

the company that laid me off was like this. THey demanded loyality but they will drop you very quickly it if means more profits.

During 2001-02 ressoins they showed record profits. I learned while working there they also had a good amount of layoffs as well. They never tell you those things when requiting employees. They say see we did great these years when most were struggling. it makes me sick and personal I think laws need to be put in place to protect employee like that. It is sad that it has come down to that needs to be inplace to protect employees and to force companies to start showing loyaty to it employees.

Layoffs should be to save the company not to increase profits.

[leekohler]

the company that laid me off was like this. THey demanded loyality but they will drop you very quickly it if means more profits.

During 2001-02 ressoins they showed record profits. I learned while working there they also had a good amount of layoffs as well. They never tell you those things when requiting employees. They say see we did great these years when most were struggling. it makes me sick and personal I think laws need to be put in place to protect employee like that. It is sad that it has come down to that needs to be inplace to protect employees and to force companies to start showing loyaty to it employees.

Layoffs should be to save the company not to increase profits.

Oh- I hear ya. My company pulls the same crap. layoffs before the holidays, then a meeting in January to go over the financials and brag about how amazingly well we're doing. It's disgusting. Oh- and let's not forget pay cuts across the board.

[it5five]

it makes me sick and personal I think laws need to be put in place to protect employee like that.

We have unions, but I agree, there needs to be more worker-protection laws in this country.

This is one reason I will never again take a job that does not have union representation, and one reason I will never work in the private sector.

[Tomorrow]

And that shows what is massively wrong with american company and business practice. they show ZERO loyalty to there employees and will do layoff with record profits.

I don't know about loyalty in this case. We got hit with both layoffs and paycuts. Those who got laid off (20% of the company) are probably pretty bitter. Most got other jobs, likely for less pay. Most of us who got to stay and take a paycut were glad to do it (considering the alternative), although I know that one person did leave because of the paycut.

I've been contacted several times since then with requests to interview with various competitors, and turned all of them down. Out of loyalty? Not necessarily. I like working here, I like what I do and the people I work with, and I think my long-term prospects are better here than elsewhere - so really, I'm doing it for myself, not out of loyalty.

And I once worked for a company that laid people off every few months and replaced them with cheaper workers - they are no longer doing business here. Morale was in the toilet there. Layoffs in the name of keeping the business alive is one thing, doing it on a rotating basis is something altogether different. I know for certain that's not what's happening here, because I see the financials each month.

the company that laid me off was like this. THey demanded loyality but they will drop you very quickly it if means more profits.

<snip>

Layoffs should be to save the company not to increase profits.

I agree that such a policy makes for a more pleasant work environment, but let's do a quick reality check - if you were working for Company A and got an offer from Company B with a 20% salary increase and all other things equal, you wouldn't entertain that offer?

Loyalty is a two-way street. Some companies have more loyalty to their employees than others; the same is true of workers. Most of us would leave a company for a better one.

I graduate this December. Although I'm applying to graduate school, I still need to find work for the 8-9 months in between graduation and the beginning of graduate school. There is nothing right now, especially for new graduates. I'm not even looking for a job in the private sector, since almost every employer wants someone with years of experience.

This is one reason I will never again take a job that does not have union representation, and one reason I will never work in the private sector.

Don't you think that by limiting yourself so much you're making it harder to find work?

Even if an entry-level non-union job in the private sector isn't what you want, those are FAR more plentiful, and you can get that work experience that so many employers look for. That, and you can earn a paycheck in the meantime.

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree that such a policy makes for a more pleasant work environment, but let's do a quick reality check - if you were working for Company A and got an offer from Company B with a 20% salary increase and all other things equal, you wouldn't entertain that offer?

Loyalty is a two-way street. Some companies have more loyalty to their employees than others; the same is true of workers. Most of us would leave a company for a better one.


Before I was laid off yeah I would of turned it down because I was naive. now I would say screw company A because the company A shows no loyalty to there employees so it is time to do what is in MY best intersted. This problem has been building for a while as companies now will screw there employees for a buck. The employees in turn will show no loyalty back.
You are right it is a two way street but to many companies treat it as a one way. Now the employees are done with that and going back to a two way. that is company show no loyalty they show none back.

It started with the companies showing less and less. It will take companies showing it for it to go back.

[Tomorrow]

It started with the companies showing less and less. It will take companies showing it for it to go back.

I have to disagree - I think we've moved into an "at-will" state almost across the board. There are some exceptions (teachers, unions, etc.), but I think mostly companies are out to maximize their efficiency (more work for less money = more profit) and workers are out to maximize theirs (less work for more money = more joy). If letting employees go is in the company's best interest, many are going to do it; and if leaving a company is in the best interest of the employee, he's gonna do it. I'm not sure that's going to change, and I'm not sure if there are many who really want it to change; although I certainly can't speak for everyone.

[Wotan31]

I remember Obama threatening 10% unemployment if his Stimulus package did NOT pass. So much for that.

[Rodimus Prime]

I have to disagree - I think we've moved into an "at-will" state almost across the board. There are some exceptions (teachers, unions, etc.), but I think mostly companies are out to maximize their efficiency (more work for less money = more profit) and workers are out to maximize theirs (less work for more money = more joy). If letting employees go is in the company's best interest, many are going to do it; and if leaving a company is in the best interest of the employee, he's gonna do it. I'm not sure that's going to change, and I'm not sure if there are many who really want it to change; although I certainly can't speak for everyone.

You seem to believe that money is almost everything. A company that shows loyalty to its employees generally I believe people will return the favor and show loyalty.

[Tesselator]

And overall, unemployment FELL. That's an improvement no matter what your standard is.

I think it's it more like the rate of job losses fell. That's not a turn-around. It's more like a lull in the devastation. ;)

It would be as if a leaper only lost a finger this month. ;) Not really an improvement in the condition but it's "better" than losing the whole arm as happened last month. :p

[Zombie Acorn]

And overall, unemployment FELL. That's an improvement no matter what your standard is.

That kind of depends on how you look at it. We can't lose jobs forever, most only thought we'd get to ~9% unemployment, Im not sure if you can claim hitting the unemployment threshold a victory.

[Tomorrow]

You seem to believe that money is almost everything. A company that shows loyalty to its employees generally I believe people will return the favor and show loyalty.

It's not almost everything, but what you're describing isn't necessarily loyalty.

Here's an example - I've received offers to go to other companies for more money than I'm getting now with my recent salary cut. I've turned all of them down, partly because eventually salaries are going to come back up at my company. That part of it has to do with money.

But there are other reasons I'm not leaving: I like working here, I enjoy the work environment, I get along with my co-workers, I'm on a good track for advancement, and I'm confident that we'll ride out this lull in the economy and come back strong in the near future.

What I want you to notice about those reasons are that they all begin with the word "I." Those are not out of loyalty, those are selfish reasons, if you think about it. I'm still looking out for myself. Many employees at other companies are doing the same thing, except they're leaving for companies that will suit those needs for them (workplace environment, co-workers, etc.). When you compare my situation to that of the employees who leave, it's really not about loyalty, is it?

Perhaps it all translates to loyalty - in the end, I'm sticking around because I think it's going to pay off for me, which is pretty much the same result as sticking around out of "loyalty" - but each person has to evaluate his own situation and make that call.

[yojitani]

I graduate this December. Although I'm applying to graduate school, I still need to find work for the 8-9 months in between graduation and the beginning of graduate school. There is nothing right now, especially for new graduates. I'm not even looking for a job in the private sector, since almost every employer wants someone with years of experience. I have only been applying for government jobs, since I can at least substitute education for experience in most cases (GS-4 and GS-5 jobs).

I say this seriously: see if you can find a job in Japan (teaching English most likely). It's a good way to get a bit of experience and earn money between undergrad and grad school. I know quite a few people now who have done it.

[IntheNet]

I think it's it more like the rate of job losses fell. That's not a turn-around. It's more like a lull in the devastation. ;)

That's a good way of looking at it!

My sense here is that the lunatics in the White House think that throwing our money at the problem will fix it... they threw a bunch of our money at the banks and for a time the banks got better; after the TARP funds ran out the banks failed. They threw a bunch at the car companies... buying GM and offering billions for clunkers... after the government cash ran out car sales went back to the dumpster! So too with the stimulus; they threw around a bunch of our money and for a bit things got better; after the government cash runs out job losses will go back to the dumpster! And when all this public debt comes due with a huge deficit and hyper inflation we will be in a worse condition!

Now today, with seasonal holiday temp hires changing the unemployment rate ever so slightly, from 10.2% to 10%, is there anything here to celebrate? No. After the holidays our condition will be worse.

And let's assume for a moment the stimulus has "helped" in any respect in our economy. It is an artificial stimulus and bad economic situation will return once stimulus is removed. Again, leaving the nation with debt.

So as I said, today's announcement is nothing to celebrate! All other recessions in this nation's history have been addressed with tax cuts but morons in administration are clueless as far as their knowledge of private sector. Most of them have never worked in the public sector. And what does our chief moron do this week but invite union bosses and CEOs of big corporations to White House - these selfsame CEOs that are still firing their staff in big chunks every month - to offer advise on what to do! But as far as small business and small companies are concerned - their main advocate being the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business - not even invited to jobs summit!

Obama's doing everything he can to ruin this nation. That much is certain! Our economy shows it every month!

[Tomorrow]

Now today, with seasonal holiday temp hires changing the unemployment rate ever so slightly, from 10.2% to 10%, is there anything here to celebrate? No. After the holidays our condition will be worse.

Unemployment figures are seasonally adjusted - those temp workers have nothing to do with it.

[Tesselator]

That's a good way of looking at it!

My sense here is that the lunatics in the White House think that throwing our money at the problem will fix it...

Yeah, that's right. And it might even be ok (not) if they actually threw it AT the actual problem. But here it is. There were hundreds of thousands of good people pushed toward more and more mortgages and more and more banker-designed (somewhat criminal) loan options and where does congress throw the money? No, not at the people who actually need it but rather at the banks and bankers (criminals) who caused the problem in the first place. And now the bankers are going "tough-titties" to anyone who asks about it saying, "We're not going to tell you where the money went", go back to your slave positions and let us rape you. LOL. Meanwhile, can you believe it :confused: , there are actually Americans dumb enough to do just that and some of them even appear here on this site with their pathetic justifications wanting to debate. And to top it off there are folks so confused by all this that they call you names and post pics of tin-foil hats when anyone tries to bring to light or tell the truth about any of it - echoing the very bankers (criminals) that are telling us to stuff-it and to remain happily indentured and raped. :rolleyes:

Pretty pathetic. I think it shows just how controlled the congress is by these bankers (aka: UN, CFR, etc.) and just how corrupted they have become by them. It gets worse when you examine who actually the UN, CFR, and etc. are and what their goals are. :eek:

[awmazz]

People are hiring for seasonal work, this will be short lived. I hardly call the "least lost jobs" in months an improvement. No real progress can be made when you set the bar so low. Not to mention there are so many people who are only holding their jobs right now because they are knocked down to part time, on top of the fact that many people are not included in the unemployment numbers.

The fact that we lost jobs at all over the holiday season and didn't gain is painfully telling. Rumors of a second stimulus? No.

I disagree. The monthly job losses have been trending positive every month since Obama took over. This month's US private sector job losses are the lowest since June 2008. This is called pulling the plane out of the nosedive.

This is extremely good because the trend is continuing. Like an inverted parabola, if the trend continues as it has been going, the decreasing job losses will soon become increasing job gains.

Despite Zombie Acorn's apparent sarcasm about jobs at Macy's, it actually reflects consumer confidence is returning. Confidence is what it will take employers to start hiring new people instead of stretching their existing workforce via using overtime in times of uncertainty.

[Thomas Veil]

Some figures (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34280589/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) to help put this into perspective:

11,000: The net total of jobs lost in November
111,000: Jobs lost in October
139,000: Jobs lost in September
691,000: Average monthly loss in first three months of this year
7.2 million: Total decline in U.S. payrolls since recession began in December 2007If you take that 691,000 figure and divide it by 3 you get approximately 230,000 jobs per month being lost at the beginning of the year. To go from that to 11,000 is a positive sign, no matter what the naysayers and the tin-foil-hatters may claim.

If it trends the same way we could be seeing modest gains at the beginning of the year. Of course, they'll find a way to grouse about that, too. Because you know, anything Obama does is bad. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Some figures (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34280589/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) to help put this into perspective:

If you take that 691,000 figure and divide it by 3 you get approximately 230,000 jobs per month being lost at the beginning of the year. To go from that to 11,000 is a positive sign, no matter what the naysayers and the tin-foil-hatters may claim.

If it trends the same way we could be seeing modest gains at the beginning of the year. Of course, they'll find a way to grouse about that, too. Because you know, anything Obama does is bad. :rolleyes:

Of course they'll complain. The complained during Clinton the whole time- even though things were great. Seriously, those were probably the best 8 years this country has seen on a very long time. The economy was good, the budget was more than balanced, and the Mideast was fairly peaceful. And all conservatives could do was bitch.

[IntheNet]

If it trends the same way we could be seeing modest gains at the beginning of the year.

Depression 2010 (http://www.2010depression.com/2010depressionExit.html)

Why it's Coming - How to Prepare

:eek:

[leekohler]

Everyone do yourselves a favor and don't click on that link. The first thing you're going to see is a Glenn Beck video. :rolleyes: I don't like to vomit first thing in the morning, and I'm sure you don't either.

[yg17]

Everyone do yourselves a favor and don't click on that link. The first thing you're going to see is a Glen Beck video. :rolleyes: I don't like to vomit first thing in the morning.

Because when I think of a credible, trusted, unbiased journalist, I think of Glenn Beck. :rolleyes:

[IntheNet]

Because when I think of a credible, trusted, unbiased journalist, I think of Glenn Beck.

Sig worthy to be sure...

[jb1280]

The 2012 Republican Primary is going to be hilarious when the unemployment is down by then and the situation in Afghanistan is markedly, but probably temporarily, better.

The problem when you are represent a recalcitrant "no" to success, is that if there is minimal success you automatically lose.

[yg17]

Sig worthy to be sure...

Sarcasm detection failure for sure...

[it5five]

Don't you think that by limiting yourself so much you're making it harder to find work?

Even if an entry-level non-union job in the private sector isn't what you want, those are FAR more plentiful, and you can get that work experience that so many employers look for. That, and you can earn a paycheck in the meantime.

In theory, I am absolutely limiting myself. But in reality, there are no entry-level jobs for college graduates. Employers know that there are plenty of people looking for work, many of them with experience. Even for entry-level type jobs, a lot of employers are asking for a few years of experience and offering an incredibly low salary in return. They know they'll get plenty of takers though, so it pushes new graduates out of the private sector job market. At least in the government sector, you can substitute education for experience when considering qualifications, which is something I have never seen in any private sector job posting.

In the meantime, I have a guaranteed job with the USPS until March 2010, with the possibility of another few months of work. But come May 2010 our processing plant will be shut down and I'll have to find another job. Since I'm not a Career employee I don't get an opportunity to transfer to another job with the Postal Service or the government.

I say this seriously: see if you can find a job in Japan (teaching English most likely). It's a good way to get a bit of experience and earn money between undergrad and grad school. I know quite a few people now who have done it.

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it.

[Thomas Veil]

Everyone do yourselves a favor and don't click on that link. The first thing you're going to see is a Glenn Beck video. :rolleyes: I don't like to vomit first thing in the morning, and I'm sure you don't either.Too late. I watched about a minute of it.

Beck? Fox? Really? Great sources. :rolleyes: And here I was gonna talk to Chuck. :D

The other reason you don't want to click on that link is because when you try to close you'll get an ad for somebody's get-rich-quick-in-the-stock-market scheme.

[leekohler]

Too late. I watched about a minute of it.

Beck? Fox? Really? Great sources. :rolleyes: And here I was gonna talk to Chuck. :D

The other reason you don't want to click on that link is because when you try to close you'll get an ad for somebody's get-rich-quick-in-the-stock-market scheme.

Yep- unfortunately I saw that too.

[macfan881]

The 2012 Republican Primary is going to be hilarious when the unemployment is down by then and the situation in Afghanistan is markedly, but probably temporarily, better.

The problem when you are represent a recalcitrant "no" to success, is that if there is minimal success you automatically lose.

its sad when the top canidates your hearing now is Cheney/pallin or pallin/dobs etc.

[Zombie Acorn]

its sad when the top canidates your hearing now is Cheney/pallin or pallin/dobs etc.

Its Beck/Palin, get it straight.

[Rodimus Prime]

Some figures (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34280589/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) to help put this into perspective:

If you take that 691,000 figure and divide it by 3 you get approximately 230,000 jobs per month being lost at the beginning of the year. To go from that to 11,000 is a positive sign, no matter what the naysayers and the tin-foil-hatters may claim.

If it trends the same way we could be seeing modest gains at the beginning of the year. Of course, they'll find a way to grouse about that, too. Because you know, anything Obama does is bad. :rolleyes:

Problem with those figure is temp works sky rocket every year in November. After season adjustment I willing to bet the unemployment rate will increase yet again for another month.

Even with out season adjustment 160k from the break even point. That article showed a growing problem. Long term unemployment is still growing.

Right now I see us negative over another 1 million jobs and another 700 billion dollars in the hole. Talk about a great trade. Another million people who are out of work (or added to the work force) and 700 billion lost for that.
Our goverment had the chance to put more teeth in the unethical business practice our country does and yet again blows its chance of doing it.

As far as I am concerned and the 15+ million other people with out a job is this economy is getting more and more in the crappier with more and more money wasted until the employment starts increasing.

[awmazz]

Problem with those figure is temp works sky rocket every year in November.

November '08?

[stubeeef]

I think it's it more like the rate of job losses fell. That's not a turn-around. It's more like a lull in the devastation. ;)

It would be as if a leaper only lost a finger this month. ;) Not really an improvement in the condition but it's "better" than losing the whole arm as happened last month. :p

That is the best analogy I have seen in months! Very well played.:cool:

[Rodimus Prime]

November '08?

ok retail temp workers normally make a huge jump in nov. It throws off everything else. hence it has to be adjusted. I am willing to bet that the unemployment rate climbed yet again for Nov and I bet it will climb some more in Dec.

[Tomorrow]

At least in the government sector, you can substitute education for experience when considering qualifications, which is something I have never seen in any private sector job posting.

The only part of your post I have any disagreement with. I don't know what you studied in school (it might make a difference in my argument), but in my line of work, architecture/engineering/construction, you absolutely can substitute experience for education. I've worked with scores of senior-level designers that have no degree, but have forgotten more about the trade than I know. The ONLY difference is that you have to have a degree to become licensed, but only a minority of workers ever get licensed anyway.

But as for the rest of your point, you're absolutely right - we're in a market right now that lets employers be a bit more picky than they normally would, so they're able to hire better-qualified people than they normally can.

[nullx86]

Im glad its improving... now if only the job someone called me about would actually answer me... :mad:

[it5five]

The only part of your post I have any disagreement with. I don't know what you studied in school (it might make a difference in my argument), but in my line of work, architecture/engineering/construction, you absolutely can substitute experience for education. I've worked with scores of senior-level designers that have no degree, but have forgotten more about the trade than I know. The ONLY difference is that you have to have a degree to become licensed, but only a minority of workers ever get licensed anyway.

But as for the rest of your point, you're absolutely right - we're in a market right now that lets employers be a bit more picky than they normally would, so they're able to hire better-qualified people than they normally can.

I studied history, so I'm completely unqualified for the type of jobs in your line of work. Luckily I only have to deal with this job market for a few months until I go back to school.

[Eraserhead]

Problem with those figure is temp works sky rocket every year in November. After season adjustment I willing to bet the unemployment rate will increase yet again for another month.

I very much doubt that any official US government figures would fail to be seasonally adjusted.

[XNine]

And that shows what is massively wrong with american company and business practice. they show ZERO loyalty to there employees and will do layoff with record profits.

They demand loyalty from there employee but show none in return. People are starting to see the truth and will do what is in there best intersted not the company. My view of the world has been tainted by this. ANd many others are seeing the truth about companies in the US. The people are seeing that if it is in there best interested for the company go bankrupt they will act accordingly.

To improve on your point, I work for Staples. The President of the company (not the CEO) makes about 12 million a year. That's more in ONE DAY than I make in an entire year. Not to mention that corporate Express was hiring people at 14 bucks an hour to work in their call centers before Staples took over. Now it's 11 bucks an hour. Not to mention several others went from making 75k a year to 293K a year from 2007-2008. You know what I got for a raise last year? a ****ing quarter.

I think it's high time this country enforces companies to provide positive incentives to its employees, and not just it's board members and executives. If he were to take a pay cut and make only 10 million a year, we could hire more people, at better wages (which means smarter and more capable employees) to provide better customer support, thus bringing in more money and not losing Contract accounts like we are.

It's a vicious cycle and we will only break it, and be able to have more jobs when we are paying less to executives.

[IntheNet]

To improve on your point, I work for Staples. The President of the company (not the CEO) makes about 12 million a year. That's more in ONE DAY than I make in an entire year. Not to mention that corporate Express was hiring people at 14 bucks an hour to work in their call centers before Staples took over. Now it's 11 bucks an hour. Not to mention several others went from making 75k a year to 293K a year from 2007-2008. You know what I got for a raise last year? a ****ing quarter.

Staples provides office supplies to many of this nation's companies. The head of Staples should be rewarded if the company is profitable. If the president is driving the company into the ground, then he should take a pay cut and be fired, if necessary. However, I find it laughable that you are critiquing the head of a productive national firm for his pay but yet you say nothing about our entertainment world where such salaries are de rigueur; matter of fact I am now watching a wide receiver in the NFL that makes far more than 12 million and this loser can't even catch a ball!!! So to compare... you are critical of the president of Staples for making 12 million (which may or may not be valid depending on Staple's profit margin) but have no criticism whatsoever of entertainment or professional sports (where such salaries are far more excessive) with no net gain.

It's a vicious cycle and we will only break it, and be able to have more jobs when we are paying less to executives.

I have no regrets over executive salary if the company is profitable; changing capitalism to upend our private sector as you recommend seems to border on socialism. BUt I find it hypocrisy in the extreme to criticize corporate America for its excess when entertainment and professional sports salaries are so wildly excessive!

[MacNut]

Staples provides office supplies to many of this nation's companies. The head of Staples should be rewarded if the company is profitable. If the president is driving the company into the ground, then he should take a pay cut and be fired, if necessary. However, I find it laughable that you are critiquing the head of a productive national firm for his pay but yet you say nothing about our entertainment world where such salaries are de rigueur; matter of fact I am now watching a wide receiver in the NFL that makes far more than 12 million and this loser can't even catch a ball!!! So to compare... you are critical of the president of Staples for making 12 million (which may or may not be valid depending on Staple's profit margin) but have no criticism whatsoever of entertainment or professional sports (where such salaries are far more excessive) with no net gain.



I have no regrets over executive salary if the company is profitable; changing capitalism to upend our private sector as you recommend seems to border on socialism. BUt I find it hypocrisy in the extreme to criticize corporate America for its excess when entertainment and professional sports salaries are so wildly excessive!Do you know how much the NFL makes a year? More than Staples. That is why these players get paid so well.

If a company is doing so well why do they have to lay off employees yet the CEO gets a pay raise.
If you are going to trim the fat don't feed it back to the pig.

[Zombie Acorn]

I very much doubt that any official US government figures would fail to be seasonally adjusted.

Again this is not a typical season, november/december might be the only months this year that are typical because people are unlikely to not splurge during these months.

[Zombie Acorn]

To improve on your point, I work for Staples. The President of the company (not the CEO) makes about 12 million a year. That's more in ONE DAY than I make in an entire year. Not to mention that corporate Express was hiring people at 14 bucks an hour to work in their call centers before Staples took over. Now it's 11 bucks an hour. Not to mention several others went from making 75k a year to 293K a year from 2007-2008. You know what I got for a raise last year? a ****ing quarter.

I think it's high time this country enforces companies to provide positive incentives to its employees, and not just it's board members and executives. If he were to take a pay cut and make only 10 million a year, we could hire more people, at better wages (which means smarter and more capable employees) to provide better customer support, thus bringing in more money and not losing Contract accounts like we are.

It's a vicious cycle and we will only break it, and be able to have more jobs when we are paying less to executives.

You can't do an executive's job. When you can you can get paid accordingly. I love how people think they are entitled to high pay just because the people keeping you employed are getting a big pay check. its not a walk in the park, you are on call 24 hours, and the stress can lead to break downs.

[MacNut]

You can't do an executive's job. When you can you can get paid accordingly. I love how people think they are entitled to high pay just because the people keeping you employed are getting a big pay check. its not a walk in the park you are on call 24 hours, and the stress can lead to break downs.Ya because if I had 12 million dollars a year I would be really stressed too.:rolleyes: How about the person making nothing who is fighting to survive. Where is his stress? CEO's make far to much when the little guy at the bottom is the one that does all the grunt work.

[Zombie Acorn]

Ya because if I had 12 million dollars a year I would be really stressed too.:rolleyes: How about the person making nothing who is fighting to survive. Where is his stress? CEO's make far to much when the little guy at the bottom is the one that does all the grunt work.

You have no idea. Try implementing a multi million dollar billing system for a huge company with the realization that screwing up could ruin a billion+ dollar enterprise.

The grunt work is delegated, the people up top are making all of the decisions for them, they just have to perform one job. I bet they get to spend thanksgiving/christmas with their families also instead of being on the phone.

[LethalWolfe]

Staples provides office supplies to many of this nation's companies. The head of Staples should be rewarded if the company is profitable. If the president is driving the company into the ground, then he should take a pay cut and be fired, if necessary. However, I find it laughable that you are critiquing the head of a productive national firm for his pay but yet you say nothing about our entertainment world where such salaries are de rigueur; matter of fact I am now watching a wide receiver in the NFL that makes far more than 12 million and this loser can't even catch a ball!!! So to compare... you are critical of the president of Staples for making 12 million (which may or may not be valid depending on Staple's profit margin) but have no criticism whatsoever of entertainment or professional sports (where such salaries are far more excessive) with no net gain.

LOL. This is rich. You and Xnine are basically saying exactly the same thing but you just replaced 'CEO' w/'wide receiver'. If a receiver is making 12mil a year in the NFL that means he's one of the top 3-4 receivers in the NFL which means he's very rare which means he's very valuable for a team. Not only will he help you win games (which is good for bottom line) he'll sell jerseys, seats and air time on TV. This is just basic supply and demand. And it's not like the 12mil figure is anywhere close to typical NFL player earnings. In 2009 the average NFL player will make $770,000 and have an NFL career life of 3-4 years. What's the average salary and career expectancy of a CEO in the top tier of corporate America?

If you think professional sports is overpaying for talent you should see what companies are paying some of these guys for endorsement deals. Many top tier sports talents will make more money in endorsements than in competition. Tiger Woods, for example, typically makes around 20mil a year playing golf but brings in over 100mil annually from endorsement deals. Tiger has a deal w/Nike that pays him more than Nikes CEO.


Lethal

[Rodimus Prime]

Staples provides office supplies to many of this nation's companies. The head of Staples should be rewarded if the company is profitable. If the president is driving the company into the ground, then he should take a pay cut and be fired, if necessary. However, I find it laughable that you are critiquing the head of a productive national firm for his pay but yet you say nothing about our entertainment world where such salaries are de rigueur; matter of fact I am now watching a wide receiver in the NFL that makes far more than 12 million and this loser can't even catch a ball!!! So to compare... you are critical of the president of Staples for making 12 million (which may or may not be valid depending on Staple's profit margin) but have no criticism whatsoever of entertainment or professional sports (where such salaries are far more excessive) with no net gain.


Problem with that is those people will do lay-off to make great profit or worse yet record profit. Take the money and run. It makes me sick that companies do that in the system is set up to encourage that. I almost feel if revenue/ Profit increase by more than 5% over the prevous year and you do lay offs I say a order of 90%+ tax punishment should be in order on all that extra money.

[Zombie Acorn]

Problem with that is those people will do lay-off to make great profit or worse yet record profit. Take the money and run. It makes me sick that companies do that in the system is set up to encourage that. I almost feel if revenue/ Profit increase by more than 5% over the prevous year and you do lay offs I say a order of 90%+ tax punishment should be in order on all that extra money.

Good thing you aren't/won't be in charge because our economy would quickly wind up in the dumpster with policies like this.

[Rodimus Prime]

Good thing you aren't/won't be in charge because our economy would quickly wind up in the dumpster with policies like this.

why. It makes business make ethical moves instead of ones that just make there wallets fatter. They use layoffs to make more profits which is the incorrect use of layoffs. Layoffs are tehre to save a company and should be a last choice. Tax punishments like that encourage other ways of saving money and remove the incentive to do layoffs to make a fatter profits.

People bitch about unions but that example is a case and point why union fight so hard.

If a company is doing great no lay offs need and there for not a problem. Company doing bad lay off need. Well profits should be down any how. It when they make more than the year before and do layoffs. Something is not right with those numbers.

Clearly you have never been screwed over by companies do that.
As I pointed out. A company is safe to do lay offs if--- Profits compared to the year before are down. It when they make more profit than the year before and they do lay off the issue comes up.

[Zombie Acorn]

why. It makes business make ethical moves instead of ones that just make there wallets fatter. They use layoffs to make more profits which is the incorrect use of layoffs. Layoffs are tehre to save a company and should be a last choice. Tax punishments like that encourage other ways of saving money and remove the incentive to do layoffs to make a fatter profits.

No, it would make our businesses less dynamic and cripple them. If I invest in technology that saves the company millions but lays off thousands i am still going to invest. This is how progress is made, this is why people strive for more education because the jobs of yesteryear aren't the same as today. You might be happy with everyone digging ditches and welding for the next millennium, but some of us want some kind of progress and in turn a higher living standard.


People bitch about unions but that example is a case and point why union fight so hard.

We have already seen the crippling effects unions can have on corporations, unions are used to artificially inflate wages which in turn highers the unemployment rate.


If a company is doing great no lay offs need and there for not a problem. Company doing bad lay off need. Well profits should be down any how. It when they make more than the year before and do layoffs. Something is not right with those numbers.

This isn't the federal government, we can't just hire people for the fun of it, if your job is redundant or unneeded you must be booted. There is an obligation to investors to maximize the company's performance.


Clearly you have never been screwed over by companies do that.
As I pointed out. A company is safe to do lay offs if--- Profits compared to the year before are down. It when they make more profit than the year before and they do lay off the issue comes up.

You don't get to dictate what companies can and can't do.

[Rodimus Prime]

No, it would make our businesses less dynamic and cripple them. If I invest in technology that saves the company millions but lays off thousands i am still going to invest. This is how progress is made, this is why people strive for more education because the jobs of yesteryear aren't the same as today. You might be happy with everyone digging ditches and welding for the next millennium, but some of us want some kind of progress and in turn a higher living standard.




We have already seen the crippling effects unions can have on corporations, unions are used to artificially inflate wages which in turn highers the unemployment rate.



This isn't the federal government, we can't just hire people for the fun of it, if your job is redundant or unneeded you must be booted. There is an obligation to investors to maximize the company's performance.



You don't get to dictate what companies can and can't do.


I can see you never been on the receiving end of unethical lay offs.
It wrong in every way. It one thing to require the employees to keep learning but it is another to have them layed off so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus.

Come talk to me after you been on the recieving end of one of the layoffs that make me sick.
Under your system we will all be screwed because at some point why do we even ened people working robots can do it all. More people with out work. no one to buy the product and so on.

[Eraserhead]

Again this is not a typical season, november/december might be the only months this year that are typical because people are unlikely to not splurge during these months.

While I am perfectly happy to accept that some governments get their figures "wrong" (e.g. Argentina and their 6% (official) 20-25% (approximate actual) inflation rate. I doubt very much that the US isn't calculating honest seasonally adjusted job rates under any administration.

It would increase their debt interest rate significantly for a start if they got caught so it's highly doubtful that they would risk it.

Now sure they might well hide the true rate by moving people around into different categories but they wouldn't outright lie.

[Zombie Acorn]

I can see you never been on the receiving end of unethical lay offs.
It wrong in every way. It one thing to require the employees to keep learning but it is another to have them layed off so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus.

Come talk to me after you been on the recieving end of one of the layoffs that make me sick.
Under your system we will all be screwed because at some point why do we even ened people working robots can do it all. More people with out work. no one to buy the product and so on.

I do believe there will be a time when humans are irrelevant in the work place. We will have to deal with that when/if it comes.

Also I have been subject to layoffs due to company operations moving overseas. Did it suck? Yes, but its understandable.

[Zombie Acorn]

While I am perfectly happy to accept that some governments get their figures "wrong" (e.g. Argentina and their 6% (official) 20-25% (approximate actual) inflation rate. I doubt very much that the US isn't calculating honest seasonally adjusted job rates under any administration.

It would increase their debt interest rate significantly for a start if they got caught so it's highly doubtful that they would risk it.

Now sure they might well hide the true rate by moving people around into different categories but they wouldn't outright lie.

We will know quickly after the holiday season if they are fudging the numbers.

[Ugg]

... if your job is redundant or unneeded you must be booted. There is an obligation to investors to maximize the company's performance.


I've said it again and again, but I'll say it once more. It's the pursuit of short term profits over a company's long term viability that sank so many industries in the US. Airline, steel and the auto industry failures have all been blamed on unions but in reality their failure is rooted in shareholder greed.

Shareholders have killed the golden goose.

[Zombie Acorn]

I've said it again and again, but I'll say it once more. It's the pursuit of short term profits over a company's long term viability that sank so many industries in the US. Airline, steel and the auto industry failures have all been blamed on unions but in reality their failure is rooted in shareholder greed.

Shareholders have killed the golden goose.

Thats your opinion, some other people believe that when you force a corporation to be uncompetitive and give customers less product for more money you might not be able to properly compete.

[bobber205]

Thats your opinion, some other people believe that when you force a corporation to be uncompetitive and give customers less product for more money you might not be able to properly compete.

We could end this argument by finding industries that had a strong union but did not only think of the short term and did well.

[Ugg]

Thats your opinion, some other people believe that when you force a corporation to be uncompetitive and give customers less product for more money you might not be able to properly compete.

Perhaps by laying off all those employees time and time again, corporations were forced to be uncompetitive by being saddled with all those bennies of the employees that the shareholders forced them to lay off. Of course, it wasn't just the benefits it was also the experience of all those employees. The shareholders decided to cannibalize instead of offer support.

[Zombie Acorn]

We could end this argument by finding industries that had a strong union but did not only think of the short term and did well.

Not really, you would have to account for the elasticity of demand in each category and find one that matched perfectly, had a strong union that was artificially inflating wages to a point where pricing was not competitive with other countries/players in the industry.

[Zombie Acorn]

Perhaps by laying off all those employees time and time again, corporations were forced to be uncompetitive by being saddled with all those bennies of the employees that the shareholders forced them to lay off. Of course, it wasn't just the benefits it was also the experience of all those employees. The shareholders decided to cannibalize instead of offer support.

So if you were given the choice between buying a robot that could save the corporation millions and laying off all of the people the robot made redundant you would choose to not buy the technology? I think you just found a way to keep everyone employed, put heavy machinery out of business and we can all grab some shovels instead.

[LethalWolfe]

Thats your opinion, some other people believe that when you force a corporation to be uncompetitive and give customers less product for more money you might not be able to properly compete.
Keep in mind that unions, like labor laws, weren't preemptive measures born in a vacuum. They were reactions to things widespread in the workplace.

Shops that unionize typically do so for a reason and shops that don't unionize typically don't do so for a reason. There are definitely some unethical people that run some unions but painting all unions, and/or the idea of unionizing in general, w/a broad brush is turning a blind eye to why unions were created in the first place.


Lethal

[Zombie Acorn]

Keep in mind that unions, like labor laws, weren't preemptive measures born in a vacuum. They were reactions to things widespread in the workplace.

Shops that unionize typically do so for a reason and shops that don't unionize typically don't do so for a reason. There are definitely some unethical people that run some unions but painting all unions, and/or the idea of unionizing in general, w/a broad brush is turning a blind eye to why unions were created in the first place.


Lethal

It just depends on what side of the fence you sit on, if unions weren't greedy I wouldn't have any reason to dislike them. The unemployment caused by unionization is probably my biggest concern about the issue right now.

[LethalWolfe]

It just depends on what side of the fence you sit on, if unions weren't greedy I wouldn't have any reason to dislike them. The unemployment caused by unionization is probably my biggest concern about the issue right now.
If so many people that ran companies weren't so greedy no one would have cause to form a union. ;) Again, unions weren't created out of a vacuum. Child labor laws were not created out of vacuum. OSHA, the 40hr work week, overtime, guaranteed time off to eat lunch, minimum wage, etc., were not created out of a vacuum.

And like I said, painting all unions w/the same brush is as disingenuous as painting all companies w/the same brush.


Lethal

[Zombie Acorn]

If so many people that ran companies weren't so greedy no one would have cause to form a union. ;) Again, unions weren't created out of a vacuum. Child labor laws were not created out of vacuum. OSHA, the 40hr work week, overtime, guaranteed time off to eat lunch, minimum wage, etc., were not created out of a vacuum.

And like I said, painting all unions w/the same brush is as disingenuous as painting all companies w/the same brush.


Lethal

The government provides adequate regulations now though, im aware how things have been in the past.

[LethalWolfe]

The government provides adequate regulations now though, im aware how things have been in the past.
And many companies continue to act in ways that make unions and labor laws as relevant now as they ever have been. If more companies were run similar to how Jim Sinegal runs Costco (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779) I think we'd have a lot less animosity between 'the people' and 'the man.'


Lethal

[Rodimus Prime]

I have read multiple studies that have shown companies that do everything they can to avoid doing lay offs typicly do better when things recover and what ever extra short term losses they ate they general made up and then some when things recovered when compared to a company that did lay offs.

The companies that do lay off short term look better on paper and have better short term profits but long term lay off hurt. To many companies are turning to layoff for the short term profit and CEO get a nice fact bonus check in doing so by many CEO's.

Reason that the companies that avoid layoff do so much better when things recover is they have the personal already on staff and ready to go. The companies that do lay offs will eat about a year to recover. 6 months to hire the staff and another 6 months to get them back up to par with the company. It takes a while to get a new employee in grove with a company. Yet the US has become a short term viewing country only. Looking only 3 months down the road and 12 months if lucky. It is the wrong way to go about things.

[Zombie Acorn]

I have read multiple studies that have shown companies that do everything they can to avoid doing lay offs typicly do better when things recover and what ever extra short term losses they ate they general made up and then some when things recovered when compared to a company that did lay offs.

The companies that do lay off short term look better on paper and have better short term profits but long term lay off hurt. To many companies are turning to layoff for the short term profit and CEO get a nice fact bonus check in doing so by many CEO's.

Reason that the companies that avoid layoff do so much better when things recover is they have the personal already on staff and ready to go. The companies that do lay offs will eat about a year to recover. 6 months to hire the staff and another 6 months to get them back up to par with the company. It takes a while to get a new employee in grove with a company. Yet the US has become a short term viewing country only. Looking only 3 months down the road and 12 months if lucky. It is the wrong way to go about things.

I agree that short term thinking is dangerous, but I think you guys have taken it to an extreme trying to penalize companies for doing layoffs if they make profits that year. In my scenario the workers are redundant so they no longer add any value to the product.

This is probably personal for a few people because of unemployment/layoffs being rampant, I do agree that doing layoffs just to give the CEO a fat paycheck is unethical. I don't think we want the government dictating how companies run though.

And many companies continue to act in ways that make unions and labor laws as relevant now as they ever have been. If more companies were run similar to how Jim Sinegal runs Costco (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779) I think we'd have a lot less animosity between 'the people' and 'the man.'


Lethal

In a perfect world we wouldn't need any regulations on executives or unions, my view is partially biased because I don't intend to ever be someone who is in business solely for the money.

[XNine]

You can't do an executive's job. When you can you can get paid accordingly. I love how people think they are entitled to high pay just because the people keeping you employed are getting a big pay check. its not a walk in the park, you are on call 24 hours, and the stress can lead to break downs.


Oh, I couldn't? Hell, if I can inspire changes in a company as large as Corporate Express as a "grunt," a "no-one," a "bottom-feeder," and can lead and manage and my projects are always further in budget and are of the utmost quality than anyone else's, what makes you think I couldn't do it on a larger scale?

Look, I don't think you're quite aware of what a CEO does in a large-scale cookie-cutter corp like Staples. They hand down the order of the Board of Directors. That's pretty damn much it. Sure there's some paperwork to do, but for the most part, their suits, lunches, air fair, and vehicles are all write-offs and mostly paid by the company.

I'm not saying each person in the company should make as much as the President or CEO. What I'm saying is, giving your employees a REASONABLE salary (say 40-50k), even at the means of cutting executives' pay, will not only provide you with better personnel, but it will give your employees a chance in life.

Plus, with that, our economy wouldn't struggle. Our economy only works if money is trading hands. The more people you have that can spend money on cars, tvs, houses, and all the niceties, the better our economy would flourish. Having 4-6% (the wealthy) doing all of the above will not stimulate our economy at all. You have to have the majority helping as well.

[Zombie Acorn]

Oh, I couldn't? Hell, if I can inspire changes in a company as large as Corporate Express as a "grunt," a "no-one," a "bottom-feeder," and can lead and manage and my projects are always further in budget and are of the utmost quality than anyone else's, what makes you think I couldn't do it on a larger scale?

Look, I don't think you're quite aware of what a CEO does in a large-scale cookie-cutter corp like Staples. They hand down the order of the Board of Directors. That's pretty damn much it. Sure there's some paperwork to do, but for the most part, their suits, lunches, air fair, and vehicles are all write-offs and mostly paid by the company.

I'm not saying each person in the company should make as much as the President or CEO. What I'm saying is, giving your employees a REASONABLE salary (say 40-50k), even at the means of cutting executives' pay, will not only provide you with better personnel, but it will give your employees a chance in life.

Plus, with that, our economy wouldn't struggle. Our economy only works if money is trading hands. The more people you have that can spend money on cars, tvs, houses, and all the niceties, the better our economy would flourish. Having 4-6% (the wealthy) doing all of the above will not stimulate our economy at all. You have to have the majority helping as well.

Do you personally know any CEOs? Your portrayal of their job isn't accurate at all. I really doubt STAPLES is the exception here.

Also there is no such thing as a "reasonable" salary, market forces dictate what you are paid, some companies follow a strategy that pays over what the market dictates in order to get the best employees and boost productivity/morale, thats a fine strategy if you wish to employ it, but it shouldn't be forced.

As soon as your force a wage you diminish any benefit you get from paying more than what the employee is actually worth because they feel entitled.

[hulugu]

Do you personally know any CEOs? Your portrayal of their job isn't accurate at all. I really doubt STAPLES is the exception here.

Also there is no such thing as a "reasonable" salary, market forces dictate what you are paid, some companies follow a strategy that pays over what the market dictates in order to get the best employees and boost productivity/morale, thats a fine strategy if you wish to employ it, but it shouldn't be forced.

As soon as your force a wage you diminish any benefit you get from paying more than what the employee is actually worth because they feel entitled.

I'm not going to argue that forcing a company by government fiat is the way to go, but certainly there's something strange about a CEO who may make as much as 365 times as much as their average worker.

And, according to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1989 this disparity was only 79 times as much indicated a dramatic sea-change in executive pay versus worker pay.

Of course, CEOs argue that they make dramatic billion dollar decisions all the time, but how much of this pay is for actual worth and how much of this is because of a bubble economy of CEO worth? Does a CEO really matter all that much?

I'd be curious to see how a company's performance is tied to CEO pay: does a company that pays their CEO 365 times as much as the line worker really a better business than one of that pays 79 times as much, or even less?

[Rodimus Prime]

I'm not going to argue that forcing a company by government fiat is the way to go, but certainly there's something strange about a CEO who may make as much as 365 times as much as their average worker.

And, according to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1989 this disparity was only 79 times as much indicated a dramatic sea-change in executive pay versus worker pay.

Of course, CEOs argue that they make dramatic billion dollar decisions all the time, but how much of this pay is for actual worth and how much of this is because of a bubble economy of CEO worth? Does a CEO really matter all that much?

I'd be curious to see how a company's performance is tied to CEO pay: does a company that pays their CEO 365 times as much as the line worker really a better business than one of that pays 79 times as much, or even less?
i agree on that. When CEO are making 365 times the average work and then they do layoff. Imagen how many jobs that the company could of saved if the CEO only was making 100 times average worker pay. That is 265 jobs that would of been saved not cut to pay the fat cat at the top.

Now that is one bubble I do not think any one would care if it was to burst and the pay was to drop like a rock.

[hulugu]

i agree on that. When CEO are making 365 times the average work and then they do layoff. Imagen how many jobs that the company could of saved if the CEO only was making 10 times average worker pay. That is 265 jobs that would of been saved not cut to pay the fat cat at the top.

Or at least take a pay cut for a year until the company is solvent. I don't know why CEOs, in general, are so unwilling to make short-term sacrifices for the company they're leading.

[Rodimus Prime]

Or at least take a pay cut for a year until the company is solvent. I don't know why CEOs, in general, are so unwilling to make short-term sacrifices for the company they're leading.

Very true. The top pay at companies makes me sick some times. They do lay off so they can get better short term. Hence it goes back to the punishment I layed out.

If profits and revenues go up from the year before and layoffs. Kind of hurts ones case.

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm not going to argue that forcing a company by government fiat is the way to go, but certainly there's something strange about a CEO who may make as much as 365 times as much as their average worker.

Nothing strange at all unless the CEO isn't earning the pay or is in bed with the board of directors.


And, according to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1989 this disparity was only 79 times as much indicated a dramatic sea-change in executive pay versus worker pay.

Of course, CEOs argue that they make dramatic billion dollar decisions all the time, but how much of this pay is for actual worth and how much of this is because of a bubble economy of CEO worth? Does a CEO really matter all that much?

Ive read the bios on quite a few top tier execs, good and bad. It can be devastating to a company if their leadership isn't pushing the right way. Billion dollar revenues can be dumped in the toilet in years time with bad decisions.


I'd be curious to see how a company's performance is tied to CEO pay: does a company that pays their CEO 365 times as much as the line worker really a better business than one of that pays 79 times as much, or even less?

Their pay is usually tied to their performance, thats where all of the big bonuses come from. If they are getting bonuses and not performing there is a problem with the board of directors.

[Ugg]

Their pay is usually tied to their performance, thats where all of the big bonuses come from. If they are getting bonuses and not performing there is a problem with the board of directors.

So, how does that apply to Steve Jobs?

Obviously CEO pay has little or nothing to do with corporate profitability.

[bobber205]

Do you personally know any CEOs? Your portrayal of their job isn't accurate at all. I really doubt STAPLES is the exception here.

Also there is no such thing as a "reasonable" salary, market forces dictate what you are paid, some companies follow a strategy that pays over what the market dictates in order to get the best employees and boost productivity/morale, thats a fine strategy if you wish to employ it, but it shouldn't be forced.

As soon as your force a wage you diminish any benefit you get from paying more than what the employee is actually worth because they feel entitled.

No job is worth thousands of times more money that someone else's job. Period. Unless you're saving lives, then maybe.

[Rodimus Prime]

Their pay is usually tied to their performance, thats where all of the big bonuses come from. If they are getting bonuses and not performing there is a problem with the board of directors.

And there lies a huge problem. The bonus are all tied to SHORT TERM gains. So this encourages layoffs and cutting jobs just so they can get a fatter pay check. The CEO will shoot the company in the foot if it means they could get a bigger bonus.

[Zombie Acorn]

And there lies a huge problem. The bonus are all tied to SHORT TERM gains. So this encourages layoffs and cutting jobs just so they can get a fatter pay check. The CEO will shoot the company in the foot if it means they could get a bigger bonus.

Thats only if they plan to be employed with the particular company in the short term also.

[Zombie Acorn]

So, how does that apply to Steve Jobs?

Obviously CEO pay has little or nothing to do with corporate profitability.

Steve Jobs is a rare case, mainly because he was with the company since the beginning and has a personal stake in apple's success. That being said he realizes he has made enough, thats not a widespread thought among those experienced in this area. Steve Jobs is one of my favorite CEOs also for the fact that he isn't driven by money.

No job is worth thousands of times more money that someone else's job. Period. Unless you're saving lives, then maybe.

There are quite a few people out there who save lives, not too many who have experience running billion dollar companies correctly. If we want to argue about who does the least amount of good for pay then athletes should be at the top of the list.

[Eraserhead]

And, according to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1989 this disparity was only 79 times as much indicated a dramatic sea-change in executive pay versus worker pay.

...

I'd be curious to see how a company's performance is tied to CEO pay: does a company that pays their CEO 365 times as much as the line worker really a better business than one of that pays 79 times as much, or even less?

79x almost certainly as it undoubtably causes more resentment otherwise than it's worth in quality. But it's probably one of those things that have to be limited by law as if you aren't giving competative pay you might be stuck with someone really bad. Which is probably the main reason I think the prime minister is under-paid.

Personally limiting it to 10x wouldn't be unreasonable except maybe in the very largest companies. Though in the government that is how it currently works. Gordon Brown earns £200'000 and a typical low-end government employee probably earns £20'000.

FWIW if the prime minister was paid 365x as much as £20'000 then he'd be on a salary of £10 million/year.

[Eraserhead]

We will know quickly after the holiday season if they are fudging the numbers.

Argentina never had a AAA credit rating. Certainly not since 2001 when they had their financial crisis and defaulted on their debt.

The US aren't lying/fudging the numbers here.

[Peterkro]

You have no idea. Try implementing a multi million dollar billing system for a huge company with the realization that screwing up could ruin a billion+ dollar enterprise.

The grunt work is delegated, the people up top are making all of the decisions for them, they just have to perform one job. I bet they get to spend thanksgiving/christmas with their families also instead of being on the phone.

Do you have any evidence at all that a random person off the street would not perform as well or better than these supposedly highly skilled much sought after CEO's. Like a lot of so-called economic "science" it's mostly mumbo-jumbo.

[Tomorrow]

Oh, I couldn't? Hell, if I can inspire changes in a company as large as Corporate Express as a "grunt," a "no-one," a "bottom-feeder," and can lead and manage and my projects are always further in budget and are of the utmost quality than anyone else's, what makes you think I couldn't do it on a larger scale?

Are you a CEO of a large corporation? If not, that's one thing that might make him think you're not able to.

No job is worth thousands of times more money that someone else's job. Period. Unless you're saving lives, then maybe.

Tell that to the people who pay the salaries; they, and not you, get to decide what someone's job is worth in terms of salary.

Do you have any evidence at all that a random person off the street would not perform as well or better than these supposedly highly skilled much sought after CEO's. Like a lot of so-called economic "science" it's mostly mumbo-jumbo.

You can call it mumbo-jumbo, but "qualified" CEO's get canned all the time when the company doesn't perform, and they never go to "a random person off the street" to be their next leader. I'd say there's a great deal of at least anecdotal evidence, in addition to your "mumbo jumbo," that goes into who is and isn't qualified to be a CEO.

[Tesselator]

I think it's it more like the rate of job losses fell. That's not a turn-around. It's more like a lull in the devastation.

It would be as if a leaper only lost a finger this month. Not really an improvement in the condition but it's "better" than losing the whole arm as happened last month.

That is the best analogy I have seen in months! Very well played.:cool:

Wow! Someone here actually agrees with something I said. 0 :-)

What I think is funny is how all the Obamaphites (or whatever they are) are trying so desperately to steer the conversation and "control" the actions and opinions of others here.

"Only tin-foil hat wearing crazies would think this way or that way..."

"Don't click on that link!"

"I was going to offer you respect until you posted that..."

Etcetera, etcetera, and it's all the usual suspects too. Kinda sad how they think they have the right and/or duty to corral the opinions of others here. As if we can't think for ourselves or make up our own minds about the quantity and quality of truth in any given media-cast.

[Zombie Acorn]

Do you have any evidence at all that a random person off the street would not perform as well or better than these supposedly highly skilled much sought after CEO's. Like a lot of so-called economic "science" it's mostly mumbo-jumbo.

To people who don't understand it, yes.

[leekohler]

"Don't click on that link!"


That was me- and most of us are sick of Glenn Beck. That's the reason I wrote that. Not to mention that it was also an ad for for someone's get rich quick scheme. If you think that kind of thing is OK to post here, please go talk to the mods, it was verging on spam.

[hulugu]

Nothing strange at all unless the CEO isn't earning the pay or is in bed with the board of directors.

Ive read the bios on quite a few top tier execs, good and bad. It can be devastating to a company if their leadership isn't pushing the right way. Billion dollar revenues can be dumped in the toilet in years time with bad decisions.

Their pay is usually tied to their performance, thats where all of the big bonuses come from. If they are getting bonuses and not performing there is a problem with the board of directors.

You didn't really answer my question. Is a company that pays more for their CEO statistically more likely to be profitable? Is pay, especially very high pay, worth the difference? I'm honestly not sure of the answer to this, but I question the reflexive logic that a highly-paid CEO is a good CEO.

As for Boards of Directors, network effects and the limited pools of top-tier CEOs makes them less likely to be an actual gatekeeper on pay. It can be in the Board's best interest to pay the CEO as much as possible regardless of performance.

And, that doesn't explain the short-term interests of many CEOs who manipulate short-term gains, in the case of Enron making them out of whole cloth, to get their bonuses.

Wow! Someone here actually agrees with something I said.

Stop your bellyaching, others have agreed with you before, just not this time.

[IntheNet]

That was me- and most of us are sick of Glenn Beck...

Funny... I don't see you throwing a fit about links to lefty sites and lefty pundits... you objected to the reference link to Beck's comment because you object to Beck but you avoided altogether the cite and the data therein and came up with a flimsy excuse (the ad that was also at that link). Try not to be so blatantly disingenuous... at least I try to document my points with references!

[Peterkro]

To people who don't understand it, yes.

On the contrary the more you understand about economics the easier it is to see it is mumbo-jumbo. "The unseen hand of the market""the dominance of a theoretical vision that treats the inner workings of the production process as a 'black box." "god moves in mysterious ways" see the similarity religion and as at present economics. There are dissident economists who are trying to establish a scientific economics, Marx for instance had a notable attempt at it. The real academic scandal is not a few unwise emails by climatologists but the grip on economics by the powerful and the brutal way any critics are treated when they try to point out the total fabrication that is taught as economics in most universities.

[Zombie Acorn]

On the contrary the more you understand about economics the easier it is to see it is mumbo-jumbo. "The unseen hand of the market""the dominance of a theoretical vision that treats the inner workings of the production process as a 'black box." "god moves in mysterious ways" see the similarity religion and as at present economics. There are dissident economists who are trying to establish a scientific economics, Marx for instance had a notable attempt at it. The real academic scandal is not a few unwise emails by climatologists but the grip on economics by the powerful and the brutal way any critics are treated when they try to point out the total fabrication that is taught as economics in most universities.

As with most theoretical study you have to assume certain circumstances when studying economics as a science. These assumptions usually aren't completely true in the real world and so there is some deviation from theory. This applies to just about any field of study though and isn't exclusive to economics. Its far from "mumbo-jumbo" there are just many factors that can't be quantified.

You didn't really answer my question. Is a company that pays more for their CEO statistically more likely to be profitable? Is pay, especially very high pay, worth the difference? I'm honestly not sure of the answer to this, but I question the reflexive logic that a highly-paid CEO is a good CEO.

As for Boards of Directors, network effects and the limited pools of top-tier CEOs makes them less likely to be an actual gatekeeper on pay. It can be in the Board's best interest to pay the CEO as much as possible regardless of performance.

And, that doesn't explain the short-term interests of many CEOs who manipulate short-term gains, in the case of Enron making them out of whole cloth, to get their bonuses.

A CEO who has been successful (thus a good one) can demand higher pay, one who has been unsuccessful is less likely to get the requested compensation for his services. This doesn't mean that a company can't have a successful CEO without paying huge amounts though, examples as Ugg gave such as Steve Jobs think they are giving the world some type of change and are willing to work for less. Steve Jobs could also demand a very high CEO paycheck and deserve it if he wanted too though.

[Peterkro]

As with most theoretical study you have to assume certain circumstances when studying economics as a science. These assumptions usually aren't completely true in the real world and so there is some deviation from theory. This applies to just about any field of study though and isn't exclusive to economics. Its far from "mumbo-jumbo" there are just many factors that can't be quantified.

Just one of a thousand quotes I could use:

" the so-called teaching of economic theory has a curious self-sealing capacity.Every breech that is made in it by criticism is somehow filled up by admitting the point but refusing to draw any consequence from it,so the old doctrines can be repeated as before. Thus the Keynesian revolution was absorbed into the doctrine that, "in the long run" there is a natural tendency for a market economy to achieve full employment of available labour and full utilisation of equipment; that the rate of accumulation is determined by household saving; and that the rate of interest is identical with the rate of profit on capital. Similarly, Piero Sraffa's demolition of the neoclassical production function in labour and in "capital" was admitted to be unanswerable,but it has not been allowed to affect the propagation of the "marginal productivity" theory of wages and profits.
"the most sophisticated practitioners of orthodoxy maintain that the whole structure is an exercise in pure logic which has no application to real life at all. All the same they give their pupils the impression that they are being provided with an instrument which is valuable,indeed necessary for the analysis of actual problems"
Joan Robinson