[Zimphire]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721910/

Employment consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said employers announced 57,871 job cuts last month, down from 86,396 in March, and 20 percent lower than April 2004.

[NYCFarmboy]

the economy seems to be doing quite well despite the high oil prices, maybe because even though oil prices are high, adjusted for inflation they are really not that bad.

[boots]

How long does it take for those prices to trickle into manufacturing prices? I know there is a pretty good lag, because most companies are afraid to be the first to make a substantial price increase...they play a game of economic chicken.

[SVass]

So, you Repubs will brag about these numbers for at least one year. If they go up next month, you will say that that is an abberation. If a Democrat comments, you will claim that this number has never been lower in our history. I hate to tell you but prices have gone up ever since you cut taxes and created a deficit and they will continue to rise until you BALANCE the budget and ZERO our trade deficit. (I take it back. You will brag about one month's number until after the election of November 3006.) Prices are already going up! sam

[Kilbey]

We still have a lot of people laid off here, but it is GM, so our problems are different than the rest of the countries.

It's funny, I live in a state considered one of the worst for job searching, but I know of not a single person looking for a job. I have contact with many people across all lines of the classes and everyone who wants a job has a job. I just don't see the recession the media claims exists.

[boots]

I pretty much have tuned out from the major media markets, so the only thing I hear is the worry over stagflation. NPR hasn't even pushed the "R" word...just noted that economists are talking about stagflation. So I don't know nothin' about a down-turn...only that some are starting to get nervous.

[ironknee]

cool

but oh yeah, $7,810,392,502,600.61 national debt...that's in the trillions

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

We still have a lot of people laid off here, but it is GM, so our problems are different than the rest of the countries.

It's funny, I live in a state considered one of the worst for job searching, but I know of not a single person looking for a job. I have contact with many people across all lines of the classes and everyone who wants a job has a job. I just don't see the recession the media claims exists.

If you don't see it, and everyone you know has a job, then it must not exist and the high unemployment figures must be false.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by KarlG

If you don't see it, and everyone you know has a job, then it must not exist and the high unemployment figures must be false.

What, no comment about GM? No trashing all the GM cars you have owned? I'm surprised.

I am only telling you what I see. I didn't say the numbers were false. I simply said "I just don't see the recession the media claims exists."

Here's a free common sense tip: Quit putting things into my posts that aren't there. It makes you look like an idiot.

I'm charging you for the next common sense tip.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

What, no comment about GM? No trashing all the GM cars you have owned? I'm surprised.

I am only telling you what I see. I didn't say the numbers were false. I simply said "I just don't see the recession the media claims exists."

Here's a free common sense tip: Quit putting things into my posts that aren't there. It makes you look like an idiot.

I'm charging you for the next common sense tip.

That's handy; tell us all that everyone you know has a job and then deny that you were implicating that the media was wrong. Typical.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I'm charging you for the next common sense tip.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by ironknee

cool

but oh yeah, $7,810,392,502,600.61 national debt...that's in the trillions

I remember to good ol' days when it was only 6 trillion.

[Zimphire]

Hey, I got an idea.

We could cut both military and intelligence spending in half for about 8 years. Balance the budget and really shine.

Then when the NEXT guy is in office, and when he has to spend tons of money on military and intelligence because it was neglected the past 8 years, we can blame him for messing up the budget we balanced!

It's a win/win situation.

Don't even mind the part about how military and intelligence is two of the things a country should NEVER cut, and remove money from.

Protecting it's citizens is one of the most important roles of the Gov.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Don't even mind the part about how military and intelligence is two of the things a country should NEVER cut, and remove money from.

So we should spend more and more on military, even if it not needed?

Seems a bit retarded to me.....

[Zimphire]

_?_ please show me where in my post I said that.

Not cutting money does not = spending more and more.

That means spending the SAME AMOUNT as you have been.

See _?_ you always don't KNOW when you need it.

We certainly needed intelligence spending in the 90s. That is for sure.

But it was cut.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

military and intelligence is two of the things a country should NEVER cut, and remove money from.

So it does allow you the leeway of keeping it constant, but we all know that will "NEVER" happen, right

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Aww shucks, looks like once again the left is going to need a whole lot of 'sad' to get over all the 'happy'!

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by _?_

So it does allow you the leeway of keeping it constant, but we all know that will "NEVER" happen, right

As long as there are Democrats in the white house, no.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

We still have a lot of people laid off here, but it is GM, so our problems are different than the rest of the countries.

It's funny, I live in a state considered one of the worst for job searching, but I know of not a single person looking for a job. I have contact with many people across all lines of the classes and everyone who wants a job has a job. I just don't see the recession the media claims exists.

Stating what you "don't see" is trivial.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Stating what you "don't see" is trivial.

Um real world experience is hardly trivial.

The only people I see without jobs, are those that

1. Don't want to look for one, want one handed to them
2. Have a specific amount they want to make, and will only work if said requirements are met
3. Those who are unable to work.

There are TONS of jobs to be had. Though some people would rather sit at home and collect unemployment than work.

I've never had a problem of finding a job when I needed one. Ever.

Beggers can't be choosy.

You get any job you can at the time, and work your way up.

Even if that means you have to swallow your pride and flip burgers for a few months.

What we are seeing a lot of is, people having a certain job, making a certain amount. Suddenly they either get fired, or layed off, or quit.

Now they wont take any job that makes less than what they did. They will stay unemployed until they find a job that suits their desires.

Then complain that there are no jobs to be found.

They don't want a job, they want a specific title, that makes their ego feel better.

Sometimes you get knocked down from the top, and you have to climb back from the bottom.

It's called the harsh realities of life.

So when there are "so many jobless" people reported.

Remember that. It's not always because of lack of jobs.

A lot of it is because of stubbornness and ego that stops people from getting a job below what they are used to.

I know people that would rather be unemployed than take a job they deem beneath them.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um real world experience is hardly trivial.

It is when your basis is reflected upon your own experiences, not the general consensus.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by demograph68

It is when your basis is reflected upon your own experiences, not the general consensus.

Uh demo, a general consensus is just a general agreement on an opinion.

Which is a general reflection of the general opinion.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Uh demo, a general consensus is just a general agreement on an opinion.

Which is a general reflection of the general opinion.

Well, I fucked that one up didn't I?

Let me try again...

It is when your basis is reflected upon your own experiences, not including everyone else's.

[Zimphire]

So your opinion doesn't matter unless other people share it?

[demograph68]

No, they do matter. But saying how things are good in one place, when it is the opposite in most other places, makes pointing it out redundant.

[Zimphire]

Is it opposite in most other places?

Isn't that just basis reflected by your own opinion?

[ironknee]

More than 10,000 jobs lost in IBM restructuring plans
IBM announced today that it plans to cut between 10,000 and 13,000 jobs worldwide, with its European operations expected to be hardest hit.

CNET News is reporting that the changes will result in a charge of between $1.3 billion and $1.7 billion in the second quarter this year and "yield benefits" in the second half of the year, the company said. The restructuring was expected following IBM's first-quarter 2005 earnings.

Last month, IBM Chief Financial Officer Mark said the company would undergo a "sizable restructuring" to address weak areas, notably in Europe. Employee reductions will include both layoffs and voluntary departures. The majority of the cuts will be in Europe, where the company has initiated discussions with labor organizations.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um real world experience is hardly trivial.

The only people I see without jobs, are those that

1. Don't want to look for one, want one handed to them
2. Have a specific amount they want to make, and will only work if said requirements are met
3. Those who are unable to work.

There are TONS of jobs to be had. Though some people would rather sit at home and collect unemployment than work.

I've never had a problem of finding a job when I needed one. Ever.

Beggers can't be choosy.

You get any job you can at the time, and work your way up.

Even if that means you have to swallow your pride and flip burgers for a few months.

What we are seeing a lot of is, people having a certain job, making a certain amount. Suddenly they either get fired, or layed off, or quit.

Now they wont take any job that makes less than what they did. They will stay unemployed until they find a job that suits their desires.

Then complain that there are no jobs to be found.

They don't want a job, they want a specific title, that makes their ego feel better.

Sometimes you get knocked down from the top, and you have to climb back from the bottom.

It's called the harsh realities of life.

So when there are "so many jobless" people reported.

Remember that. It's not always because of lack of jobs.

A lot of it is because of stubbornness and ego that stops people from getting a job below what they are used to.

I know people that would rather be unemployed than take a job they deem beneath them.

I understand what you are saying, and in some cases this is true, but it's not always that simple. Yes, there are jobs to be had, but the ones to be had aren't always enough to pay the bills. Yeah, one may be faced with starting from the bottom again, but doing so with a job from McDonalds doesn't quite cover it if you've got 3 small children, a mortgage, and a spouse with no practical work experience. Going from highly skilled bread-winner to patty flipper is not a viable solution. Especially if the person wants to be seen as a professional to potential employers in the future. It's only logical that the person devotes his time to searching for a job in the field he excels at. His family is depending on it long-term. Just my 2 pennies.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I just don't see the recession the media claims exists.

I sense that you are on the cusp of enlightenment.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by boots

I pretty much have tuned out from the major media markets, so the only thing I hear is the worry over stagflation. NPR hasn't even pushed the "R" word...just noted that economists are talking about stagflation. So I don't know nothin' about a down-turn...only that some are starting to get nervous.

I don't know about economics but I heard it is always like roller coaster up and down. Somebody is always nervous for the future.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

I don't know about economics but I heard it is always like roller coaster up and down. Somebody is always nervous for the future.

Economics are simple. They publish 10 numbers. The party in power grabs one and brags. The other party grabs another and screams. If both are in the same direction, then they start a war or cut taxes. Definitions: If everyone has a job, then it is a boom. If you know someone without a job, its a recession. If YOU are out of a job, then it is a depression. Stagflation is when Republicans can raise prices and cut jobs at the same time like now. sam

[ironknee]

i "see" a lot of people using the subway here in NYC...therefore, a lot of people in the US use the subway

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SVass

Stagflation is when Republicans can raise prices and cut jobs at the same time like now. sam

Political parties neither cut (or create) jobs nor control prices.

God, would you get an education already?

[SVass]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Political parties neither cut (or create) jobs nor control prices.

God, would you get an education already?

"the Ford administration was faced with a major economic slump, in which inflation was uniquely combined with recession to produce stagflation"

Gee, the Repubs blamed a 2001-2002 recession on Clinton, claimed credit for a boom last year due to their tax cuts, and now you say that none of that was true. So if that isn't true, the members must be liars! (By the way, I do have both a high school diploma and a college degree.) Actually, I didn't blame the party. I blame the members and supporters of the party. sam

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SVass

"the Ford administration was faced with a major economic slump, in which inflation was uniquely combined with recession to produce stagflation"

Gee, the Repubs blamed a 2001-2002 recession on Clinton, claimed credit for a boom last year due to their tax cuts, and now you say that none of that was true. So if that isn't true, the members must be liars! (

You simply haven�t understood the issues, not about taxes, and certainly not something as complex as the workings of the economy. (Further proven by the quote you cite which you quite obviously have no understanding of if you think it even remotely supports your statement.) Every issue is dumbed-down to a bumper sticker slogan in the very black and white world you operate in.

Anyway, I�d be curious to see you actually support your statement (For ONCE). Explain how any rising prices and job loss can be blamed solely on Republicans, and not just normal economic cycles that happen during any administration.

Please use actual details and (the liberal f-word) *facts*. Show logical 1+2=3 conclusions backed up by *facts*, not your usual blind partisan rhetoric, hyperbole, outright fabrications, or bumper-sticker level sloganeering nonsense.

[NYCFarmboy]

274,000 Jobs Added in April, Above Forecasts
Friday, May 06, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155691,00.html

WASHINGTON � U.S. employers created a surprisingly large 274,000 new jobs in April and added more workers in each of the two prior months than first thought, the Labor Department (search) said Friday in a report that eased fears about economic growth.

The April jobs total far outstripped Wall Street economists' expectations for 170,000 new jobs.

Further underlining the surge, the government said 93,000 more jobs were created in February and March than it previously reported � 146,000 in March instead of 110,000 and a whopping 300,000 in February instead of 243,000.

The unemployment rate, however, which is calculated from a separate survey, was unchanged at 5.2 percent in April.

The jobs data sent U.S. Treasury debt prices skidding lower on a conviction that a strong economy will keep the Federal Reserve (search) pushing interest rates higher to curb inflation.

Stock price futures and the U.S. dollar climbed as the hiring boom pointed to stronger times ahead for U.S. industry.

Job gains were broad-based with manufacturing the only major sector to shed positions. Construction employment snapped back after a soft March, adding 47,000 to payrolls for the strongest hiring since March 2004.


"It shows that the economy has a lot of underlying strength," said Gary Thayer, chief economist of A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. in St. Louis, Mo.

"It suggests that the cooling off we've seen is not a significant problem. High energy prices are hurting confidence, but don't appear to be hurting job creation," he added.

The strong data were a balm for financial markets who had grown nervous about recent data indicating a slowing in economic activity.

"Not only is the April report strong, but it's stronger than what the summary suggests," said economist Richard DeKaser of National City Corp. in Cleveland. "We have huge upward revisions. We see hours worked rising sharply in the month of April, which indicates how the workforce is being utilized."

Average hourly earnings in private industry climbed five cents to a record $16 in the month, while the average workweek increased to 33.9 hours from 33.7 in March.

That was the longest workweek since a matching average in September 2002 and is significant since employers facing heavier workloads generally increase hours worked by existing staff before adding employees, so more hiring may lie ahead.

[OldManMac]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2230600860

U.S. Jobless Claims Rise Higher Than Expected

May 5, 2005 9:40 a.m. EST

Hector Duarte Jr., All Headline News Staff Reporter
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AHN) - Claims for jobless benefits rose to 333,000 in the week ending April 30. Up from 322,000 the previous week, said the Labor Department.
Economists had estimated the figure would be somewhere around 325,000. In March, only 110,000 new jobs were created, the smallest gain in eight months, fueling concern about an economic slowdown.
Initial claims dropped as low as 299,000 earlier last month, but economists dismissed that low level as a reflection of data volatility around the Easter holiday and school spring breaks.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2230600860

U.S. Jobless Claims Rise Higher Than Expected

May 5, 2005 9:40 a.m. EST

Hector Duarte Jr., All Headline News Staff Reporter
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AHN) - Claims for jobless benefits rose to 333,000 in the week ending April 30. Up from 322,000 the previous week, said the Labor Department.
Economists had estimated the figure would be somewhere around 325,000. In March, only 110,000 new jobs were created, the smallest gain in eight months, fueling concern about an economic slowdown.
Initial claims dropped as low as 299,000 earlier last month, but economists dismissed that low level as a reflection of data volatility around the Easter holiday and school spring breaks.

I guess whoever wrote that article yesterday didn't read today's news.

"Further underlining the surge, the government said 93,000 more jobs were created in February and March than it previously reported � 146,000 in March instead of 110,000 and a whopping 300,000 in February instead of 243,000."

[budster101]

Thank you President Bush.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You simply haven�t understood the issues, not about taxes, and certainly not something as complex as the workings of the economy. (Further proven by the quote you cite which you quite obviously have no understanding of if you think it even remotely supports your statement.) Every issue is dumbed-down to a bumper sticker slogan in the very black and white world you operate in.

Anyway, I�d be curious to see you actually support your statement (For ONCE). Explain how any rising prices and job loss can be blamed solely on Republicans, and not just normal economic cycles that happen during any administration.

Please use actual details and (the liberal f-word) *facts*. Show logical 1+2=3 conclusions backed up by *facts*, not your usual blind partisan rhetoric, hyperbole, outright fabrications, or bumper-sticker level sloganeering nonsense.

I concede that advancement leads to the obsolescence of industries like horseshoe manufacture and that periodic structural correction is necessary.

Republicans enacted laws that supported export of jobs (reducing US employment), reducing taxes on �capital gains� income of corporate executives and reducing required corporate pension contributions-which increased incentives for false earnings statement improvements and simplified corporate asset looting. One time earnings repatriation this year also creates a bubble. Yes, after a while, phony accounting falls apart and the bubble bursts, so we have a recession which is part of a �normal� economic cycle. Robber barons used to use that as an excuse to reduce wages (Pullman).

In an earlier period, Johnson led us into the Vietnam War without raising taxes promising both guns and butter; but, maybe even you can understand that cutting taxes and funding an expensive war at the same time leads to speculation and reduces infrastructure investment. Ultimately that led to stagflation and inflation costing both Ford and Carter who received the political blame. I could provide an explanation of the excesses that led to the Great Depression and to the adoption of the theories of Lord Keynes; but, I fear that you would deny any Republican political involvement in the intentional shrinkage of the money supply or the roadblocks against international trade in both people and goods. Note that we are currently reenacting the roadblocks against immigration.

Minor new Republican looting is in the new proposed budget for ARPA (the agency that funded the research for the Internet, autonomous computing, and many other scientific endeavors). They now want to eliminate all research and expend money on specific devices which will allow the major corporations to receive funding for their boondoggles and increase current income thus foregoing future benefits. Converting �advanced research� money into current manufacture is a political oxymoron.

We are running a large deficit and spending large sums on a war that does not contribute to our infrastructure growth. This is a deliberate political act. How many analogous historic parallels would you like for me to cite? France? Rome? Pharaonic Egypt?

A specific
Tax on ceo stock option (NO money at risk) or dividend earner vs average earner tax
base rate 15 % 25%
social security 0 6.2
medicare 0 1.45
company extra 0 7.65

Total 15 38.3

Is that an incentive to lie or what?
sam

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by budster101

Thank you President Bush.

Eh, he really didn't have much to do with it.

Just like Clinton didn't have much to do with the boom of the 90s.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SVass

I concede that advancement leads to the obsolescence of industries like horseshoe manufacture and that periodic structural correction is necessary.

Republicans enacted laws that supported export of jobs (reducing US employment),

And yet the unemployment rate is lower now than at this same time during Clinton�s 2nd term that many Democrats praise as the greatest economic times ever.

reducing taxes on �capital gains� income of corporate executives and reducing required corporate pension contributions-which increased incentives for false earnings statement improvements and simplified corporate asset looting. One time earnings repatriation this year also creates a bubble. Yes, after a while, phony accounting falls apart and the bubble bursts, so we have a recession which is part of a �normal� economic cycle. Robber barons used to use that as an excuse to reduce wages (Pullman).

We are not in a recession, despite your most earnest wishes for one. The last recession began before any of the Bush administration�s policies were enacted, and the economy has recovered out of it.

Ultimately that led to stagflation and inflation costing both Ford and Carter who received the political blame.

And here you completely contradict your first ramblings blaming �stagflation� solely on Republicans.

We are running a large deficit and spending large sums on a war that does not contribute to our infrastructure growth. This is a deliberate political act. How many analogous historic parallels would you like for me to cite? France? Rome? Pharaonic Egypt?

We�ve run deficits and spent large sums of money on wars before, during both Democrat and Republican administrations. The benefits of a Saddam-free Iraq have yet to be seen, but the gamble is, like a Hitler-free Europe or a Soviet-free world, the long term benefits, not just to our nation, will be far greater than the initial cost. Only time will tell if the Iraq war pays off in that way. Granted, for now and the immediate future, the ball is in your court as far as painting it as a disaster. But then naysayers painted other conflicts the same way as they were happening.

A specific
Tax on ceo stock option (NO money at risk) or dividend earner vs average earner tax
base rate 15 % 25%
social security 0 6.2
medicare 0 1.45
company extra 0 7.65

Total 15 38.3

Is that an incentive to lie or what?
sam

Lots of people besides CEOs get incentive based stock options. I�ve had stock options in several corporations I�ve worked for. The tax situation with options is a lot more complicated than your little chart- there�s generally a formula- even for CEOs- based on the exact nature of the options, and when/how they exercised that determines what is taxed as compensation, and what is taxed as capital gains. It�s not a one-size fits all formula, not even for CEOs.

Trying to compare incentive based stock options (which anyone could receive from a company that uses them to lure employees) vs. �dividend earners� (which anyone can be) vs. �average earners� (which anyone can be) is just the usual useless comparison. Specifically, it has nothing to do with your assertions against Republicans.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

We�ve run deficits and spent large sums of money on wars before, during both Democrat and Republican administrations. The benefits of a Saddam-free Iraq have yet to be seen, but the gamble is, like a Hitler-free Europe or a Soviet-free world, the long term benefits, not just to our nation, will be far greater than the initial cost. Only time will tell if the Iraq war pays off in that way. Granted, for now and the immediate future, the ball is in your court as far as painting it as a disaster. But then naysayers painted other conflicts the same way as they were happening.

Trying to compare incentive based stock options (which anyone could receive from a company that uses them to lure employees) vs. �dividend earners� (which anyone can be) vs. �average earners� (which anyone can be) is just the usual useless comparison. Specifically, it has nothing to do with your assertions against Republicans.

I tried to make several key points and you didn't seem to respond, so I will state them separately:
1 The gross mismanagement of our policies is leading to another "Great Depression". Our war expenditures, tax and immigration policies are repeating old mistakes.
2 The stock option tax benefit and pension contribution deferral incentivizes corporate executives to lie, cheat, and loot their corporation leading to a bubble and crash.
3 Republicans insist that the rich should pay less in taxes and receive more in benefits than the poor

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SVass

I tried to make several key points and you didn't seem to respond, so I will state them separately:
1 The gross mismanagement of our policies is leading to another "Great Depression". Our war expenditures, tax and immigration policies are repeating old mistakes.

LOL! So now it's a 'Great Depression'? Sorry, the only depression going on is from liberals who can't face election results they disagree with. The irony is, many liberals who are so helpless they can't even make it in economic times as relatively good as these, would absolutely STARVE TO DEATH if anything even remotely approaching the Great Depression ever happened again. It wasn't helpless whiners who survived through those times. Sometimes I wonder how some on the left manage to make it through life being PROUD of being unable to take care of themselves.

2 The stock option tax benefit and pension contribution deferral incentivizes corporate executives to lie, cheat, and loot their corporation leading to a bubble and crash.

I asked you for logical 1+2=3 conclusions, and here you're going off on another subject you have no grasp of. Stock options as incentives are not just offered to CEO's, and if (as most are) are executed as capital gains they depend on the company doing well, not crashing and burning so no, there isn't any incentive to ruin the company you want to gain from. Also, it's only in your stark, black and white imagination where everything is reduced to a bumper sticker that only Republicans are either CEOs, Corporate Officers, or recieve stock options.

3 Republicans insist that the rich should pay less in taxes and receive more in benefits than the poor

Republicans realize that the 'rich' pay the vast majority of taxes (simple common sense) and even in the last few days Bush just unveiled plans to means test S.S. benefits in favor of the poor. Once more, you have bumper-stickers, not real arguments that relate to political reality.