home

216K Jobs Added, U3 At 8.8%

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:21:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

The United States economy showed signs of kicking into gear in March, as the Labor Department reported Friday that it added 216,000 jobs and knocked the unemployment rate down another jot, to 8.8 percent.

< April Fools Day Open Thread | NY Federal Judge Blasts Mandatory Minimums in Drug Cases >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    216K Jobs Added, U3 At 8.8% | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Underemployment (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    Continues to rise.......it's at 20.3%. I know my recently layed off patients disagree with the administations number's. We desperately need leadership invested in helping the unemployed. Our present leadership is now in campaign mode..... Enough of the speeches and rhetoric !

    This is what we don't like to talk about (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    Just having a job at this time doesn't mean you are now making a living.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    but why aren't the rents at least going down? That I do not understand. The housing prices sure have but they still aren't where you can get a house on the salaries they are paying.

    Parent
    Rents are going up and staying up (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    because people are leaving their houses.  I read something last week about a huge wave of humanity seeking rentals.  I don't understand fully the dynamics yet because they have just acknowledged the phenomenon.  We can figure out a lot of it ourselves though.  You have people in this job climate who can't qualify for mortgages now, and others....they couldn't get their mortgage modified and got booted, and yet again others who saw that they owed so much more on their house than it was worth they decided to walk away today before their credit rating was destroyed and they got into a decent rental requiring credit checks instead of going through the foreclosure process before leaving.

    Everyone wants to rent now.

    Parent

    Plus, you are able to take advantage (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    of falling prices too when you aren't tied to a mortgage right now.  If you are a first time home buyer you would be stupid to buy anything right now....just dumb as dirt.  This is the time to rent if you aren't in this game yet.  The prices will continue to fall, eventually there will be bargains to be had.

    Parent
    Plus so many homes are tied up in (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    foreclosure limbo they aren't available to rent. Also many on the market - not available to rent either.

    High demand - low supply! The market is working for somebody - probably those foreign investors that bought up a lot of houses on Orlando recently.

    Parent

    Yes...another factor (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    It is surprising how many vacant houses we have around here.  We are in a bit of a bubble here because most incomes come via Fort Rucker.  We have a lot of vacant houses around here that are in some stage of foreclosure, just sitting there.  I would imagine the percentage is much larger in other places.

    Parent
    Post some of this data in open thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    In addition to the 13.5 million unemployed, there are still 8.4 million involuntary part-time workers. This is little changed from the previous month. But it shows you how many millions are either out of work or part-time because they cannot find enough hours. Add to that 921,000 "discouraged workers," who have given up looking for work because they don't believe any jobs are available for them. And those who have totally left the labor force aren't even counted in the BLS survey.

    The employment-population ratio, the average workweek, and average hourly earnings were all unchanged. So these are not exactly high-paying jobs coming into the labor force, nor are current workers getting a boost from this increased labor activity yet. link



    Parent
    Good post on jobs, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    low wage jobs failing to provide for basic needs and other challenges that face the American public. T/L side bar

    Good news on jobs?

    On income equity and effect on U.S.:

    ...a modern economy requires "collective action"--it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

    None of this should come as a surprise--it is simply what happens when a society's wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don't need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security--they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government--one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.




    Parent
    April fools? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:11:02 AM EST


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    I HOPE this is good news somewhat. It's certainly better than shedding news but if what is going on in GA is any indication it's not enough. The jobs we are getting here pay $8.00 an hour with no benefits. The rental market has not gone done appreciably in rents though the housing market is still collapsed. It's an unfortunate situation for everyone it seems.

    Not much you can do with jobs that pay that much when the rents are based on much higher income.

    My husband got a job which pays a good bit less but he has a job and I had to take a pay cut to keep mine but we have jobs which is better than a lot of people.

    A friend works for a major corporation (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    Workers were required to agree to a wage freeze and decrease in benefits in order to keep their jobs because times were tough. CEOs, COOs etc. got huge bonuses.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    Pretty soon we're all going to be Badgers and quit taking it.

    Parent
    Wall Street (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    has set aside 150 Billion for bonuses.

    Parent
    More for the top 1% (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    The heads of the nation's top companies got the biggest raises in recent memory last year after taking a hiatus during the recession.

    At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives' compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from Governance Metrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. link



    Parent
    You know things are bad ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    when 8.8% unemployment feels like good news.

    Sigh.

    The Labor Department report (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    is certainly not good enough, but it is good in that it seems to be improving.  Health care was one of the promising areas of the report (although, like most, not in the high paying category). Indeed, one component of  labor statistics that often gets overlooked is the importance of health care to the job market.  Much is discussed about the "problems" with health care, particularly its costs, but little is mentioned in health care economics about the consequences of critical service cuts on the job market.

    Bullsh*t (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    Enough said.  There hasn't been an honest "report" from the government about the economy ever.  And there is no recovery in sight for decades, if ever.  We are in the process of committing national suicide.  Delusion is the only thing we're good at.

    did you believe (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    all the reports that came out in 2009 saying the economy was shedding jobs?

    There's no reason to not believe this report.  It's not THAT good.

    And if you look at other economic indicators it makes sense.

    Sometimes you gotta look outside the politics of it all and just ask yourself - does this make sense?  I think this report makes sense.  It's not giving us any earth shattering information.  We're certainly not out of the woods just yet.

    Parent

    Agreed, I'll Wait for the Adjusted Numbers... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    ... which are somehow, miraculously, always lower.

    And CST, whose going to cheat on a test to get a lower score.  I'm sure when they were spiraling downwards, people were doing what they always do, using 'accounting' tricks of the trade to make them look less pitiful or in this case, better.

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    just about every month in 2010 was revised upwards.

    Parent
    It hardly matters (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    Spoken to any new graduates recently? The jobs just aren't there.

    Parent
    "Well, the world needs... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    ditchdiggers too, Danny."
    - Judge Smails

    Good jobs, or jobs in your desired field, may not be there...but there are jobs.  They just happen to s8ck...but it is something we're gonna have to get used to as the race to the globalized bottom continues...ya had a nice run, ye "middle class".

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    one of the reasons I believe this report is it says things like - if the economy continues to grow at this rate it will be 2019 before we are back to pre-recession levels.

    200,000 is a drop in the bucket.

    Parent

    But it's better than a poke in the eye (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    with a sharp stick :)

    Parent
    I remember reading (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    somewhere that the economy would have to add something like 250,000-300,000 jobs every month until November 2012 to get back to the unemployment rate when Obama was elected.

    Anyone else remember that?

    Parent

    For those who are getting jobs, (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    how are salaries and are they having to take jobs that are less than what their years of schooling and training have prepared them for?

    Parent
    I've been told this is irrelevant, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    in the Open thread, below.  I mean, so what if you got a job and are making less money and have fewer benefits, or aren't guaranteed enough hours to make ends meet?  So what if your new job doesn't pay enough that you can come off AFDC, or you still have to get food from the food pantries?

    All that matters is the headline, the political advantage of an "improving" economy, and that Wall Street loves it.

    I saw on the BLS website that they are now taking into account that some people have been unemployed for longer than two years - up to five; they are phasing in the adjustments, but you can expect to see some changes as a result.

    Parent

    Let me guess who made that comment (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    My guess is the person who is spouting that nonsense is not trying to get by on twenty hours a week at minimum wage.

    If there was ever a time for karma, it is now. Having to walk in the other guys shoes for a prolong period of time would be an eyeopener for a lot of people in the good old U.S.A.

    Parent

    My ears are burning (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    Look. All I am saying is that we've all collectively agreed to a standard of measuring our progress and it's generally the standard of the labor report.  I know some here hate Obama but using the high unemployment numbers when it looked bad for Obama and the claiming that the standard stinks when it is positive is pretty weak. Quote I just read:

    "Since November, the Unemployment Rate has fallen a full percentage point, a sign that this is more than just a minor recovery. More important, U-6, the broadest measure of unemployment, has fallen along with the overall rate over the past four months and is now below 16%, not good but a heck of a lot better than it was even six months ago. Politically, this is obviously good news for the Obama Administration and, if it holds up, the possibility of the unemployment rate being belong 8% by Election Day 2012 seems pretty likely at this point."

    Parent

    Whew! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:16:13 PM EST
    Politically, this is obviously good news for the Obama Administration and, if it holds up, the possibility of the unemployment rate being belong 8% by Election Day 2012 seems pretty likely at this point."

    Thank goodness.

    Parent

    When you do good things (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    You are supposed to be re-elected I thought.  

    The boost to Obama's reelection hopes isn't the central point but it's a great side effect.

    Especially when his naysayers said that we'd be moving towards 10% unemployment because of a double dip right now and on the verge of a complete 2012 collapse.

    Parent

    How about balanced (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    against the bad things?

    Parent
    Standby for the rest of the story (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    The weekly national average gas price showed the highest price ever during the month of March and the seventh consecutive increase this week, according to the Department of Energy. Prices are at their highest level since 2008, in part because of the Japan earthquake and turmoil in the oil-producing Middle East. But analysts say the price of oil and gas would still hover at a surprisingly high level despite geopolitical concerns

    Link

    Parent

    Re: Burying the lead (none / 0) (#73)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:50:51 PM EST

    The political risk premium is slightly overdone," said Powell, estimating that after the summer driving season, "When the market realizes these do not affect major oil producers or are affecting small oil producers," there will be "some relief in oil price."

    "You'll see demand slowing and that's just natural," Powell said.

    Leo Abruzzese, director of global forecasting of The Economist Intelligence Unit, expects oil and gas prices to decrease around the end of summer for two reasons.

    Demand for oil will decrease slightly from Europe, the U.S. and possibly China, around the summer time from the current high demand levels, he said. Once the Middle East protests subside, the risk premium will fall, and that will decrease gas prices.

    "While I can't make a gas price prediction, we think it's at its peak now and will be for a few more weeks," Abruzzese said. "We think there will be modest reductions at the pump and it will cost drivers less to fill up in second half of year than it does now."



    Parent
    Modest reduction???? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    Are you joking?

    You think a "modest" reduction will actually do anything??

    Good grief.

    Parent

    Uh, I quoted from the article you cited (none / 0) (#109)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 09:38:46 PM EST
    so your quarrel is with them, not me, and thanks as always for the feedback.

    Parent
    Any lowering of the price of gas (none / 0) (#112)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 05:11:47 AM EST
    will be helpful, but then it wouldn't fit into your 'the sky is falling!' narrative, would it?

    Parent
    I know some here strongly (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    disagree with Obama's policies. We are the same people who were making statements about the lack of good paying jobs and the deterioration of the job market here in the U.S. for over a decade. Jobs that do not provide even the barest necessities of life are not something to brag about.

    Believe it not there are actually people who hold the same opinions about an issue regardless of which party is in power.

    Your "haters" meme is just a tactic to discount the views of people who disagree with your POV. IIRC the "haters" meme was used regularly by Dubya and his supporters for the same purpose. Quite frankly I found it both ineffective and tiresome then and now.

    I have little doubt that Obama will "win" in 2012. I do doubt that the ordinary citizens in this country will "win" as a result. IMO they are screwed whether Obama gets a second term or a Republican sits in the WH. The savvy friends who will reap the benefits of their presidency will be same regardless of the outcome of the election.    

    Parent

    Here, here! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    Believe it not there are actually people who hold the same opinions about an issue regardless of which party is in power.

    Some political types don't seem to get this.

    I have little doubt that Obama will "win" in 2012. I do doubt that the ordinary citizens in this country will "win" as a result. IMO they are screwed whether Obama gets a second term or a Republican sits in the WH. The savvy friends who will reap the benefits of their presidency will be same regardless of the outcome of the election.

    Or to put it more simply:  Obama, in all ways that really matter, is a Republican.  

    Parent

    "Obama is a republican" (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    C'mon people.

    Parent
    Yep he is (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by sj on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    Oh, he's not one of the batsh!t crazy ones that compose the Republican party these days.  But he is absolutely in alignment with the Republicans of my youth in the farming community that was my home.

    I believe (see that ABG?  I'm speaking for myself instead of "us all" collectively) he is a Democrat only because he had to be in Chicago to get anywhere politically.

    I know that he is a Democrat who can't bring himself to put that into writing.  Except on a ballot.  Where he has to.

    Parent

    Agreed. I hate it (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    when differences of political opinion or policy (especially within the same party) are tagged with hate for the president, and I also hate it when excuses are made for the president employing the line that the president is powerless, so get realistic.  I hate the latter all the more when a war of choice can be started by the president.  Of course, I do know what the response to that will be and I hate it already.

    Parent
    MO Blue (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    There are two types of political discussions.  There is the one in which everyone lays down their basic principles and we discuss what is right and wrong in society based on those principles without respect to practical realities.  I would wager that you and I are in complete agreement in those discussions.

    Then there is the real world, where conservatives dominate the media and are some of the best marketers of their positions in the world, where conservatives have the advantage of idea that are wrong but sound good to those who are ignorant, where a black president in particular has to walk a tight rope of moderation (don't scare anyone!) that another president would not, where the housing market would make the type of recovery we all want impossible even if stimulus were doubled, where the institutional problems with job quality will take a decade or more to unravel because we aren't converting the economy quickly enough and have little government power to force it, and where the specter of republicans in power is so terrifying that if we concede points to keep them out of it, it could be, by far, the best scenario.

    In that world, the relentless "OBAMA IS NOT DOING THINGS EXACTLY THE WAY I WANT TO SEE THEM!!!!!" battle cries are . . . well . . . not very realistic.

    And I think I know why it happens.  Obama was about hope. He was about change. But he sold it so well, that people believed that he could literally change the political and economic and social structure of the country in 3 years.  That was always impossible.  What he can do, and what I think history will show, is that he started to turn the iceberg in the other direction.  Imperceptibly at first, but more quickly as time moves on.

    The "hater meme" is appropriate IMHO because the demands of Obama are so unrealistic.  If you had any respect for the guy or even liked him slightly, you wouldn't grill him relentlessly for things that are largely beyond his ability to change.

    Parent

    I don't know how long you have (5.00 / 11) (#48)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:53:33 PM EST
    been reading TL, ABG, but I can assure that almost no one here was taken in by the "hope, change" campaign. Most of us recognized it for what it was and voted for Obama as the less bad choice. All the while, we were concerned that he would attempt to translate his other political theme, the post partisan unity shtick (essentially a golden mean fallacy), into a working theory of governance. And to our great disappointment, that is exactly what he did.

    In walking the "tightrope," Obama's original sin was to negotiate against himself in passing the stimulus.

    Most of us believe that the hand Obama was dealt in 2008 made room for huge policy wins. We did not get them, and now the country faces the fallout.

    Parent

    We can disagree on policy (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    but the idea that if Obama had done everything you want, that the country would be in drastically better shape is just silly.  At a minimum, the impact of the changes proposed would not be showing any effects until Q4 2010 or this quarter.

    They couldn't even get all of the stimulus money they approved allocated and spent and you think they would have done a better job with more money?

    There would have been an almost identical lag time even if everything you said worked as you said it would work.

    To think otherwise is to buy into "hope".

    Parent

    No one here is claiming that if only (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    Obama had done everything "we" wanted, the economy would be just peachy, so I wish you would quit trying to have that argument.

    What many of us believe is that, when the choices were before him, when there was considerable belief that we needed a much larger stimulus, a strong jobs program and the expiration of the Bush tax rates, he chose the smaller stimulus, completely passed on a jobs initiative and renewed the Bush tax rates - and threw in a nice estate tax gift to the uber-wealthy as a little bonus.  He convened a deficit commission, that while its report did not reach recommendation level, has enough proponents in the Congress that a full-scale push is on to enact many of its ideas.  Obama has made it clear that he is all about cutting, freezing, and eliminating government spending that will significantly and negatively affect millions of people who are already struggling.

    There is not a discernible bit of sacrifice by the wealthy to be seen.  Anywhere.

    We will never know for certain where we would be if Obama had chosen a true liberal/progressive approach to the economy, had chosen to lead those opposed to progressive economic policy over to one more geared to defining "greater good" as including the least among us, and not just the elite.

    But the opportunity to do so was there.  The political capital was there.  The majorities were there.  

    So, he made his choices.  And here we are.  To say that no matter what he had done, we'd be in the same place is just more false argument from you; it also dismisses as irrelevant the very real suffering being experienced in this country for the last several years.

    He had the opportunity to make clear and distinct the differences between Democrats and Republicans, to put into action true Democratic policies that would have made positive differences in a lot of lives.  He chose to blur those differences, to take the Democratic party closer to the GOP, to lend credibility to their economic philosophy.

    We are farther away from progressive, liberal policy today, with a Democratic president, than we were even two years ago; this is not a direction I want to go in, but it seems you are okay with it.  I don't understand that, but I don't have to.


    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#74)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    Our disagreement can be summed up in one sentence from your post above:

    "The majorities were there."

    No they were not. The Blue Dogs were not going to support all of the things that you advocated.  It was not going to happen and no amount of speeches or wishes or hopeful thinking or whatever was going to change that fact IMHO.

    Parent

    So far as I can tell, he didn't even try (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    And that, ABG, is what's known as negotiating against yourself.

    Parent
    So he was doomed from the start (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    Because he didn't have 80 Senators, the poor dear couldn't work his community organizing magic to bring people together to get him to negotiate a better stimulus package.  He just threw up his hands and said "I can't do it."

    Then why the heck does he have the job???

    Parent

    Leadership is about moving people (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 09:05:33 PM EST
    over to your side, not conceding that there is no way to win.

    So, either Obama is woefully lacking in leadership ability, or, he never believed in the Democratic agenda to begin with.  And it was never about us - the people - for whom he should have been fighting, but about him.

    The majorities were there, but Obama couldn't or wouldn't lead that majority in service to a true Democratic agenda.

    Bad leader or not a real believer in the Democratic agenda he ran on?

    Parent

    Anne rocks (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    "So, either Obama is woefully lacking in leadership ability, or, he never believed in the Democratic agenda to begin with."

    I'm going with door number 2.

    Parent

    Just to be clear: (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    Is it actually your position that the stimulus was the right size?

    Parent
    My position (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    is that he would not have been able to get a bigger stimulus through, both because of political opposition and because economic ramifications due to the state of our debt load.

    Parent
    Let's separate the two issues (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    As to the first: it is exactly my argument (share by most people here) that Obama's political strategy is at fault for the final size. It's fundamentally unprovable, but he didn't even try.

    As to the second, surely you realize it is false. At best, you are buying into right wing deficit hysteria. At worst, you're just writing it so you have a second "reason."

    I reject both. And to the extent you actually believe the second, you are ignorant of the relevant economics.

    Parent

    He (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    DIDN'T EVEN TRY. That's the key. And that's the problem with Obama. He gives keys to the store away without even trying.

    I sure wouldn't want him to represent me in a court of law. He'd have you plead guilty to murder when the DA had only charged you with theft.

    Parent

    By his own words, he did not even try (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    to get a larger stimulus through. andgarden and others are going by the facts of what actually happened and not trying to rewrite history to rationalize Obama's policy choices. When asked by John Harwood why he asked for only $775 billion and not the $1.2 trillion that some economists have recommended, he responded:  

    Pres.-elect OBAMA: [. . .] We've seen ranges from 800 to 1.3 trillion and our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we'll see how it develops. link - thanks to lilburro


    Parent
    Oh, well (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    all the "little people" should just quit because of all the "conservatives" out there. Obama is impotent. He can't do anything blah, blah, blah. It's really tiresome to hear this.

    Obama had an opportunity to really do some good things but he squandered it.

    The largest problem with Obama is that he lacks leadership qualities and a core ideology.

    Parent

    Well ... (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    The largest problem with Obama is that he lacks leadership qualities and a core ideology.

    I think it's much more depressing than that.  

    I think he's doing what he always intended to do.  And serving the masters he always intended to serve.

    Just like his predecessor.

    Incompetence is always a convenient meme for covering up pure intention.

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    that's the other theory and you're right it is even more depressing.

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:30:44 PM EST
    door number 2.  

    Parent
    Now you are using the tactic of gross (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    exaggeration to try and discount a POV that does not agree with the policies of Obama's presidency.

    Why have the conservatives dominated the media? The conservatives have dominated the debate because Obama has failed to use his bully pulpit to push policies that would help people other than his savvy friends. Instead, he has used his bully pulpit to rehabilitate the Republicans by adopting both their rhetoric and agendas on tax cuts, cuts to domestic programs, education reducing the rights of citizens, war powers, drill baby drill etc. etc etc.

    I think that your statement that Obama could not pursue bold domestic policies that would improve the lives of the citizens in this country because he was black is an insult to African Americans everywhere and putting forth the idea that a black man must be meek and mild even at the presidential level to succeed is a horrible lesson for the younger generations in this country.

    The demands on Obama were only unrealistic because they never were part of Obama's corporate centric agenda to begin with. His objectives and the objectives of his so called opposite party are the same more often than they are different.

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    The conservatives have dominated the media for decades. The ten highest rated vable news shows are on fox and lead all of the other shows combined.  There is no liberal radio voice. The biggest news website on the web is drudge. Etc.  The media domination isn't Obama's fault.  It's the natural result of the fact that conservatives are the rich team and have a more uniform ideology that is easy t distill.

    I didn't say this: "I think that your statement that Obama could not pursue bold domestic policies that would improve the lives of the citizens in this country because he was black is an insult to African Americans everywhere and putting forth the idea that a black man must be meek and mild even at the presidential level to succeed is a horrible lesson for the younger generations in this country."

    What I said is that Obama can't do and say some of the things that a white guy not named Obama could say.  Hello. Welcome to the world of being a black guy in corporate america or public life. There is a double standard. It is what it is.

    And Obama has pursued bold domestic policies. He passed the boldest one of my generation a year or so into office. But he did it in a more behind the scenes way than people wanted so they didn't get to see all of the battles.  It looked too easy.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    Conservative dominated the media in 2008 too, when all it was about was halos over Obama's head, drooling and leg tingling, bloggers wetting themselves, young girls fainting at his mere presence, grossly over inlfated numbers of people at rallies.

    Yeah - the conservatives really hammered him then, didn't they?

    Parent

    Well we are never going to agree on this (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    The domestic policies that you describe as bold are just failed supply side policies and agendas that the Republicans have pursued for decades. I agree that many of the issues were decided behind the scenes. The agreement with pharma and the medical industry were behind closed doors and resulted in the U.S. maintaining the same overpriced failed system that has resulted in the U.S. paying 2 to 3 times more for health services and 35% - 50% more for prescription drugs while having poorer results. Do you realize that the U.S. while paying more than other countries ranks number 30 in infant mortality rates. Third world countries like Cuba have better results than the U.S.

    The only real difference now is that if it is implemented the government will subsidize and prop up this failed health care delivery system. The biggest so called policy to control costs is to make people share more out of pocket costs for actual health care that people will be reluctant or unable to affordable care.

    Behind the scenes he negotiated improving upon the Bush tax cuts so that the rich get even bigger cuts and while increasing the taxes on the the working poor.

    Also once again I contend that Obama has used his bully pulpit to to rehabilitate the Republicans by regurgitating their talking points on SS being in crisis, deficit hysteria with the only remedy being cutting needed domestic services, on tax cuts, education, reducing the rights of citizens, war powers, drill baby drill, the Tea Parties agenda as American as apple pie etc. etc etc.

     

    Parent

    Obama's real problem: (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    "What I said is that Obama can't do and say some of the things that a white guy not named Obama could say.  Hello. Welcome to the world of being a black guy in corporate america or public life. There is a double standard. It is what it is."

    Okay, which is it? He couldn't get the job done
    because he suffers racial discrimination, or because he didn't have 80 Democrats in the Senate? It's just sooooooo confusing.


    Parent

    The fact that he is a black man who (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    got elected to the highest office in the land means that he can and should say anything a white person could say.  Anything.  He had that affirmation, that acceptance, by a majority of Americans, and what did he do with it?

    The issues confronting us called for bold action, transformative and transparent and rooted in the belief that when the least of us are raised up, we are all raised up.

    We did not get bold action.  We got post-partisan unity crap that gave credibility to bad policy and ideology.  We got backroom deals that worked to the benefit of the industries that were responsible for many of the crises confronting us.  We got policy that kowtowed to the wealthy.  Commissions that recommended more sacrifice by those who had nothing left to give.

    And it continues even today.  

    As I said in another comment, we are farther away from the liberal/progressive goals we believe in than we were two years ago, and given that we have a Democratic president, and had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress up until January, this is as scathing an indictment of Obama's - and the Democrats' performance - as one could imagine us making.

    It would be much more productive to stop finding excuses for Obama and start holding him accountable.

    Parent

    ABG - I agree there is a double standard (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:14:39 PM EST
    But how would you then respond to Obama's answer in this interview about how the stimulus was negotiated?  That's what gets me.  I don't personally believe Obama is a total sellout or whatever but I also think being "centrist" for the sake of it and negotiating in order to be seen as that was the wrong response in these unusual times.  We should've been able to suspend some of our typical politics in this time of crisis, but we didn't.  Nonetheless, in the case of the health bill and the stimulus, bigger numbers were bandied about.  Obama for some dumb reason just decided to start at the "low end."  In terms of why things turned out how they did he owns that IMO.

    Parent
    Baloney (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by sj on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    All I am saying is that we've all collectively agreed to...

    You do this all the time.  State that "We all" agree to [something ABG thinks].  Stop trying to speak for "us all" and stick to speaking for yourself.

    Parent

    "We" (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    Geez are you serious? "We" is completely appropriate here.  When we have the presidential debates and the talk turns to employment, they will use the labor number.  When the talking heads talk about the status of employment, they use the labor number.  When we compare the performances of this president with FDR and other we use the labor number.

    We have all agreed generally that the labor number is a decent proxy for employment.  Is it imperfect? Yes. Are there other better indicators? Yes. Should we use those other indicators instead? Yes.

    But that is all irrelevant. The number is useful because we have data on it stretching back a long time, it is close to standards used by other countries and allows us to compare our progress with theirs and it is the most common accepted standard of comparison.

    If "we" don't accept it as a baseline for discussions then any meaningful debate of the issue is impossible because we will be comparing apples and oranges.

    So yes sj, you did not sign a document consenting to the labor number as a universal standard. But like most other numbers designed to represent complicated concepts, I think society has decided to move forward with that standard without you for the sake of allowing us to establish even the most basic discussions on the point.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by sj on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    We do NOT all agree.  That report tells only part of the story.  As many have mentioned -- right here on this page -- that report doesn't take into account the 99ers, OR the underemployed, OR the never-employed (such as recent college grads)

    So yes, I am completely serious.  And just because it is used in debates it does not mean that "we" cede the argument.  

    If "we" don't accept it as a baseline for discussions then any meaningful debate of the issue is impossible because we will be comparing apples and oranges.

    There is a little merit in this, in that it can or must be an element of the discussion.  But if we don't factor in those not covered by the report then meaningful discussion is ALSO impossible.  So there's only a little merit in your statement.

    Parent

    PS (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:51:01 PM EST
    You just can't keep yourself from assuming that you represent all of society.
    I think society has decided to move forward with that standard

    Amazing, when part of "society" is right here and have stated specific reservations right on this very page, on this very site.

    You know, I'd feel sorry for the pounding you get on this site if you didn't just invite it so.

    Parent

    Originally in TL sidebar (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:20:09 PM EST
    Every month, media business executive and former Obama for President finance committee member Leo Hindery puts out a very detailed memo breaking out the national unemployment data -- showing what is real and what is not regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly release of jobs data.

    One of the chief data abuses that Hindery has focused an enormous, hot, raging spotlight on is the giant gap between official unemployment (now pegged at 8.8% of the population) and "real unemployment" which Hindery documents at 17.7% of the population.

    Hindery points out that the US economy is 20.2 million jobs short of what it needs for full employment.
    ...
    ... Hindery has changed the national discourse with this framing of unemployment -- and more and more national economic and political commentators are using his term of real unemployment. Even today when I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio, one of the commentators made the point that the government data wasn't only a function of workers who were discouraged falling off the radar screen but actually there was some real hiring and adding of people to payrolls. link
     

    So no "we have not all collectively agreed" that the current method is the correct measurement to use. A growing number of people think it is a very flawed measurement.

    Parent

    ABG, the unemployment number is not (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:50:51 PM EST
    just one number, and the one we see trumpeted does not tell the whole story.

    To its credit, NBC News this evening did a story about the numbers, and the bottom line is that functional unemployment is really at just under 16%.

    Dig deeper, ABG, and there isn't much to cheer about in the latest numbers.  And if you are going to live by the numbers that grab the headlines, then you also have to live with the ones that don't.  The ones that tell that about 45% of the jobs created were in the hospitality industry - restaurant and bar workers - the health care industry - nursing assistants and home health aides - and temporary office workers.  These are all jobs that don't pay well, and don't generally come with good benefits.

    And then there is the report/study out today - that I linked to earlier - that shows how much it really costs to support an individual, or a family - and how great the gap is between the incomes people are able to get and what they need just to break even.

    What these numbers tell us is that we are not creating jobs that can actually support people.  And the question I have for you is, where has Obama's leadership been on that?  What has he done and what is he doing about that?

    We eagerly await your response.

    I've tried to explain to you before that most of the people who comment here do not take at face value much of anything they read or hear in the media.  They research, they dig beneath the surface, they do their homework.  They aren't easily placated by the kinds of justifications you provide, aren't swayed by being accused of being haters, or perfectionists.  They may identify with a particular political party, but they no longer blindly accept what their party is doing or try to find ways to make what their party is doing okay just because a (D) is attached to it.  They care about policy more than politics, and see that there has been a woeful lack of progressive/liberal advocacy by the Democratic Party for the policies they support - that they thought their party supported.

    We know bamboozle when we see it.

    Parent

    Give it up, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    Nothing you nor any of us say, nor reality itself, is going to convince him.  Sadly.

    Parent
    I know, Zorba - but it keeps (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    my brain in shape for discussing this with others; sadly, ABG is not the only one who thinks this way.  For some, it's all about Obama; for others, it's the deficit hysteria.  

    All we can do is make the argument; it may not make a difference in the end, but the stakes mean it's got to be worth the effort.

    Parent

    The funny thing is, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    The more ABG argues for everybody to hop on the "Obama is the greatest president" bandwagon, the more he alienates people. Why? Because, unlike some folks in this country, TL'ers are paying close attention to the facts.

    The intent: propping up Obama for 2012

    The true result: making Obama even more unappealing for 2012

    Parent

    Would (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    Anything I say change your mind?

    Anyway I enjoy all of this. No one should feel sorry for me. It's catharsis to vent and is better than throwing shoes at the tv.


    Parent

    Confirmation (none / 0) (#123)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    Unless you start using facts, then no, nothing you say will change my mind.

    And wherever you got the idea I feel sorry for you is beyond me. But it is kind of sad that the more you try to convince, the less you succeed.

    Parent

    Well said Anne ! (none / 0) (#100)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    Thank You !

    Parent
    Show Me (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    Because I remember it very differently.

    Parent
    here you go (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    link

    basically, on the way down they were underestimating the losses.  On the way up they were underestimating the gains.

    But I don't know where you got the idea they always go down.  The last 3 months December - February have all also been revised up.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    I don't even think my childhood ten speed had a gear this low to kick in :)  Of course bikes have more "speeds" these days

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    if the government were really lying to us about this (and I don't doubt that these numbers are somewhat manipulated, I just think there is a consistency to the manipulation so it's still a decent indicator of change if not the end result)

    I would hope they would come up with a better lie.

    Parent

    The numbers are virtually worthless (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    If 100,000 people lost their jobs, while 100,000 people found jobs, the headline would read, "no change in jobs picture." Of course, what the headline doesn't report is that jobs paying $50,000, with health benefits, pension provisions, and some sense of security are not equal to replacement jobs paying $12.00 an hour, with no benefits of any kind.

    But, ABG would smile and proudly say, "Obama, you've done your job;" and the Oligarchs would smile and say, "yup, you sure have."

    Parent

    As somebody put it on another site (none / 0) (#7)
    by TJBuff on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    Good news!  We've finally made it to Obama's 2009 disaster scenario.

    Not much, but at least we are heading (none / 0) (#27)
    by Buckeye on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    in the right direction.

    must be all that republican talk... (none / 0) (#30)
    by pluege2 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    of slashing government programs so people have nothing and no where to turn - gives the business community that warm and fuzzy confidence to spend like crazy.

    It is good to see improvement (none / 0) (#35)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    regardless.

    This is another aspect that factors into the wide angle lens perspective.

    We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

    More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    the business community could correct that by hiring could they not? I guess the business community wants it that way.

    Parent
    If there's no demand, businesses (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    are not going to hire; it's just that simple.

    They're making do with the staffs they have, getting more production out of them for as long as they can, knowing that people are so afraid of unemployment, they are willing to work longer hours with no increase in pay.

    As I pointed out in another thread, some businesses are hiring, but they are spreading the hours among a number of employees, such that not all of them are getting a full week of work.  Do all these new hires count in lowering the unemployment numbers, even though many of them aren't even working regular part-time hours?

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    I know but I was responding to the stupid article.

    Parent
    It is my understanding (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    part time workers do count in lowering the unemployment numbers. I could be wrong but they are included in the data on employment.

    there are still 8.4 million involuntary part-time workers. This is little changed from the previous month.


    Parent
    I'm fully willing to accept (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:44:41 PM EST
    that corporations should not be hiring if they do not expect demand to increase. But the government has a responsibility as spender of last resort to get us out of this situation.

    That's not going to happen.

    Parent

    yea no kidding (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    when they shipped all the manufacturing jobs to china, no wonder government has more jobs.

    The WSJ seems to think the solution to this is fewer government jobs.  To which I say - where are people gonna work then?

    I quoted an article on here yesterday that was talking about how the U.S. economic growth is greater than most other developed countries out of this recession, but our unemployment is worse.  Because companies here cut people like heartless scum, which they did not do in other parts of the world.  They found reasons to keep people employed so they wouldn't be out of work, rather than find excuses to cut more people.

    Parent

    We might want to consider a few (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:14:50 PM EST
    other variable when comparing our unemployment with that of other countries.

    The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
    ...
    The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

    The only other  that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England's rate is 151; Germany's is 88; and Japan's is 63.

    The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate. link

    Today, the Department, headed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands. With over 1.3 million men and women on active duty, and 684,000 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces....DOD

    Our unemployment rate would be out of the stratosphere if the U.S. had similar incarceration rates and military sizes similar to other major industrialized nations.    

    Parent

    Silly article by Moore (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    Apparently Moore thinks that people who work in the service industry aren't "productive".

    A commenter on Volokh pointed out:

    Construction--flooded with foreigners and flat on its back because of recession; farming--the first industry to see automation destroy its workforce; fishing--fished out, dammed out, polluted out; forestry--tracks with construction; manufacturing--shipped overseas to the applause of the WSJ; mining--switched to equipment intensive strip mining decades ago; utilities--still employ some people. That's not much of a meaningful comparison--unless the point is the need for policy to put people back to work in those shrunken employment sectors.

    It's the WSJ for cryin' out loud - like we are supposed to take them seriously about how much they care about workers.

    Parent

    The lack/loss of manufacturing (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    has been identified, even here, as a major issue.  "Service Industry" includes too many "Do you want to super size that order" jobs.  Productive, theoretically yes.  Supportive of growth, definitely not.

    Parent
    And who (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    is making the decision to ship jobs overseas? The same whining CEO's.

    As someone who has worked for Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you that many of them are run by complete idiots who think they are "entitled" to big bonuses.

    Parent

    It is not just labor costs that drive the (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    business economics of off-shoring.  The significant, numerous and onerous hurdles that must be jumped has made the US inhospitable for manufacturing.  

    One example... Technology has advanced that we are not looking at the dirty plants of earlier eras yet the EPA, for example, makes opening and/or operating manufacturing plants nonviable.

    Parent

    Really not being facetious... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:34:21 PM EST
    Technology has advanced that we are not looking at the dirty plants of earlier eras yet the EPA, for example, makes opening and/or operating manufacturing plants nonviable.

    If the state of technology means that new plants are clean, wouldn't they easily pass the EPA standards requirements?

    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    go confusing the discussion by throwing reality into the mix.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    The issue is that the standards are just made tighter and tighter in an unending quest for perfection demanded by a few extremists.

    Parent
    You can't make standards (none / 0) (#118)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    exceeding 'the latest technology', PPJ.

    Thought you knew that one already.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    it doesn't and you're speaking to someone who has had a small business that manufactures. It's "convenient" to blame the government but it's not the truth. The fact of the matter is that these people want NO standards. They want to do whatever they want whenever they want it and they will whine incessantly about having ANY standards.

    We have coddled these people incessantly to what end? There is no such thing as enough for them. They are engaged in a race to the bottom with pure greed as their driving motivation.

    Parent

    Some standards and regs... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    are necessary...but to the extent we standardize and regulate?  I got mad doubts.  

    Sometimes regs are just market rigging and protectionism for cronies posing as common good.  Hard to argue there are too many hurdles in place to opening up a hot dog cart, nevermind a factory.

    That being said...of course the cheaper labor and no health insurance costs are the huge factors to the quality blue collar job loss.  And when those jobs ship out blue collars gotta work somewhere...that leaves the government and McDonald's.

    Parent

    Sorry but business owners don't want (none / 0) (#63)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    a free run on the environment.  Or are you, as a manufacturing business owner saying you want the same free run?

    In addition to environmental regulations, other rules and yes even taxes (to include the abomination of the tax code itself) is a hindrance.  To illustrate that, just review the letter from the CEO of Caterpillar (remember back when he was Obama's BFF the day after the stimulus was passed?) to the Gov. of IL.  He offered to work with the Gov. but clearly stated he is being jammed with the new rules and taxes enacted in that state.

     

    Parent

    And god forbid... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    ya forget to dot an I or cross a T...some such mistakes are now criminalized, criminal intent not required.

    Overcriminalization hits the ownership society set...not just for the ghetto anymore.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    that's not what I'm saying but many do.

    Parent
    They don't (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    want to pay ANY taxes so why wouldn't he complain?

    Most businesses don't pay much in taxes. The employees pay taxes but so much is a write off that the taxes are minuscule.

    Parent

    How current is (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    "has had?"

    Parent
    2006- (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    2007.

    Yes, i have had a many ventured life when it comes to business. Fortune 500, self employed etc.


    Parent

    Did some of (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    that myself.

    And my experience is that when you take a product to a manufacturing type and say "Can you/Will you build this for us and what will the cost be.....?"

    Every thing gets on the table. And that includes the EPA regs.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    but you have to know that it's pretty marginal in the scope of things. If you've owned a business you know the real problem is people paying their bills namely other business that want to use YOUR money to fund their enterprise. The EPA is just a scape goat for a lot of people and they use it to ignore and excuse a lot of otherwise pretty lousy behavior.

    Parent
    I never dealt in consumer (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    goods.

    Everything was always to a business for their use in their service or product.

    And yes, I'm sure people will try and cut corners and ignore the rules.

    But the cost of those rules are always taken into consideration and they do add to the cost of the product.

    The issue becomes this. At what point does the EPA rules start to cause the cost to increase to the point that the product is not salable? At that point the manufacture goes out of the US.

    Shouldn't the cost/benefit analysis of a new rule that takes the previous goal of being 99.9% reached to 99.99% reached include the loss of jobs and.... even more scarier... loss of the workforce experience in that field?

    BTW - As a side issue, the same people who are dead set against a single payer insurance system do not understand how that hurts a start up's ability to attract talent and retain jobs in the US?

    Parent

    We dealt (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 06:03:46 AM EST
    with business to business and it was the other businesses that were the problem.

    You're really kind of making my point for me. You could just as easily say well, Americans won't work for $1.00 an hour therefore the costs of doing business in America is too expensive. The EPA is just a scapegoat just as any other excuse out there. It's like I said there will never be bonuses large enough for many of the CEOs out there. The main difference between a small business and a multinational though is the people that act like that in small business (giving themselves exorbitant salaries) usually drive their business into the ground.

    Parent

    I understand that there (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    are people who will break all rules.

    That's a fact. But it doesn't change this fact.

    Shouldn't the cost/benefit analysis of a new rule that takes the previous goal of being 99.9% reached to 99.99% reached include the loss of jobs and.... even more scarier... loss of the workforce experience in that field?

    How much are we willing to pay for that last "half inch" in what has become an unending journey made to satisfy a too often unnecessary and unrealistic standard?

    Parent

    There's (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    nothing illegal in giving yourself exorbitant salaries. There's nothing illegal about moving all your operations overseas where people will work for $1.00 an hour. You're just trying to find a scapegoat and it's called the EPA. Whatever. Obviously, you're one of the conservatives that believe that if we had no standards that things would just be wonderful.

    Parent
    And again (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    you are making false claims? Why? In the past I thought you to be reasonable.

    I see that I was wrong.

    And I never said a word about salaries and haven't approved of moving our manufacturing base overseas.

    Where do you get these wild ideas?

    My point was, is and will be that part of the cost of doing business is the cost of EPA standards. And that this cost is folded into the cost of the product.

    My other point is that it is very possible that while the cost of the first 99% could be handled, the cost of the last .99999% can't.

    In other words, in too many cases we have a continually moving target and questionable science.

    And that is not the only reason we are losing jobs to Mexico, China, etc., but it is one of the reasons.

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 07:49:08 PM EST
    you're saying that the .99% is the problem and ignoring all the other (99%) problems. The EPA is small potatoes compared to all the other problems things you have to deal with on a day to day basis.

    Parent
    Ga6thDem (none / 0) (#120)
    by BTAL on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    Your company, how large (lets use number of employees as the measurement)?  

    Did you actually manufacture from raw materials or assemble a product with various 3rd party parts?

    Did you build a plant?  Retrofit an existing building?  If so, how large?

    I am a small business owner also, not in manufacturing but technology but complying with the various local, state and federal rules takes up 60% of one employee and we aren't that large - much less doing actual raw material manufacturing.

    Parent

    Raw materials (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    25 employees. The only time we had to deal with EPA was when selling the company. It wasn't that big of a deal. The problem was the other owner who kept backing out. That was the hardest part. The EPA is predictable. People are not.

    Parent
    To apply a little humor... (none / 0) (#91)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 06:28:53 PM EST
    USDA joke:

    A guy at the Department of Agriculture is going past a cubicle and he sees one of his colleagues sitting at his desk, crying. He wonders what is wrong and stops to ask his colleague what has happened. The guy looks up and, through his tears, says: "My farmer died."

    and...

    If the cowboy gets bigger than the horse, both the horse and the cowboy are in trouble.


    Parent

    216K Jobs Added, U3 At 8.8% | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment