The Private Sector has the economy it wants.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They've cynically added a new class of employment to many sectors, consultants. Which means they can pay the same wage, without the benefits. Initially this started, largely, when Clinton was in power because of the tight labor market. Professionals could basically name their price. Now..it is the other way around.

Correct.

We see this also with employers hiring workers part time, non permanent, and the use of temporary agencies to address production shortfalls; anything to avoid adding to payrolls and cutting into profits by providing benefits.

If you don't like the arrangement, don't take the job.

 

[Trajan]

They've cynically added a new class of employment to many sectors, consultants. Which means they can pay the same wage, without the benefits. Initially this started, largely, when Clinton was in power because of the tight labor market. Professionals could basically name their price. Now..it is the other way around.

Correct.

We see this also with employers hiring workers part time, non permanent, and the use of temporary agencies to address production shortfalls; anything to avoid adding to payrolls and cutting into profits by providing benefits.

and you would change that paradigm? why thank you comrade!

 

[Defiant1]

They've cynically added a new class of employment to many sectors, consultants. Which means they can pay the same wage, without the benefits. Initially this started, largely, when Clinton was in power because of the tight labor market. Professionals could basically name their price. Now..it is the other way around.

Correct.

We see this also with employers hiring workers part time, non permanent, and the use of temporary agencies to address production shortfalls; anything to avoid adding to payrolls and cutting into profits by providing benefits.

In other words being wise businessmen.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

"I am always right and you are always wrong."
This is the thinking of both parties, they are both wrong.
But as long as there are sheep on both sides who believe their side is right - and it is the other guy that is wrong - nothing will change.

You may not think you are a part of the problem Sallow...but this thread is exactly why you are a well established part of it. But you are of course far from alone.

This economic mess is a combination of deep corruption throughout our ENTIRE government and the financial system. As well as a deep sickness in the American population to emphatically ignore the future for the benefit of today.

Fear is what politicians value most. Keep the right afraid of the left, and the left afraid of the right. That way, they keep voting in the same corrupt bastards who rob them blind. You're right. They are sheep.... and they invite the wolves over for dinner, without thinking about the menu.

Well stated.
I have been saying this for years...look at voting precincts for Pete's sake.
BOTH sides got together all over the nation and drew up agreed upon voting blocks that are unapologeticly and specifically designed to ensure incumbent victory. Both parties did this...ALL OVER THE NATION. Millions and millions of votes are deliberately weighed so elected officials everywhere can keep their job.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Let's take a look at something to show my point.
OWS.
They are occupying the wrong street. They are protesting a symptom rather than the disease. And they do this because they have swallowed an easy pill brought forth from leftist idealist - that capitalism and corporate greed is the sickness that causes all of their pain - it's the rich guys...those evil bastards....right?
Nevermind the incorrigible FED. If there is a body of people that are more corrupt and deceitful than the FED - please tell me who that is.
Nevermind the congress and the senate, two worthless houses of the unholy who are completely corrupt in every way. And thanks to blind partisans on both sides - they will continue to do basically nothing for the foreseeable future.
Nevermind THEMSELVES...the real problem.

 

[Sallow]

An excellent and accurate assessment.

The December 2007 recession was the best thing to happen to the private sector: it allowed business to lay-off workers, cutting labor costs and increasing profit, and reduced competition by eliminating marginal businesses.

Consequently there is no incentive to hire, why cut into profit? And with the American worker more productive than he’s ever been, trapped in his current position by high unemployment, businesses can extract greater production at less cost.

This is exactly the economy the private sector wants.

They've cynically added a new class of employment to many sectors, consultants. Which means they can pay the same wage, without the benefits. Initially this started, largely, when Clinton was in power because of the tight labor market. Professionals could basically name their price. Now..it is the other way around.

yes it is, its called ; supply and demand. labor is paid what demand dictates and the traffic will bare.

Absolutely correct. Which I basically stated in my OP. So what is your point?

 

[Sallow]

They've cynically added a new class of employment to many sectors, consultants. Which means they can pay the same wage, without the benefits. Initially this started, largely, when Clinton was in power because of the tight labor market. Professionals could basically name their price. Now..it is the other way around.

Correct.

We see this also with employers hiring workers part time, non permanent, and the use of temporary agencies to address production shortfalls; anything to avoid adding to payrolls and cutting into profits by providing benefits.

In other words being wise businessmen.

Correct. There is absolutely no "incentive" on the part of business to self-regulate. If there was no minimum wage or unions, companies would pay the absolute lowest wage. In fact, if it were possible, they would use slaves.

 

[Sallow]

"I am always right and you are always wrong."
This is the thinking of both parties, they are both wrong.
But as long as there are sheep on both sides who believe their side is right - and it is the other guy that is wrong - nothing will change.

You may not think you are a part of the problem Sallow...but this thread is exactly why you are a well established part of it. But you are of course far from alone.

This economic mess is a combination of deep corruption throughout our ENTIRE government and the financial system. As well as a deep sickness in the American population to emphatically ignore the future for the benefit of today.

Fear is what politicians value most. Keep the right afraid of the left, and the left afraid of the right. That way, they keep voting in the same corrupt bastards who rob them blind. You're right. They are sheep.... and they invite the wolves over for dinner, without thinking about the menu.

Well stated.
I have been saying this for years...look at voting precincts for Pete's sake.
BOTH sides got together all over the nation and drew up agreed upon voting blocks that are unapologeticly and specifically designed to ensure incumbent victory. Both parties did this...ALL OVER THE NATION. Millions and millions of votes are deliberately weighed so elected officials everywhere can keep their job.

Why?

It's vague nonsense. It's addressing nothing. It's like complaining about some business guy for crashing an economy by leveraging currency futures but in no way wanting to address the tactic he used to crash the economy.

Capitalism is a fine economic system. But there is no onus on the part of those participating to keep it going. In fact the opposite is true. Eliminating competition, maximizes profit. So what's most desired by private enterprise? Monopolies. That's why regulation was deployed to curtail that.

Business is about "bottom line" not ethics. And on the face of that..there is nothing wrong with it. But if one wants that to work, equitably, in the context of society, it is necessary to install levers and wedges to keep it going.

 

[Sallow]

Let's take a look at something to show my point.
OWS.
They are occupying the wrong street. They are protesting a symptom rather than the disease. And they do this because they have swallowed an easy pill brought forth from leftist idealist - that capitalism and corporate greed is the sickness that causes all of their pain - it's the rich guys...those evil bastards....right?
Nevermind the incorrigible FED. If there is a body of people that are more corrupt and deceitful than the FED - please tell me who that is.
Nevermind the congress and the senate, two worthless houses of the unholy who are completely corrupt in every way. And thanks to blind partisans on both sides - they will continue to do basically nothing for the foreseeable future.
Nevermind THEMSELVES...the real problem.

Incorrible FED? What about it? It's meant to keep inflation down and employment up. While that is sort of competing goals, it's necessary. I've illustrated why it's not desirable for the private sector to be engaged in either pursuit.

And it's a healthy part of democracy that people protest. And I differ with you on this. Going to wall street was the absolute correct mood. People are now having a conversation about wage inequality. That's very healthy. And encouraging. Capitalism, demands it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Correct.

We see this also with employers hiring workers part time, non permanent, and the use of temporary agencies to address production shortfalls; anything to avoid adding to payrolls and cutting into profits by providing benefits.

In other words being wise businessmen.

Correct. There is absolutely no "incentive" on the part of business to self-regulate. If there was no minimum wage or unions, companies would pay the absolute lowest wage. In fact, if it were possible, they would use slaves.

Again - you only talk about ONE side of the issue...and a symptom as well.
Not every business all across this nation do these things so they can bask in mattresses made of $100 bills.
I have made a point on this forum many times - that each and every time is either ignored or ridiculed by the majority of people here.
Consumers are the real problem. They make choices based almost entirely on price.
Origin of production - who cares.
The company uses what amounts to slave labor to produce this product - who cares.
The products is, in every way, inferior in design and construction to other products that cost more - who cares.

Businesses across this nation are given no choice to seek cheaper production because all of these wonderful union people who bitch and moan about corporate greed - are as thoroughly guilty as the rest of Americans who have lost all sense of the word value - and refuse to accept or even acknowledge that there are consequences to the hypocritical buying habits they have.

 

[alan1]

Correct. There is absolutely no "incentive" on the part of business to self-regulate. If there was no minimum wage or unions, companies would pay the absolute lowest wage. In fact, if it were possible, they would use slaves.

And yet, despite your claim, there are very few people working for federal minimum wage (about 2%) and only about 12% of the (US) work force is unionized.
Your statement is absent of fact and real world practice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The current economy in the United States is the economy that "top tier" actually wants. It's a soft or weak labor market, taxes and regulations are low and lax and emerging markets represent the new customer base. There is no incentive that will change this, other then to make the things I listed, worse. More employment means a tighter labor market and greater expense for employers. Most companies believe they have achieved the desirable market share in this country and are moving to "greener" pastures, mainly places like China and India for new opportunities, as disposable income becomes more available. Bear in mind, more income for labor means less income for executives..and that's not something they want.

Thus the only way to make things "better" in this country..in terms of incentives..is to make things worse.

Which is what Conservative candidates are proposing to do.

Cutting regulations will mean more deaths and more meltdowns. Breaking labor will mean cutting wages and benefits for labor. Cutting taxes will skew income upward.

That's the future you get going down this route. It's been historically shown. It's been shown presently in third world nations. And overall top heavy nations really don't innovate, they stagnate.

Good job boys.

"Cutting regulations will mean more deaths....."

That's your concern....deaths due to faulty government policy?

Oh...why didn't you say so!

1. "What would you say, though, if I told you that this “good thing” that the government is forcing on us in the name of “saving the environment” is responsible for no less than 2,000 deaths per year?

Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

Less steel framing and smaller size equals more miles per gallon. It also means you’re rolling down the road in a vehicle with much less crashworthiness, making you more vulnerable to every stationary object, to that semi behind you … and to the guy in the normal-sized car.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher.
Imagine the reaction of the oh-so-energy conscious Democrats to a private company causing 2,000 plus deaths per year. We’d be having show hearings by the dozen, the company execs lined up in the hearing room for the TV cameras like a corporate murderer’s row. The coverage would be non-stop, as it was for the much smaller death toll involving SUV drivers who never could figure out how to inflate their tires correctly. Special legislation would be enacted to “stop the carnage.” The government would air PSAs urging us not to buy the product.

However, since CAFE is a government product — and now, so too are the cars — none of that is happening. Instead of trying to scare us out of such vehicles as they have (falsely) been doing with SUVs, they’re silent on the dangers involved with cars that are built far too small and light.
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

 

[Truthmatters]

who are these people who want us reduced to being owned by the wealthy?

 

[Sallow]

The Private Sector has the economy it wants.

Not ALL the private sector, surely!

No doubt some of it absolutely loves this economy.

A very tiny minority of theprivate sector revels in this economy.

A highly influential one, to be sure, but they are hardly the entire PRIVATE SECTOR.

I'm in the PRIVATE SECTOR and I don't approve it what's going on.

My bad. New startups absolutely hate it. Credit is tight and it's hard to expand.

 

[Sallow]

Correct. There is absolutely no "incentive" on the part of business to self-regulate. If there was no minimum wage or unions, companies would pay the absolute lowest wage. In fact, if it were possible, they would use slaves.

And yet, despite your claim, there are very few people working for federal minimum wage (about 2%) and only about 12% of the (US) work force is unionized.
Your statement is absent of fact and real world practice.

Did I mention that wages have been stagnant for the last 13 or so years?

No..you aren't going to get away with paying a professional minimum wage..but you are going to get away with hiring less professionals, making them work longer hours and not giving them raises or benefits.

 

[Sallow]

who are these people who want us reduced to being owned by the wealthy?

I am not sure what you are getting at..and while it's sometimes "fun" to villanize people you can identify..it's not quite as easy as that. Corporate heads do what's best for thier bottom line. The CEO's that I have met are by in large, apolitical. Politics really aren't something they are all that interested in. They do, however, have strong views on how some laws impact thier ability to be successful. That's a valid concern. Some of them, however, are involved in a numbers game to see how much compensation they get walk away with. And that's just human nature. Both things should be factored in to how government sets policy. However, the bottom line for government, is protecting and nurturing it's citizens. And in the long run, that's good for both the private and public sectors.

 

[Sallow]

The current economy in the United States is the economy that "top tier" actually wants. It's a soft or weak labor market, taxes and regulations are low and lax and emerging markets represent the new customer base. There is no incentive that will change this, other then to make the things I listed, worse. More employment means a tighter labor market and greater expense for employers. Most companies believe they have achieved the desirable market share in this country and are moving to "greener" pastures, mainly places like China and India for new opportunities, as disposable income becomes more available. Bear in mind, more income for labor means less income for executives..and that's not something they want.

Thus the only way to make things "better" in this country..in terms of incentives..is to make things worse.

Which is what Conservative candidates are proposing to do.

Cutting regulations will mean more deaths and more meltdowns. Breaking labor will mean cutting wages and benefits for labor. Cutting taxes will skew income upward.

That's the future you get going down this route. It's been historically shown. It's been shown presently in third world nations. And overall top heavy nations really don't innovate, they stagnate.

Good job boys.

"Cutting regulations will mean more deaths....."

That's your concern....deaths due to faulty government policy?

Oh...why didn't you say so!

1. "What would you say, though, if I told you that this “good thing” that the government is forcing on us in the name of “saving the environment” is responsible for no less than 2,000 deaths per year?

Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

Less steel framing and smaller size equals more miles per gallon. It also means you’re rolling down the road in a vehicle with much less crashworthiness, making you more vulnerable to every stationary object, to that semi behind you … and to the guy in the normal-sized car.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher.
Imagine the reaction of the oh-so-energy conscious Democrats to a private company causing 2,000 plus deaths per year. We’d be having show hearings by the dozen, the company execs lined up in the hearing room for the TV cameras like a corporate murderer’s row. The coverage would be non-stop, as it was for the much smaller death toll involving SUV drivers who never could figure out how to inflate their tires correctly. Special legislation would be enacted to “stop the carnage.” The government would air PSAs urging us not to buy the product.

However, since CAFE is a government product — and now, so too are the cars — none of that is happening. Instead of trying to scare us out of such vehicles as they have (falsely) been doing with SUVs, they’re silent on the dangers involved with cars that are built far too small and light.
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

I just get a big laugh out of these types of articles. 2,000 deaths a year? That's like margin of error.

Deaths from auto accidents are way down because of safety regulations imposed by the government. Air bags and crumple zones have saved countless lives. Those were opposed tooth and nail by the right.

 

[Sallow]

Two interesting OpEds on the economy..

Tragically, the more entrenched the jobs shortage becomes, the more paralyzed Congress becomes, with Republicans committed to doing nothing in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012. Last week, for instance, Senate Republicans filibustered a $60 billion proposal by Mr. Obama to create jobs by repairing and upgrading the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. They were outraged that the bill would have been paid for by a 0.7 percent surtax on people making more than $1 million.

Things may be about to get worse.

Federal unemployment benefits, which generally kick in after 26 weeks of state-provided benefits, are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. That would be a disaster for many of the estimated 3.5 million Americans who get by on extended benefits — an average of $295 a week. It would also be a blow to the economy, because it would reduce consumer spending by about $50 billion in 2012 — which would mean slower economic growth and 275,000 lost jobs. Unfortunately, given Republicans’ demonstrated willingness to ignore human needs and economic logic, it is more likely than not that jobless benefits will be a major battle in the months ahead.

There are no plausible arguments against an extension — in fact, Congress has never let federal benefits expire when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. But there are many specious arguments, chief among them that providing benefits reduces the incentive to get a new job. The evidence says otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/the-next-fight-over-jobs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The problem in the financial world isn’t that companies screw up; it’s that the government too often protects firms from their folly. Why is AIG, which messed up way worse than MF Global a few years back, still in business?

For that matter, if Goldman Sachs, Corzine’s old employer, were on the brink of failure, Washington might protect its investors, at least its bondholders. If all of BofA’s customers left, the feds might protect its bondholders, too, from big losses.

Yes, it’s sad when a company goes under. Good people -- including people who don’t pull down six, seven or eight figures -- lose their jobs. But without failure, the economy is gummed up by companies that should have failed, so other parts of the economy don’t get the private investment they need to grow.

So how can Washington ensure that markets let a Goldman Sachs or an AIG go bankrupt?

One good way would be to limit borrowing -- so that any one firm can’t pile up so much debt that it can bring down the financial system.

One way that financial firms can take on too much debt is through derivatives -- a fancy way of making promises that you might not be able to keep. Regulators long ago realized that derivatives are a problem and forced firms to put some of their own money behind their bets.


Read more: Why Jon Corzine’s failure is good for the economy--Nicole Gelinas - NYPOST.com

In both cases it seems that the right is looking for collapse during a Democratic administration. George W. Bush was faced with a mild recession due to the "Dot Com Bubble" (Which really wasn't much of a bubble, but a real live correction that's impact had already been absorbed), he took all sorts of drastic measures to create another bubble, one stemming from easy money and sub prime derivatives. THAT was a true problem.

 

[Sallow]

So..in the long and short of it..what Republicans propose now..in terms of job creating is lax regulation and low taxes.

Which has been shown, time and time again, not to create jobs.

 

[California Girl]

39 posts. 16 from Swallow.

Question: Is Swallow the new Dainty?