Unemployment Going To 12-13%?

[PoliticalChic]

Then tell them to make the products better. It's a simple formula that drives capitalism ... good product .... affordable cots .... equals more sales .... bad product ... at too high a price ... equals no sales.

Do you mean to say that forcing an auto manufacturer to pay Union wages of $70K+ per year plus Cadillac level bennies for unskilled or at best medium skilled labor does not lead to lower product prices?

Except that they're not being paid 70k a year. The number is oft repeated... and completely made up.

I have tried to be civil, even friendly in our disagreements, but the time has come for honesty.

You are a poor example to all posters who are entitled to the respect due to honest attempts to explore and exchange ideas.

Neither are your expositions honest, nor is there any attempt to base them on source material.

"...completely made up." casts aspersions and a sub rosa insult to the poster you are questioning.

Where is the link?

Is there a link or is your statement "...completely made up."?

And if it is "completely made up," what does that say about you?

BTW,

"GM, UAW set stage to potentially transform U.S. auto landscape
Pact includes VEBA, signing bonus, two-tier wage plan
BY KATIE MERX, TIM HIGGINS, SARAH A. WEBSTER AND JOE GUY COLLIER • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITERS • SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
GM, UAW set stage to potentially transform U.S. auto landscape | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

• The automaker will implement a two-tier wage and benefits scale for jobs that GM and the UAW have agreed are "non-core" production jobs. Those jobs are expected to include many positions in which workers do not have their hands on a vehicle in the assembly process. In addition, GM is expected to offer a targeted special attrition program to move workers in those non-core jobs off the active worker member rolls. Wages and benefits for second-tier workers will average $27 per hour, compared with the average $73 per hour of current workers, the sources said.

Analysts estimate that foreign automakers with U.S. manufacturing operations pay an average of $20 less to $30 less per hour than GM. The costs are said to put U.S. manufacturers at a $1,500 to $2,000 disadvantage to the foreign automakers."


If you annualize Chrysler’s labor cost of $75.86 an hour per worker over a 35-hour week, for 50-weeks a year, the yearly compensation comes in at almost $133,000 per worker per year.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=39499


This school-yard level of debate obviates the value of a board such as this.
It would be best if you sat back and observed the way adults debate, until you grow up.

 

[Care4all]

That is labor costs, not salaries. The LABOR COSTS is not salary....

Labor costs include benefits....and the social security the employer pays, unemployment insurance the employer pays for the employee etc.

Which is still a cost to the company, but it is not salary or the union workers making $70 bucks an hour?

when someone asks you what you make, do you include what the company pays in health care, disability, UE insurance, life insurance, and what you will get in retirement, for you when someone asks what you make?

I think clarification of such, is in order....

not that the benefits do not cost these companies as well....i don;t want to diminish such....

 

[Single Dad]

More Unemployed People = More People On The Public Dole(s) = More Democrat Votes


It's all part of the Socialist plan people. There are no surprises here.

is unemployment the "public dole" ? I thought employers pay a fee that covers those that they lay off, the unemployed?

Also, do you really believe all the republicans laid off and on to the public dole, will vote democratic next time because of it?

The idea of the Democrat Socialists is to move as many people to positions of dependancey as possible. Unemployment is by no means the only method of doing so. It is interesting that the Obama Administration just keeps on increasing the amount of unemployment compensation and just printing more money to pay for it.

There are numerouse State and Federal level doles (sic) that will be used to redistribute wealth from those that are working to those who are subservient to the government. (dependant on their handouts) Eventually if you get enough people on the dole and convince them that they need to keep pulling down the "D" lever every election to keep their handouts, you will get votes to shift to the Democrat Socialist side.

 

[tigerbob]

PoliticalChic - some background to the $70 a hour figure. Bear in mind it's from New Republic , but the Center for Automotive Research is fairly well respected...

If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour.

That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?

Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Autoworkers Making $70 An Hour? Not Really - CBS News

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is labor costs, not salaries. The LABOR COSTS is not salary....

Labor costs include benefits....and the social security the employer pays, unemployment insurance the employer pays for the employee etc.

Which is still a cost to the company, but it is not salary or the union workers making $70 bucks an hour?

when someone asks you what you make, do you include what the company pays in health care, disability, UE insurance, life insurance, and what you will get in retirement, for you when someone asks what you make?

I think clarification of such, is in order....

not that the benefits do not cost these companies as well....i don;t want to diminish such....

Based on proximity, it would seem that you are commenting on the posts re: how much the GM workers made.

The question is, on the one hand "70K+" and on the other hand, "that is completely made up.." implying that they make far less.

Did you have an opinion with respect to these two views?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic - some background to the $70 a hour figure. Bear in mind it's from New Republic , but the Center for Automotive Research is fairly well respected...

If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour.

That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?

Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Autoworkers Making $70 An Hour? Not Really - CBS News

I appreciate your and Care's additions to the discussion, I love facts, data, and sourced material, nice work in both cases, but I suggest that we are talking about a distinction without a difference.

Dad's post asked about something like "saddling the car makers with wages on the order of 70k..."

Would you find it more accurate to replace 'wages' with 'costs'?

As in:
"He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com"
CNSNews.com - Union Workers at Big Three Automakers Average $73 an Hour

Would you agree that the result is the same: much higher costs than Toyota, Nisssan, and Honda?

And if so, does the worker not benefit from the additional costs added to salary? If not, why did the union bargain for same?

 

[Polk]

Do you mean to say that forcing an auto manufacturer to pay Union wages of $70K+ per year plus Cadillac level bennies for unskilled or at best medium skilled labor does not lead to lower product prices?

Except that they're not being paid 70k a year. The number is oft repeated... and completely made up.

Please tell us how much UAW workers are earning. You may provide both veteran and newbie pay levels. (They are different per recent contract negotiations with the big 3) My cousin works as a UAW veteran line worker and is making more than $70K/year before any OT. Please provide your facts / links.

Average pay for a veteran auto worker is 28 an hour.
Average UAW Pay: $28, Not $70 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Assuming a 40 hour work week and two weeks of vacation a year, that works out to 56k.

 

[Care4all]

PoliticalChic - some background to the $70 a hour figure. Bear in mind it's from New Republic , but the Center for Automotive Research is fairly well respected...

If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour.

That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?

Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Autoworkers Making $70 An Hour? Not Really - CBS News

I appreciate your and Care's additions to the discussion, I love facts, data, and sourced material, nice work in both cases, but I suggest that we are talking about a distinction without a difference.

Dad's post asked about something like "saddling the car makers with wages on the order of 70k..."

Would you find it more accurate to replace 'wages' with 'costs'?

As in:
"He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com"
CNSNews.com - Union Workers at Big Three Automakers Average $73 an Hour

Would you agree that the result is the same: much higher costs than Toyota, Nisssan, and Honda?

And if so, does the worker not benefit from the additional costs added to salary? If not, why did the union bargain for same?

yes, i agree that their labor costs are too high for what they are producing now. But these companies ACCEPTED these terms when BARGAINING with their employees....they were not FORCED to do such, they bargained for it, getting things they wanted and giving up some things they wanted and visa/versa. At the time they made the bargain, I would venture to say, they DID NOT believe it would bankrupt them but they believed it WOULD NOT.

they made their own business mistakes by miscalculating HOW MUCH Health care costs would go up...they gave up paying them more and chose to give benefits, A-class benefits instead of the money....BIG MISTAKE on their part viewing it with hind site.

Also, management, upper management is WHY they can not afford it anymore, as they once could...BECAUSE management, failed again to forsee the importance of fuel efficient vehicles being the back bone of their fleets and ignored what the market place was telling them was coming and took a short sited view of profits instead, by focusing on the big gas guzzling trucks and suv's.... And also by failing to introduce new, innovative technologies and designs in their cars, with proprietary features that would have grown their share of the car market....business decision wise, they, THE UPPER MANAGEMENT failed all around in running a good solid business with a real future....

And NOW for people to go and blame the labor costs of their workers for their demise, is rewriting history and using these laborers as a mere scapegoat for CEO type decisions that were really the cause of their labor costs being considered high now....

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic - some background to the $70 a hour figure. Bear in mind it's from New Republic , but the Center for Automotive Research is fairly well respected...

I appreciate your and Care's additions to the discussion, I love facts, data, and sourced material, nice work in both cases, but I suggest that we are talking about a distinction without a difference.

Dad's post asked about something like "saddling the car makers with wages on the order of 70k..."

Would you find it more accurate to replace 'wages' with 'costs'?

As in:
"He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com"
CNSNews.com - Union Workers at Big Three Automakers Average $73 an Hour

Would you agree that the result is the same: much higher costs than Toyota, Nisssan, and Honda?

And if so, does the worker not benefit from the additional costs added to salary? If not, why did the union bargain for same?

yes, i agree that their labor costs are too high for what they are producing now. But these companies ACCEPTED these terms when BARGAINING with their employees....they were not FORCED to do such, they bargained for it, getting things they wanted and giving up some things they wanted and visa/versa. At the time they made the bargain, I would venture to say, they DID NOT believe it would bankrupt them but they believed it WOULD NOT.

they made their own business mistakes by miscalculating HOW MUCH Health care costs would go up...they gave up paying them more and chose to give benefits, A-class benefits instead of the money....BIG MISTAKE on their part viewing it with hind site.

Also, management, upper management is WHY they can not afford it anymore, as they once could...BECAUSE management, failed again to forsee the importance of fuel efficient vehicles being the back bone of their fleets and ignored what the market place was telling them was coming and took a short sited view of profits instead, by focusing on the big gas guzzling trucks and suv's.... And also by failing to introduce new, innovative technologies and designs in their cars, with proprietary features that would have grown their share of the car market....business decision wise, they, THE UPPER MANAGEMENT failed all around in running a good solid business with a real future....

And NOW for people to go and blame the labor costs of their workers for their demise, is rewriting history and using these laborers as a mere scapegoat for CEO type decisions that were really the cause of their labor costs being considered high now....

Without the nonsense about fuel-efficient cars, which nobody wants, and without the obfuscation, can you answer the question:

Was Dad correct re: excessive labor costs???

 

[Care4all]

I appreciate your and Care's additions to the discussion, I love facts, data, and sourced material, nice work in both cases, but I suggest that we are talking about a distinction without a difference.

Dad's post asked about something like "saddling the car makers with wages on the order of 70k..."

Would you find it more accurate to replace 'wages' with 'costs'?

As in:
"He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com"
CNSNews.com - Union Workers at Big Three Automakers Average $73 an Hour

Would you agree that the result is the same: much higher costs than Toyota, Nisssan, and Honda?

And if so, does the worker not benefit from the additional costs added to salary? If not, why did the union bargain for same?

yes, i agree that their labor costs are too high for what they are producing now. But these companies ACCEPTED these terms when BARGAINING with their employees....they were not FORCED to do such, they bargained for it, getting things they wanted and giving up some things they wanted and visa/versa. At the time they made the bargain, I would venture to say, they DID NOT believe it would bankrupt them but they believed it WOULD NOT.

they made their own business mistakes by miscalculating HOW MUCH Health care costs would go up...they gave up paying them more and chose to give benefits, A-class benefits instead of the money....BIG MISTAKE on their part viewing it with hind site.

Also, management, upper management is WHY they can not afford it anymore, as they once could...BECAUSE management, failed again to forsee the importance of fuel efficient vehicles being the back bone of their fleets and ignored what the market place was telling them was coming and took a short sited view of profits instead, by focusing on the big gas guzzling trucks and suv's.... And also by failing to introduce new, innovative technologies and designs in their cars, with proprietary features that would have grown their share of the car market....business decision wise, they, THE UPPER MANAGEMENT failed all around in running a good solid business with a real future....

And NOW for people to go and blame the labor costs of their workers for their demise, is rewriting history and using these laborers as a mere scapegoat for CEO type decisions that were really the cause of their labor costs being considered high now....

Without the nonsense about fuel-efficient cars, which nobody wants, and without the obfuscation, can you answer the question:

Was Dad correct re: excessive labor costs???

he was wrong implying they are paid$70k a year, as i said previously....

saYing it in the manner that he did, tends for other republicans to have ''pay envy'' imo, and view laborers as people who are over PAID.

Also, implying $70k is their yearly pay, can make people believe their retirement benefits, and health care benefits, and the employer contribution to their social security etc etc etc, are ON TOP OF THE $70K, don't you think PC?

AS i asked, when someone asks you what your paid, no one includes what their company spends on them in benefits and SS tax in their answer, do they?

 

[Single Dad]

Average pay for a veteran auto worker is 28 an hour.
Average UAW Pay: $28, Not $70 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Assuming a 40 hour work week and two weeks of vacation a year, that works out to 56k.

Look at Associated Contents Sources For Their "Facts" About Union Wages (Bottom of their article)

SOURCES

Welcome to the UAW

Daily Kos: The $70-Per-Hour Lie

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting. As a non-union craftmen in a Russian owned steel mill, my salary starts at an hourly wage about $6 an hour below union wages. However, we have a generous profit participation plan that allow the company to have lower labor costs in bad times, and pay very high wages in good times. So, this year, only working a 40 hr. week, I will only make 50K, half of what I made last year. Hurts? Yes, but I have a job, and the benefits are as good as they get.

Look, we need to revamp the whole way we look at the labor and management situation. Right now, management, in all too many companies, get bonuses and high salaries, no matter how well or poorly the company does. That resembles the old Soviet Communism far more than Adam Smith's capitalism.
And all too many companies seem to regard the man on the factory floor as just another cog that can be replaced like a peice of machinery. That is no more true than saying all managers are the same.

The constant denigration of the man on the factory floor as a brainless lumpenprol that can be replaced at will only shows that person saying that has never worked on a factory floor. Where I work, it takes five years for most just to learn all the computer codes to operate the simpler machinery. Then the individual problems associated with each machine is another whole matter.
A real dummy does not last 6 weeks.

 

[garyd]

Come on folks the difference between what it cost the company to have you on the payroll and what you recieve in actual money is substantial, even if you aren't a union worker and it almost all exists largely by government fiat.

If it costs the big three 70 bucks an hour to have you on the payroll the precentage of that which is your salary is largely a meaningless bit of data.

 

[Toro]

Unemployment may be going to 12% but it is unlikely unless there is another leg down in the economy. The decline in nonfarm payrolls has slowed fairly dramatically.

There would likely have to be an acceleration in nonfarm payrolls for unemployment to rise that high.

But it might happen.

Rosenberg is an unavowed bear, and has been for years. He has also been dead wrong on this rally. When the Dow was at 15000, he said it was going below 10,000. When it went to 6,600, he said it was going to 6,000. When it didn't get there, he said the rally was false. In the meantime, stocks are up 65% since.

I used to read Rosenberg religiously but he lost a lot of credibility with me when he continued to fight the turn. He may wind up being right, but he has taken some very stark positions which have turned out to be incorrect so far. Perma-bears, like perma-bulls, don't have a lot of credibility IMHO.

 

[SFC Ollie]

From all the different indicators and watching the real news shows and not the opinion shows, I am making an informed and educated guess that we will see 12% unemployment. There is nothing that this administration and this congress can now do to stop it from happening. They already shot their wad. And they missed.

 

[saveliberty]

Fantastic! Down to 12-13%? That would be awesome!

.......and then I realized you weren't posting something specific to Michigan.

I hear you buddy. Our county is near 16% right now. We have to look up to see down. We joke about polar bears visiting the southern end of MI any day. Global warming Riiight.

 

[saveliberty]

Then tell them to make the products better. It's a simple formula that drives capitalism ... good product .... affordable cots .... equals more sales .... bad product ... at too high a price ... equals no sales.

Do you mean to say that forcing an auto manufacturer to pay Union wages of $70K+ per year plus Cadillac level bennies for unskilled or at best medium skilled labor does not lead to lower product prices?

Except that they're not being paid 70k a year. The number is oft repeated... and completely made up.

Polk and I are agreeing on this one. That should make most of you take serious pause. Someone making $83,000 will have about $50,000 in gross pay and the rest in benefits. That is not even a union job.

 

[saveliberty]

Unemployment may be going to 12% but it is unlikely unless there is another leg down in the economy. The decline in nonfarm payrolls has slowed fairly dramatically.

There would likely have to be an acceleration in nonfarm payrolls for unemployment to rise that high.

But it might happen.

Rosenberg is an unavowed bear, and has been for years. He has also been dead wrong on this rally. When the Dow was at 15000, he said it was going below 10,000. When it went to 6,600, he said it was going to 6,000. When it didn't get there, he said the rally was false. In the meantime, stocks are up 65% since.

I used to read Rosenberg religiously but he lost a lot of credibility with me when he continued to fight the turn. He may wind up being right, but he has taken some very stark positions which have turned out to be incorrect so far. Perma-bears, like perma-bulls, don't have a lot of credibility IMHO.

Thanks for the chart Toro. I think we will see 12.5% unemployment soon. I have predicted that for about six months now. There is little incentive to increase employment with productivity rates so high and the uncertainty of new government policies on businesses.

 

[garyd]

Toro the negative impact of cap and trade alone is likely to push us toward levels of unemployment we haven't seen since the Great Depression. As for the current rally? Chalk it up primarily to supply and demand the government supplied more money and players are spending it.

 

[Maple]

And moaning and crying and crying and complaining and bitching and moaning will get you where? Where will that get you? Are those working buying? Seems not as stores, restaurants are empty and offering all sorts of incentives. We recently bought a Buick made in Michigan and have been out shopping and eating out. People put up or STFU. And stop shopping where they fluck over American workers.

Thumbs up Day – Political Pass
Buy American - Support Yourself – Political Pass

MadeInUSA - Home- Recycling American Dollars Through Patriotic Spending
American Made Products Directory - Made in USA, United States Manufacturers
Made in USA, Made in America, US, American-Made
UAW Made Products
http://shopunionmade.org/
UNION BUILT PC - CONTACT US
https://unionbuiltpc.com/netbook_ubu100.php

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/89814-random-musings-on-american-jobs.html

I will tell you what would get the moaning to cease and that would be JOBS. You want people to buy American?? If they don't have JOBS, they don't have the money to buy ANYTHING. You want people to go to restaurants, they need money to go eat out too. The Christmas season will be dismal and yes I see unemployment going much higher because that no stimulus stimulus bill has turned out to be nothing more than a slush fund for state governments to get their hands into when they need to keep another government employee's job. The Private sector is unemployed. Without the private sector we are toast and this recession will only worsen.