Mexico has lost 2.1 million jobs during this recession, mostly to the far east including china.
Where's Elaine Chow?, when you need her...
- Thread starter limitdown
- Start date
Not so unintelligent, in fact an opinion widely held among respected economists. No one denies that Sec. Rubin (or "Bob" as his fellow clubmen call him) did wonderful things for Wall Street while he was so briskly shipping jobs out of the country. But when you visit the AMA you encounter a different reality. American manufacturers burn "Bob" in effigy every Monday morning. An 11,000 Dow doesn't do anything for them; they live in the Real Economy where you actually have to provide value to make a sale. It was the overheated bull market, not the inspired policies of any individual or administration, that enabled janitors (all too briefly) to buy homes.
first of all, i hate chow as much as any person on the planet, but your criticism of job creation is way off base. earnings are up 29%, highest since 1993 and yet your still criticizing the economy. i can't believe i have to explain this, but job creation comes LAST. here is the cycle;
1) earnings depressions
2) companies cut costs since demand for their products are lower
3) demand eventually picks up
4) companies ramp up production, but use overtime and temp jobs because they don't want permanent fixed costs until they are sure a sustained recovery is underway.
5) demand for their products becomes entrenched long enough that it is costing them money (opportunity cost) by not be able to meet demand.
6)( THEN, they hire.
listen to kudlow for your economic lessons, rather than marx, then maybe you'll have some idea of how the real world works.
1) earnings depressions
2) companies cut costs since demand for their products are lower
3) demand eventually picks up
4) companies ramp up production, but use overtime and temp jobs because they don't want permanent fixed costs until they are sure a sustained recovery is underway.
5) demand for their products becomes entrenched long enough that it is costing them money (opportunity cost) by not be able to meet demand.
6)( THEN, they hire.
listen to kudlow for your economic lessons, rather than marx, then maybe you'll have some idea of how the real world works.
I voted for perot because bush sr. lied about taxes and I never trusted clinton. Little did I know that he may have been correct about that giant sucking sound. Just a little early. How come he doesn't come around and say I told you so.
p.s.
I wish that you are right dafugginman, but I just do not see how manufacturing jobs get made in the U.S. when mexico, india and china and everyone else wants a piece of the action at a lower price. If you were an executive where would you source you plant?
p.s.
I wish that you are right dafugginman, but I just do not see how manufacturing jobs get made in the U.S. when mexico, india and china and everyone else wants a piece of the action at a lower price. If you were an executive where would you source you plant?
Correct. Employment figures are (1) a trailing indicator (2) always wrong and therefore endlessly revised for weeks and months after publication (3) a red herring if you're trying to determine the present state of the economy (4) an ever available football for political partisans.
it's a GOOD thing that manufacturers are leaving for mexico and such. this makes products cheaper and affordable for EVERYONE. would you rather have some union worker making $50 an hour to put together a DELL computer. who the hell could afford a computer then? only the rich.
there are jobs, for qualified people here in the US. and if you want to blame somebody for lack of manufacturing jobs, blame the democrtatic unions and minimum wage enthusiasts, both of which bush, and any other person with a rational understanding of how an economy works, are against. it's same reason why ford and GM products are sub par, the same reason steel manufacturing is leaving for europe and asia - artificially high wage prices for doing work that requires little to no skill. let a free market determine wages, like a free market determines wages in most other non-manufacturing jobs, and you would have all the manufacturing jobs you want.
there are jobs, for qualified people here in the US. and if you want to blame somebody for lack of manufacturing jobs, blame the democrtatic unions and minimum wage enthusiasts, both of which bush, and any other person with a rational understanding of how an economy works, are against. it's same reason why ford and GM products are sub par, the same reason steel manufacturing is leaving for europe and asia - artificially high wage prices for doing work that requires little to no skill. let a free market determine wages, like a free market determines wages in most other non-manufacturing jobs, and you would have all the manufacturing jobs you want.
Quote from "dafugginman":
"Listen to kudlow for your economic lessons, rather than marx, then maybe you'll have some idea of how the real world works.
You've got to be kidding or dreaming!
Listening to Krudlow and Crapper is a very risky endeavor, unless you are using them as a contrary indicator.
Try listening to someone like Bill Sullivan of Morgan Stanley that has been arguing for several months now that we are not in the classic economic recovery and that there are now structural impediments to job creation that did not exist in previous recoveries.
Also, think about this:
If you are a business owner or a senior manager at a large corporation and you were able to get thru the last quarter of economic activity at 8.2% GDP WITHOUT HIRING additional workers because of gains in productivity and outsourcing, what makes you think that these same business owners and corporations are gonna feel a need to add employees in the near future, especially when the GDP will cool back off to more sustainable and moderate numbers, like 3.5-4.5%?
"Listen to kudlow for your economic lessons, rather than marx, then maybe you'll have some idea of how the real world works.
You've got to be kidding or dreaming!
Listening to Krudlow and Crapper is a very risky endeavor, unless you are using them as a contrary indicator.
Try listening to someone like Bill Sullivan of Morgan Stanley that has been arguing for several months now that we are not in the classic economic recovery and that there are now structural impediments to job creation that did not exist in previous recoveries.
Also, think about this:
If you are a business owner or a senior manager at a large corporation and you were able to get thru the last quarter of economic activity at 8.2% GDP WITHOUT HIRING additional workers because of gains in productivity and outsourcing, what makes you think that these same business owners and corporations are gonna feel a need to add employees in the near future, especially when the GDP will cool back off to more sustainable and moderate numbers, like 3.5-4.5%?
waggie, none of your arguments refute anything i said. unions, protectionsism (yes, bush did impose steel tarriffs, i did not [nor did kudlow] agree with bush's leftist move), are NORMALLY a LEFTIST AND A HARBINGER OF THE DEMOCRATS. i will not argue this with you. protectionism and unions go along with higher taxes to anchor democrat's philosophy on the economy. it's nauseating, prevents a higher standard of living, hampers inovation (because you less the reward for risk taken), and kills job growth.
in terms of why would there not be a job increase with the GDP increasing at, paraphrasing "8% vs a more normal slowdown to 3%," i answered your question already. i'll just copy and paste.
1) earnings depressions
2) companies cut costs since demand for their products are lower
3) demand eventually picks up
4) companies ramp up production, but use overtime and temp jobs because they don't want permanent fixed costs until they are sure a sustained recovery is underway.
5) demand for their products becomes entrenched long enough that it is costing them money (opportunity cost) by not be able to meet demand.
6)( THEN, they hire.
we are in stage 4 right now. if and when demand becomes sustained enough to the point where companies are losing out on potential sales from not ramping up their ability to meet demand, that is when they will hire. look at the investment banking business as a prototype. they fired and fired and fired. IPOs are JUST starting to come back, and you will soon see a demand for MBA candidates. have you seen it yet??? no. because it has not been sustained. apologize to me and admit you were wrong on this thread in 6 months when the job market begins to strengthen.
on manufacturing jobs, i never said they will come back. and they never will, because of unions and ARTIFICIALLY high wages that exist here. for that matter, increase taxes and all business will begin to leave, not just manufacturing jobs.
howard dean will increase taxes for the average person by $1900, according to (unbelieavably) the Wall Street Joural (of course, it was on the VERY last page). this will decrease discretionary income that would be spent on products and services, HURTING the job market.
in terms of why would there not be a job increase with the GDP increasing at, paraphrasing "8% vs a more normal slowdown to 3%," i answered your question already. i'll just copy and paste.
1) earnings depressions
2) companies cut costs since demand for their products are lower
3) demand eventually picks up
4) companies ramp up production, but use overtime and temp jobs because they don't want permanent fixed costs until they are sure a sustained recovery is underway.
5) demand for their products becomes entrenched long enough that it is costing them money (opportunity cost) by not be able to meet demand.
6)( THEN, they hire.
we are in stage 4 right now. if and when demand becomes sustained enough to the point where companies are losing out on potential sales from not ramping up their ability to meet demand, that is when they will hire. look at the investment banking business as a prototype. they fired and fired and fired. IPOs are JUST starting to come back, and you will soon see a demand for MBA candidates. have you seen it yet??? no. because it has not been sustained. apologize to me and admit you were wrong on this thread in 6 months when the job market begins to strengthen.
on manufacturing jobs, i never said they will come back. and they never will, because of unions and ARTIFICIALLY high wages that exist here. for that matter, increase taxes and all business will begin to leave, not just manufacturing jobs.
howard dean will increase taxes for the average person by $1900, according to (unbelieavably) the Wall Street Joural (of course, it was on the VERY last page). this will decrease discretionary income that would be spent on products and services, HURTING the job market.
Greenspan spoke a few weeks ago about the the need to either raise taxes or cut govt spending to handle the deficit. Its easier to raise taxes than control the spending.
On another note, economics' books should devote a section regarding bubbles and the aftermaths. There's always a structural transformation taking place that creates problems that common fiscal and monetary tools cannot solve.