View Full Version : Recession
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-11, 1:55pm
ranting despair .....
well despair is really what I feel when I look at what is happening.
I agree. Obama has disappointed me, although I still support him. I believe he's not firm enough and he should be telling all of "them" how its going to be. Basically I've taken a break from politics; too frustrating!!
I agree. Obama has disappointed me, although I still support him. I believe he's not firm enough and he should be telling all of "them" how its going to be.
Yes, that's why we elected him Emperor, dissolved Congress, and ripped up the Constitution.
ranting despair .....
well despair is really what I feel when I look at what is happening.
That's why history is such a wonderful vehicle for adding context to current times. I've lived through worse times, and they got better. I'm betting they will again.
I believe he's not firm enough and he should be telling all of "them" how its going to be.
Pray tell, who are "they" and what should the President tell "them"?
Bastelmutti
2-6-11, 3:50pm
+1 Alan. I like that way of thinking. My family members were refugees during and after WWII. I'm still living the high life compared to what they went through - I have everything I need, although maybe not everything I want. I do feel badly for the people going through a hard time, but I agree that things will get better. The pendulum keeps swinging.
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-11, 3:57pm
I agree. Obama has disappointed me, although I still support him. I believe he's not firm enough and he should be telling all of "them" how its going to be. Basically I've taken a break from politics; too frustrating!!
Original post (rant) was more about how bad the local economic situation is, especially with regards to employment, but truthfully it's bad for much of the country although maybe not everywhere. This recession just WILL NOT END, it goes on for years and year and years! I edited because I could see it just leading to a lot of CA bashing and I didn't want to go down the route of just wasting my emotional energy on that. Top 4 states for unemployment are NV, CA, FL, MI, that cuts a pretty wide ideological swath for broad brush painting.
I agree Obama is a disappointment although my most major disappointments with him are not on economic issues. I actually voted 3rd party, but quite honestly expected a lot more of Obama than what we got (a 3rd Bush term!)
I've mostly taken a break from politics too, just disgusted with it, far more involved with local things etc.. It's just year after year of high unemployment, the new normal and where it is leading (chronic involuntary unemployment of maybe 25% of the population), wondering if local solutions can possible deal with *this* type of situation, etc., causes despair.
My family members were refugees during and after WWII. I'm still living the high life compared to what they went through - I have everything I need, although maybe not everything I want. I do feel badly for the people going through a hard time, but I agree that things will get better.
I had the great good fortune of having living grandparents who went through The Great Depression, and who spent many an hour telling me what things were like back then, and how they got through it. I think we're having it relatively easy these days.
That's why history is such a wonderful vehicle for adding context to current times. I've lived through worse times, and they got better. I'm betting they will again.
Agreed! This too will pass, we've seen it time and time again. As far as Obama goes, he's done some things I've agreed with and some I haven't, but overall I'm still positive about him. I think so many things a President must deal with, decisions they must make, really are no win/no choice type decisions. No matter which party the President is, he/she would have just one choice really. The right one. The fact that each of these no win decisions are forever tied to one party or the other is incidental. Bush started bailing out the banks and got the stimulus rolling because that was really the only choice, whether he/we liked it or not. Obama has made some military decisions even though I know he/we don't like them but again, he really has no choice. As the President he really doesn't have the luxury of taking an ideological stand if it's the wrong decision.
Really, when you come down to it, we can't just vote for a president/party. We have to vote for a person we feel we can trust to make the right decision, whether we like it or not. Is he/she smart enough to take all the information, including that which WE aren't privy to,( and maybe shouldn't be) and make the right decision?
That was McCain's problem. If he had picked a smart, well educated republican woman as a running mate, he might very well be president today. But, on his first major decision, he totally blew it.
Agreed! This too will pass, we've seen it time and time again. As far as Obama goes, he's done some things I've agreed with and some I haven't, but overall I'm still positive about him.
And to be fair, the President really has very little actual control over the economy one way or the other. Blaming Obama for The Recent Unpleasantness, or Bush, or Roosevelt, is more politics than reality. What you *can* blame them for is the looting and pillaging for the benefit of their friends, at the expense of us all, during hard times.
And to be fair, the President really has very little actual control over the economy one way or the other.
That's true, but the government can have a very direct effect on the economy through legislation, taxation and their control of the money supply, as well as having the ability to create uncertainty in the private sector in the pursuit of ideological or social reforms.
For good or bad, we've certainly seen examples of all that recently.
That's true, but the government can have a very direct effect on the economy through legislation, taxation and their control of the money supply, as well as having the ability to create uncertainty in the private sector in the pursuit of ideological or social reforms.
True. But that's the whole government, including Congress and the courts. The President is just a convenient figurehead to gripe about, I suppose it helps distract people from the legions of their "representatives" on both sides of the aisle who are selling them out :-)
loosechickens
2-6-11, 5:49pm
and the "looting and pillaging" has been going on for a while, under administrations of both persuasions.......
I'm one who agrees with Alan.......the pendulum swings, times are hard and then they aren't, but humans adjust, expectations soar or recede. As bad as this recession has been, in comparison to conditions during the Great Depression, or in countries during and after wartime in various parts of the world, if we think this is all that bad, it's because we have never experienced just HOW bad it can be.
I think the President has done the best he could do to make decisions that were within his power to make. Unfortunately, no matter what party a President belongs to, there are only a certain number of things that he can "just make happen", and they all have to bow to compromise, accomplishing what they can accomplish and understanding that they can't wave a magic wand and make things happen.
the expectations of some liberals were, to me, WAY out of line with anything that President Obama COULD actually accomplish, since he doesn't HAVE that magic wand, plus, although he was painted as some sort of a major liberal, if not a socialist, by his opposition, the truth was and is that this man is quite moderate, and fifty years ago would probably have resembled most moderate Republicans.
I don't have a problem with that, because I understood that going in, and it's in harmony with my mostly moderate positions. I'm more socially liberal than the President, but more has been accomplished in that direction than I thought possible. DADT is on its way out, and we join the rest of the western democracies in having gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in our military. One step at a time. But how much of this is President Obama's "fault" or "credit", who knows.....I tend to think it was simply something whose time had come.
And, as far as the economy, I think Presidents, individually, get way too much blame and/or credit. President George W. Bush did not cause the almost worldwide global recession, and President Obama is not going to be the cause of us pulling out of it. Although the buck always stops with them, so they end up with either the blame or the credit, but that doesn't make it so.
I'm one who agrees with Alan.......the pendulum swings, times are hard and then they aren't, but humans adjust, expectations soar or recede. As bad as this recession has been, in comparison to conditions during the Great Depression, or in countries during and after wartime in various parts of the world, if we think this is all that bad, it's because we have never experienced just HOW bad it can be.
Yes. My own parents were children of the great depression. They had to work hard and started families very late in life. I'm lucky to be here.
In our present day society there are many more safety nets than there ever were way back then. Historically there have always been economic cycles, some deeper and worse than others. This one also will pass, but who knows when. Politicians can influence it, sometimes for the good or bad, but not as much as people seem to think. And too many also think it's easy to turn such massive things around, and that it should happen fast. It wont.
The past few decades have been especially good most of the time for most people in the US. If you want to see real misery and poverty, travel to any of the many 3rd world countries. That alone will make one appreciate even our hard times.
I'm not trying to minimize anyone's current suffering, but sometimes putting things into context helps.
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-11, 7:15pm
I'm one who agrees with Alan.......the pendulum swings, times are hard and then they aren't, but humans adjust, expectations soar or recede. As bad as this recession has been, in comparison to conditions during the Great Depression, or in countries during and after wartime in various parts of the world, if we think this is all that bad, it's because we have never experienced just HOW bad it can be.
Yea well if it was just about people buying less... but what about .. jobs? How long can anyone get by without jobs (no, not just how long *I* can get by without a job, because it's better than average - except for those who can rely entirely on a spouses paycheck! And anyway, I have a job at present though I don't know about tomorrow, but in general .......). Unemployment has been over 12% for over a year now here. When is it going to actually improve?
By the way all the suffering of 3rd worlders really doesn't help someone who say has been looking for a job for 2 years and can't find one (yes they do have some safety net of unemployment).
To the extent I blame for the recession as such, it's those who let the housing bubble go on so long (Alan Greenspan and the Fed come to mind, although this did all happen under the watch of the Bush administration). The states the most affected by unemployment except for MI (which has it's own car related woes) are all those who got most bubbly in the housing bubble. They're all those reeling from the effects of mal-investment, mis-allocation of resources (especially labor!) into the housing bubble and now all the fall out of that (if builders are unemployed, they no longer buy x, y, z which means those industries also go down, which means those people no longer buy .... etc., and of course states are laying off). But still there seems to no sign of improvement on the horizon.
By the way, all the suffering of 3rd world people, really doesn't help someone who say has been unemployed for a long long time looking for a job and can't find one. Sure they have a safety net, it's called unemployment insurance, but it's no more demoralizing when you know that doesn't last forever and can't find work.
Yea well if it was just about people buying less... but what about .. jobs?
What are "jobs"?
Where do "jobs" come from?
Whose responsibility is it to create them?
The job situation is the worst I've seen it in my lifetime. My own employer has cut close to 10% of its workforce within the past month, and those of us left who are not salaried have lost 1/3 of our hours (any lower and we would qualify for partial unemployment, which is probably how they came up with how much to cut us - don't want to pay increased employer premiums into the unemployment fund). Needless to say I've been looking around for something more stable and it's thin, thin pickings. I don't see how I can pay college tuition this fall if things don't turn around or how my kid can even get a job to save up for college given the dearth of even the lowest paid, minimum wage jobs. And I'm not in a state that's hard hit.
My parents lived through the Great Depression. The lived in a one room basement apartment. My dad to make money shelved coal. He got paid .50 cents a ton and was happy to make that small amount of money. They lived frugally all of the rest of their life because to the Great Depression. It is bad today but nothing like it was during the Great Depression. Also in my life there have been a number of economic down turns 50,70 and 80s. You also had the great inflation of the 70s.
Heck, didn't the French legislate a 35 hour maximum workweek in 2000, to reduce unemployment? That'd suck up 12.5% unemployment right there, with a stroke of a pen...
The job situation is the worst I've seen it in my lifetime.
I've seen worse. The official unemployment rate hovered around 10% or worse for much of the early 80's with 82 and 83 being the worst of the bunch. On top of that, we had astronomical interest rates, think 18% for a 30 year fixed mortgage. I bought my first house in 1979 and was lucky to get a 10% VA loan. Add 11 to 15% annual inflation rates to the mix and you've got some severe economic hurt.
The situation we're in now is painful as well but not as bad as then. I see no reason to believe we won't be celebrating another upturn in the near term.
Businesses are creating a lot of jobs - it's just a lot of them are overseas. Given how hard many businesses were working to outsource to reduce costs prior to the recession, I can't imagine many of them are going to do much hiring here if they can do it more cheaply elsewhere.
I work in the "Big Toy" industry - Motorcycles and ATV's. We are just beginning to see some change. It is very slow. The change we are seeing are the young adult males starting to buy again. There is some confidence back in the market.
We had several large manufacturers close or shut way down - Motorhome/coach plants, computer chip plant, etc. So I think that those YAMs (Young Adult Males) that didin't lose their jobs, saw their buddies lose their jobs and all the pain they experienced, so they too just stopped buying. And I mean STOPPED.
There seems to be a willingness to take on debt again. If this continues there are two big hurdles we must face - running out of product to sell. The dealers have pulled way back in their ordering and likewise the manufacturers have reduced their production to record lows. The second hurdle is sticker shock. Today it is a buyer's market. Prices are cheap, cheap, but as the non-current year models clear out their replacements - for the same models are up to $ 2k more expensive!
This recession has hit us very hard. During the last recession my wife had a cush government job - and we had a young family. This recession my wife is a homemaker. Had we not paid off our home & car during the years "of plenty", and built up our savings accounts - we would have been out on the street. No way could we have done a mortgage with just my income.
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-11, 11:58pm
I've seen worse. The official unemployment rate hovered around 10% or worse for much of the early 80's with 82 and 83 being the worst of the bunch. On top of that, we had astronomical interest rates, think 18% for a 30 year fixed mortgage. I bought my first house in 1979 and was lucky to get a 10% VA loan. Add 11 to 15% annual inflation rates to the mix and you've got some severe economic hurt.
The situation we're in now is painful as well but not as bad as then. I see no reason to believe we won't be celebrating another upturn in the near term.
I've never seen worse around here. State unemployment of over 12% (12.5% now) is the highest it has ever been since they started measuring state unemployment (in the mid 70s). I can't imagine it being worse in the 50s and 60s (those were the glory days). Now I will concede things were probably worse in the Great Depression! And I can see a lot of reasons why things might not be improving anytime soon (inevitable state layoffs in the pipe etc.). In the long run, I don't know. But I don't see recovery right around the corner or anything.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-7-11, 3:57am
That's why history is such a wonderful vehicle for adding context to current times. I've lived through worse times, and they got better. I'm betting they will again.
Well said Alan.
I often feel stressed but try to think of the real stress my Grandfather felt in the trenches of Belgium or the real stress my Father felt serving in the navy in WW2. History gives a real perspective.
What is the worst thing that can happen?
Eggs and Shrubs
2-7-11, 3:59am
I don't know about life for the ordinary person in the US but here in the UK an unemployed person enjoys a much higher standard of living then their parents and a much higher standard of living than I enjoyed as a child.
I never had a problem finding work in the 80's, and the jobs lost then did come back for the most part. I am concerned, that as Creaker notes, some of the jobs we've lost won't be coming back. We've already lost so much of our manufacturing base -now the service sector is being outsourced or automated in many places. I hope Alan is right.
Heck, didn't the French legislate a 35 hour maximum workweek in 2000, to reduce unemployment? That'd suck up 12.5% unemployment right there, with a stroke of a pen...
Without a corresponding 12.5% drop in consumer prices I'm not sure spreading the available work around to more people will pull us out of a recession. Since everyone seems to hate the thought of deflation that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Bae, I thought your question regarding who's responsibility is it to create jobs was intriguing. A couple knee jerk answers roll off my tongue, but given a little thought its not such a simple question to answer. Certainly I think the government (all branches) has a responsibility to foster an environment in which citizens have a reasonable opportunity to prosper. Part of that is the expectation of employment opportunities. IMO that is brought about by the government not unnecessarily handcuffing employers, but that is not the same thing as directly creating jobs. I have the responsibility to provide for my family. The manner in which I've chosen to do that does (hopefully) create jobs, but I am not responsible for unemployment or any reduction thereof. Could it be that there simply isn't anyone with an actual 'responsibility' to create jobs?
loosechickens
2-7-11, 12:45pm
One of my theories for why this recession seems so much worse to many people is that it reached into the ranks of middle-class and professional people, people with college educations, people who mostly were not affected by other recessions, which tended to hit blue collar workers, minorities, but spare the white, educated and professional class. That, combined with the housing bubble and high consumer debt, even by highly paid white collar workers, formed the "perfect storm", where even people who had done everything right, gone to school, had a profession and the nice home in the suburbs, etc., were not safe from disaster.
This recession shook the foundations of even the people who thought their education, position and status and comfortable middle-class lives were more or less invulnerable. JMHO
flowerseverywhere
2-7-11, 1:25pm
I don't think what we are going through now is nearly as bad as what we are leaving for our ancestors. Tons of landfills, aging nuclear reactors, genetically modified food and tons of chemicals in the ground, abandoned oil wells. Add to that the debt that we just can't seem to stop growing. Just think about it.
The only way we are going to have more than a short term fix to our problems is for people to stop producing so much personal and industrial waste. We also have to step up our conservation efforts. Population control would be another good fix. Demand balanced budgets.
I hardly doubt that any of these would even be mentioned by our politicians- heck our Tea Party congresswoman spent time marching against abortion in DC her first few days in office while our district is seeing the few remaining factories close down and our school districts in real peril.
For those out of work, I have no idea how to get good jobs back.
ApatheticNoMore
2-7-11, 1:30pm
I do remember the last recession. It seemed bad at the time. It DEFINITELY affected white collar workers. Who do you think worked for all the dot coms after all? I swear half of silicon valley must have moved down here to get jobs. It seemed like that, jobs were scarce.
Then again I'd gladly go back to those days now. So I spent 6 months looking for work then and it seemed like there were no jobs. For unemployed people now 6 months is lucky indeed!! Really if most people were taking 6 months to get jobs that's not really unmanageable for either people's savings or the unemployment system. The problem is it's worse than that now. Unemployment rates of what 6-7% here, seemed so high back then. I'd almost CONSIDER THAT RECOVERY AT THIS POINT!!! I'm not kidding, that kind of recovery would help a lot. I mean that's almost half of what it is now.
So I'd say no the last 2 recessions have affected white collar workers (less so before then) but this one is definitely worse.
The Great Depression was far worse than the current situation. While unemployment overall hit about 25% at its peak, America was predominantly rural; urban unemployment peaked at about 59%.
My father grew up during the Great Depression.
In an orphanage...
After Dad's Dad died of double pneumonia in April of 1929, Dad's Mom had to put five of her seven children into the Junior Order of American Mechanics orphanage in Ohio in 1930, because the alternative was starvation.
As to the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama:
"The President is the prisoner of the Congress."
Anonymous
That said, when he was inaugurated as President, Mr. Obama arguably had about as much executive experience as a newly commissioned U.S. Navy Ensign. One should not expect a competent Ensign to immediately become a competent Fleet Admiral; Mr. Obama's performance to date lends credence to that view.
We will muddle through. The Republic is resilient...
Best,
Rodger
Isn't the recession over? It certainly is in Canada - I thought the States were on the way to recovery too....
ApatheticNoMore
2-7-11, 5:04pm
Officially the recession ended around 2 years ago I think. Also officially chocolate cake is not fattening, the sky is made of lime jelly, and I'm Marilyn Monroe. :~)
But in REALITY .... national official unemployment just dipped below 9% I think and we are told this dip might be a fluke. These are very high levels for U.S. unemployment. And like I said unemployment in many states is MUCH worse than that and are at levels not seen since the great depression, when yes it was worse. So hence the frustration, we're going on 3 years since this recession started .... and unemployment has been so high for so long.
The official calculations differ because they aren't based on employment, they are based purely on GDP growth.
Well, employment is lagging indicator, as I understand it. It still looks good while a recession is beginning, and it still looks bad after a recession ends.
So really your frustration is with unemployment, which I totally get. Do you think the problem is a lack of entrepreneurship? Or mostly larger corporations that have not re-hired to the level of their pre-recession workforce?
The official calculations differ because they aren't based on employment, they are based purely on GDP growth.
Yes. And many companies during economic downturns lay off deadwood, divest themselves of marginal operations, and invest in increasing the productivity of the remaining workforce, so when the "recovery" comes, it is not necessarily the case that the jobs return.
Yes. And many companies during economic downturns lay off deadwood, divest themselves of marginal operations, and invest in increasing the productivity of the remaining workforce, so when the "recovery" comes, it is not necessarily the case that the jobs return.
Spoken like a true Capitalist :devil:
Peace
Spoken like a true Capitalist :devil:
http://www.ramprate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BuggyWhipsAd-300x251.jpg
I've seen worse. The official unemployment rate hovered around 10% or worse for much of the early 80's with 82 and 83 being the worst of the bunch. On top of that, we had astronomical interest rates, think 18% for a 30 year fixed mortgage. I bought my first house in 1979 and was lucky to get a 10% VA loan. Add 11 to 15% annual inflation rates to the mix and you've got some severe economic hurt.
The situation we're in now is painful as well but not as bad as then. I see no reason to believe we won't be celebrating another upturn in the near term.
I wish I shared your optimism. Unlike past business cycle recessions I don't see any way that unemployment is going to improve anytime soon. And the "real" unemployed number is significantly higher than the statistic the government puts out. All one has to do is look at the most recent unemployment and new jobs creation numbers to see that. january had only 36k new jobs. Not even close to enough to cover new workers due to the growing population. yet the "official" unemployment number fell from 9.4 to 9.0% in January thanks to "discouraged" workers who've given up looking for work no longer counting as unemployed. Based on the pre-1994 definition of "unemployed", which included these discouraged workers, the current unemployment rate is currently over 20% according to shadowstats.com
In the past the Federal Reserve would contract/loosen the money supply depending on whether the economy was getting too hot or too cold. This would cause manufacturers to hire/lay off workers accordingly. Now we've had two years of the Fed trying desperately to loosen the money supply with any tool they can come up with including outright printing money, and it's not helping because we no longer have a manufacturing economy. The incredibly loose money supply has seemingly helped wall street and the big banks a great deal. Everyone else, not so much.
I came home last night to a letter from a company I interviewed with a couple weeks ago that they've decided to not fill the position after all. To me this is a bad sign - they spent all the money running an employment ad so they obviously felt someone was needed, but just in a matter of weeks business has worsened, not gotten better, and they changed their minds.
A friend of mine was recently laid off. She worked as a collections agent for a large bank, and she was good at it. If that doesn't spell hard times, I don't know what does.
I just completed my Federal income taxes on an H&R Block program which allows you to compare deductions with others in your income range. I was shocked to see that the average person in my "income range" had received $4,737 in Unemployment Compensation and $16,290 in taxable pensions, much of which I assume was premature withdrawals. Geez.
While times may not be as bad as they were in the Great Depression, I wouldn't be at all surprised if our country gets to that point and worse before adapting to a lower standard of living. We have had it awfully good and squandered a great deal of our resources for a long time. I don't think we're ever going back to "the good old days".
Unlike past business cycle recessions I don't see any way that unemployment is going to improve anytime soon. And the "real" unemployed number is significantly higher than the statistic the government puts out. All one has to do is look at the most recent unemployment and new jobs creation numbers to see that. January had only 36k new jobs. Not even close to enough to cover new workers due to the growing population. yet the "official" unemployment number fell from 9.4 to 9.0% in January thanks to "discouraged" workers who've given up looking for work no longer counting as unemployed. Based on the pre-1994 definition of "unemployed", which included these discouraged workers, the current unemployment rate is currently over 20% according to shadowstats.com
UNDER-employment is also a significant number that, so far as I know, is untracked (or at least unreported) by the government. I truly believe there are a lot of people in this country who have made significant cuts in lifestyle because they had to take a lower paying job. I can't tell you exactly how many people because I can't find any reliable numbers, but can tell you none of them factor into UN-employment statistics. On top of that, with a growth rate of 3% or less most economists seem to believe it will take 7 - 10 years to bring unemployment back to the 4 - 5% range. That is a long winter's night even if the recession is officially over.
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-11, 12:26pm
Yea that's why I babble on about 25% of the population being involuntarily unemployed, it's an exaggeration perhaps, but 12.5% official unemployment rate (California unemployment rate) starts to approach double the official unemployment rate in those unofficially involuntarily unemployed (discouraged workers etc.).
Yea, yea, we've lived too lavishly and need to cut back (not just talking government spending here but as a society), and look I think positive social changes will come out of these times, I really have hope on that front, BUT ..... the problem is the burden is nowhere anywhere near equally distributed but is falling MOSTLY on a few people. In short: those who have been laid off and can't get work. It's one thing to say "we all need to cut back" and another to face that fact that some are facing years of unemployment and really how are they supposed to provide for themselves WITH THAT???
Spoken like a true Capitalist :devil:
Peace
It's not inherently evil for a company to trim the fat regardless of the economic climate. I've fired people over the years because they were not producing at an expected and agreed upon level. Simply put, they were costing more than they were saving and/or making for the company. My company is a for profit venture, not a charitable organization that acts as a home for unmotivated workers. Earning a profit is the simple reason I created it and that it continues to exist. We are able to support charitable organizations because of the company, not as the company. Like any other for profit company, if it ceases to earn a profit it will cease to exist. I know because I won't work for free so I will shut it down. If an employee is competent and loyal and becomes unproductive for some reason we will work very hard to help them correct the problem. If our judgment was wrong when we hired a person and they are not productive we will part ways. Same with any products that don't sell or a process that is inefficient or outdated. The workplace is, and should be, a competitive environment. Nothing so dramatic as survival of the fittest, but "better" jobs will continue to go to candidates that, among other things, show a strong motivation to achieve. The ones who don't will be left behind at promotion, or retention, time.
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-11, 12:46pm
The problem is investing any of it with too much moral significance. Even if a person is let go for cause (FIRED), we can only conclude they were a bad fit for the company. A bad person? No. A bad worker? Not necessarily. Even bad at that career? Not even necessarily that. Just a bad fit for the company. Say a really shy person gets hired somehow for an aggressive sales job and gets laid off because they fail miserably at it. Bad person? No. Bad worker? Not necessarily, they might do great at a more introverted job. Bad fit? Yes.
And that's FIRINGS which are FOR CAUSE, and the least sympathetic case, when we're talking layoffs from large companies laying off hundreds or thousands at a time it's even more random. Say the accounting department of a large company is cut in half. There is probably some correlation to the employees laid off being somewhat poorer performing but it pales in comparison to the fact that the company is now able (due to decreased sales perhaps - maybe this company is in a housing related industry say) to do all it needs to with 1/2 the accounting department so SOMEONE needed to be laid off, no matter how hard they were working.
So yea you can get all huffy if you read moral intent into it, but if you see it as a valueless description of reality: that some employees are simply not needed anymore, it's hard to argue with. I think whether one is laid off has a higher correlation to the industry one was working in (woe if it was home depot :)), than to one's competence as such. Somewhat worse workers in a very hard hit industry will be the ones laid off perhaps. But as many equally good/bad/whatever workers in a booming industry will not be. The individuals just matter less than the market they find themselves in. But better workers will have an easier time getting jobs? Yea but with unemployment as shockingly high as it is now, noone is going to have an easy time getting a job, which was my point, this unemployment rate continuing year after year is ridiculous!!!
noone is going to have an easy time getting a job, which was my point, this unemployment rate continuing year after year is ridiculous!!!
Now I get what you're saying, ApatheticNoMore. I tend to get wrapped up in the smaller scale issues because that is what I deal with on a daily basis. I also tend to want to defend capitalists partly because I am one and partly because I know that the unemployment picture would be much more severe without them.
In the big picture we're right back to that 3% (or less) growth giving us a 7-10 year window before the unemployment rate drops back to that more comfortable 4-5% range. It is ridiculous that the parties that be can't work together to find reasonable incentives that will stimulate business activity and therefore job creation. Bailout or bust has successfully spanned from a Republican administration to a Democratic administration. In that mode we can blame no one or everyone in Washington for not doing their part to help. No, Congress should not create jobs, but they should not stand in the way of those that will. Since the swearing in the wave of political cooperation in the "new" Congress wouldn't knock over a sand castle. Small wonder the Tea Party continues to survive.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.