Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2015 - 08:14am PT
|
pyro asked what did happen to those banks that got bail out.. !
They merged and grew up to be crazy successful megacorps cranking out huge profits for their shareholders and executives while drowning under the oppressive anti-business holocaust that is Dodd-Frank.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-profits-racing-to-near-record-levels-1407773976
Let's all stop with the media-driven, party-created talking points, ok? You are all interesting people in your own right with far more intelligence and insight than this kind of meme regurgitation demonstrates (and I'm talking to everyone, not just the rightward leaning posters).
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:18am PT
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 07:49am PT
High desert u got me..
what did happen to those banks that got bail out.. !
Edit: the it's bush Cheney fault rhetoric is Zzzzz!
What happend, you don't know?
They paid all the money back. Got a problem with that?
And yes, the Repub Recession caused the economy including car sales to a severely contract
including car sales.
Why is this hard to understand?
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:24am PT
|
The labor force participation rate is down but that doesn't effect the raw numbers it effects percentages
How in the world can that be if they are not even included in them raw numbers. The actual number that reflects the lost labor force % is not truly known. They have NO way of accurately recording that.
The startling percentage of young adults (18-24 y/o) that can't even get a full-time job is disgusting and is the worst in over 60 years.
Just 54 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 currently have jobs, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. That's the lowest employment rate for this age group since the government began keeping track in 1948. And it's a sharp drop from the 62 percent who had jobs in 2007 -- suggesting the recession is crippling career prospects for a broad swath of young people who were still in high school or college when the downturn began. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/employment-rate-young-adults_n_1264241.html
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2013/04/05/59428/the-high-cost-of-youth-unemployment/
So much for all that "Hope" shet....
EDIT: Great POINT Pyro concerning the local SMALL banks issue. That too is way pathetic and only indicates more sheisterism on the part of the current Administration.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2015 - 08:32am PT
|
Chief posted How in the world can that be if they are not even included in them raw numbers.
You're right Chief, sorry. Not enough coffee yet this morning. Still, my point is that this kind of "look this number is lower therefore Obama is Satan" conversation isn't very productive. It's exactly the kind of conversation that political parties want us having because then we aren't talking about the real reasons why labor force participation is down. "Obama's terrible policies" is a lazy, garbage answer that assumes the Presidency has vastly greater powers over the economy than actual economists say that they do. I'm pretty sure Obama didn't sign the "Send lots of jobs to Asia" executive order and the idea that someone feels badly about running a business because of Obama so they use technology to increase productivity instead of hiring more people seems a little silly.
pyro posted This is my favorite time in Obama history..
This is when Obama voters kinda felt tricked
Um....no? I don't recall a mainstay of Obama's candidacy being an end to earmarks. That was a Boehner thing. Obama voters were far more upset about the lack of a public option in the ACA, the expansion of drone usage and the inability to close Gitmo.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:38am PT
|
So much for the hope shet..
+1 chief
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:41am PT
|
Quite a few folks have commented elsewhere that earmarks might have made for better governing. Congresspeople were more likely to cooperate when they were rewarded with treats for their districts. No one cooperates anymore.
Not sure how I feel about that, but it's an interesting point.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:47am PT
|
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2015 - 08:53am PT
|
dirtbag posted Quite a few folks have commented elsewhere that earmarks might have made for better governing. Congresspeople were more likely to cooperate when they were rewarded with treats for their districts. No one cooperates anymore.
Not sure how I feel about that, but it's an interesting point.
This has come up a lot and it's an interesting thing to consider. Boehner saw it as inherently corrupt and wanted to get rid of it (which he did and kudos to him for caring). A few years ago, NPR did a great report on how instead of earmarks Congressmen now just lobby the various governmental agencies directly. Want a bridge built in your district? Make it clear to the Transportation Department that this is a priority of yours and your support for their budgetary and regulatory needs depends on their support for your bridge. At least earmarks were far more transparent by contrast.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 09:28am PT
|
Yet not one mention of all them folks in this country that are no longer counted in the Labor Dept's monthly Jobs report as UE'd all because they just plain gave up looking for a job and are not recorded as such over the past six or so years.
EXACTLY the way it was measured for Reagun, Nixun, Both Shrubs, even Ferd.
EXACTLY, you lying pig.
So you want to make up a new system, for the sole and only purpose of artificially making the Gov't of the US look bad.
If you were still enlisted, I'd be in favor of a General Discharge, so you wouldn't be feeding off the system you hate so much....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 10:16am PT
|
Man, Sketch...that looks terrible. Wages are at best flat, in spite of this 'recovery'.
Why would that be? Corporations being resistant to paying fair wages? Or should the gov't step in and help create a more level playing ground for labor?
Such a tough question. Of course, we know where Republicans land...'f*#k 'em! I've got mine! They just need to borrow $20K from their parents, and start their own business!'
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 10:19am PT
|
oh come on
who cares, other than them, about some 4 million auto industry jobs saved?
the important thing is that government should not have stepped in and lent money
businesses in America should all be treated the same, no matter the size
did I get a "bailout" when my business had some hard times, NO
and if I can't have it then no one else should
and that's why I am a Registered Republican and proud of it
so fuk all you see a problem and fix it stupid Democrats
|
|
HermitMaster
Social climber
my abode
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 10:31am PT
|
Such a tough question. Of course, we know where Republicans land...'f*#k 'em! I've got mine! They just need to borrow $20K from their parents, and start their own business!'
So, now it is the governments job to loan money for risky business ventures?
Really?
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 10:45am PT
|
Lol norton +1
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 11:05am PT
|
HDDJ and Pyro:
The numbers to which I was alluding are those from the BLS time series on total employed as a percentage of population. I posted the link when I made the observation, but I'll post it again for those who missed it:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
Please explain, again, how this demonstrates workers were better off under the current administration than under previous ones.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 12:40pm PT
|
So, now it is the governments job to loan money for risky business ventures?
well no, not the government's "job" to lend money as you put it
but, governments on almost all levels from city to county to state to Federal
in all the states do in fact get involved in making loans to many businesses
and have been doing so for a very long time
have you heard of the Small Business Administration for example?
are students a risky business venture when they are given Student Loans that are
backed by government?
sure those loans ARE risky, both both political parties have decided that an educated population is very good for both current and future economic growth
someone have a problem with all this? Then vote your own congressman out
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 01:00pm PT
|
Please explain, again, how this demonstrates workers were better off under the current administration than under previous ones.
John, the obvious answer is that they aren't. The corporations have a monopoly on the government right now, and until we end that we will continue to get the short end of the stick.
Corporations need a voice in government, they just don't need to be the only voice.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 01:36pm PT
|
Why would that be? Corporations being resistant to paying fair wages? Or should the gov't step in and help create a more level playing ground for labor?
Apogee, the wages paid as a percent of GDP usually depend on three factors:
1. The average wage;
2. The total hours worked; and
3. The total amount of non-wage GDP (includes investment, change in inventories, net exports, etc.)
As you can see from the chart shown, as employment improves, the share of wages paid as a percent of GDP improves, ceteris paribus. The problem we face now isn't that "corporations don't want to pay fair wages," it's that corporations don't want to hire as much as they have in other postwar recoveries. It's worthwhile to ask why that is.
Some possibilities:
1. It was cheaper to hire outside the U.S.;
2. There were no new opportunities to make money by hiring more U.S. workers;
3. The projections of demand for sales of goods and services did not justify increasing production; and
4. There was insufficient capital to finance increased production (and therefore, increased hiring).
I use largely past tense because, if the latest monthly numbers are correct, we finally have a month with robust employment growth. Nonetheless, the history of this recovery has been one of very modest employment increase - and downward revisions of employment. I'm hoping that's no longer the case.
Back to analysis of the various factors, the first factor certainly plays a big part in some industries. Mass-produced items for which transportation costs form a small percentage of the total selling price tend to be manufactured outside the U.S., because unit labor costs are cheaper. Too many, however, confuse wage rates with unit labor cost. The latter is the variable that determines where the product gets made. In general, American workers are the most productive in the world for goods whose final sales are in the American market. This is because shipping costs are (obviously) lowest for that class of goods. Also usually, investment in plant, equipment and training makes the American worker able to turn out a higher volume of goods per hour.
Low volume production often starts in the U.S. because that's where the innovation took place, and is the easiest place to get manufacturing started. Once volume gets high, however, the lower wage rates abroad start to beat out the other factors.
The history of climbing hardware follows this script pretty well. When I started climbing, the hardware was made in such low volumes that a relatively small shop (e.g. Chouinard and Frost in Ventura) could turn out enough to satisfy the entire demand. It would have been economically insane for Chouinard Equipment to try to manufacture pitons and carabiners abroad, because the effort to manage and control manufacturing would cost more than the savings in wage rates. As climbing's popularity increased, though, the volume grew to the point where manufacturers found it economical to make some gear abroad. On the whole, we lost some manufacturing jobs (e.g. CCH "original" Aliens vs. current new ones from Fixe). On the whole, though, there are a vastly larger number of Americans who make their living from making, buying, selling and using climbing equipment than there were when I last visited the hallowed ground in Ventura.
I am unaware of any hard data showing the extent to which shifting manufacturing locations has resulted in a net gain or loss of jots. It's usually easy to see which industries lost jobs, but much harder to measure which ones gained. I suspect it was a net loss duing the "recovery," but not nearly the net loss the neo-mercantilists (e.g. Trump, Sanders) allege.
THe next factor, viz. no new opportunities, was doubtless true during the steep slide, but should not have been true for five years afterward. Businesses invest to make money. A regulatory climate that treats making money as suspicious and inherently criminal does not lend itself to businesses that want to make money. This administration has, among other things, taken the following unilateral action, with no support - or often explicit opposition - from the legislative branch:
1. It has interpreted labor laws in a way hostile to employers who don't acquiesce to all union demands. The bullying relating to Boeing's proposed building of a new plant outside Washington State, the decision overturning decades of precedent relating to the employer status of franchisors, and innumerable other decisions designed to reduce business profits make employment of U.S. workers less attractive;
2. The EPA has interpreted environmental laws in a way that vastly increases energy and compliance costs throughout the economy. Fortunately for the economy, the private sector was able to reduce energy costs by increasing production of petroleum - despite, not because of, administration policy. Nonetheless, the uncreatainty (at best) over environmental compliance issues makes manufacturing expansion in the U.S. less attractive. The recent denial of the KXL Pipline, though economically meaningless at the moment, makes doing business in the U.S. under the current administration look a whole lot more like doing business in a two-bit dictatorship, rather than in one under the rule of law;
3. The SEC has turned into an agency distincly more friendly to the trial bar than to investors or public companies, making organization of businesses in the U.S. less attractive;
4. IRS enforcement has been arbitrary and politicized in a way that exceeds even the excesses of the Nixon administration. In addition, U.S. tax laws make investing foreign profits in the U.S. unattractive, thereby causing an incentive for businesses to restructure as foreign organizations; and
5. The FCC has chosen to regulate the internet as a public utility, despite any clear statutory mandate to do so.
These are just a few of the anti-business actions this administration has taken. When one adds the effects of increased regulation compliance costs to the new regulations under Dodd-Frank, many of which aren't even in place yet, anyone who understands operating a private business should have little trouble seeing how the costs of doing so have increased dramatically under this administration.
The lack of increased demand has several causes, but mostly it duplicates the factors set forth in the previous causes. To the extent investors in equities have increased their incomes, the loss of interest income probably more than offsets that increase.
The lack of capital is a mixed bag. Many of the largest corporations are more liquid now than they've ever been, and therefore don't need the capital they used to need to expand. I don't think the same can be said for start-up businesses and those dependent on smaller financial institutions for some (or in the case of many farmers, all) of their operating financing. Unfortunately for me, I don't have quick access to any objective measure of the availability of business financing for smaller private firms. I do know that compliance costs for the six or seven smaller banks my firm represents have increased greatly under Dodd-Frank and CFPB regulations, even though those banks don't make enormous numbers of consumer loans. We also represent several SBA lenders who have noted less funds availability, although I have no reliable information about why.
In short, though, it's not a matter of paying "fair wages," except to Gary, who doesn't believe that capital, entrepreneurial risk, or non-labor inputs deserve any return. (Gary, you know I kid, right?)
I can't resist adding, though that I find Trump's comments on this issue particularly hilarious. He says we should deport everyone staying in this country illegally, because they depress domestic wages. He then argues, in the same debate, that domestic wages are too high and make us uncompetitive. This is one of those rare situations where two, seemingly diametrically opposed, statements are both wrong. And you wonder why I'd vote for Hillary over Trump?
John
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 01:58pm PT
|
The problem we face now isn't that "corporations don't want to pay fair wages," it's that corporations don't want to hire as much as they have in other postwar recoveries. It's worthwhile to ask why that is.
Some possibilities:
1. It was cheaper to hire outside the U.S.;
2. There were no new opportunities to make money by hiring more U.S. workers;
3. The projections of demand for sales of goods and services did not justify increasing production; and
4. There was insufficient capital to finance increased production (and therefore, increased hiring).
5. Greed
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
Please explain, again, how this demonstrates workers were better off under the current administration than under previous ones.
Easy, John.
What you see at the last part of the Bush administration, is a slope of job loss that looks like a waterfall. What you see when President Obama takes charge, is a leveling off of that. Had not that happened, you'd have been looking at a very different part of that graph post 2009.
And you can say that it wasn't due to him.
However, you might want to recall that Marvelous Mitt made a campaign promise. His promise was that by the end of his first term, the unemployment rate (the one measured the same way for 50 years) would be down to 8% !!!!
So it is easy to see what the GOP had planned, which was for the curve to go much lower!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!