9.8% Unemployment
- Thread starter Canceled1
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
That's assuming there are still people living in Detroit......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol at the comment of Mongo who owns a restaurant in Detroit.....says, in the 90s if you saw a white girl running on this street you called 911 and wondered, Who's chasing them......now you realize they're jogging.......
another guy...."you've met eight people?....you know everyone in Detroit!"......
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
last time i was in detroit, the temp and humidity were both in the high nineties - this was back in 1969
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
About 800,000.
apple0154
MEOW
Well that's change anyways, eh Obama? Good on ya!
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/november-unemployment-rises-98/story?id=12297228
(Excerpt) As for money-in-the-bank, the S&P 500's non-financial companies are presently sitting on $1 trillion in cash or cash-equivalents. The last person who saved like that for a rainy day was Noah.
But much to the chargrin of the unemployed and government policymakers, companies aren't lavishing their largess on labor.
Somewhere between 15 and 27 million people, depending on how you figure it, remain unemployed. (End)
Yes, let's give big business a tax break because....well, because it's all about the trickle down theory. Businesses will have more money and they will provide more jobs. Why can't people understand that?????
Do you think business decision makers are afraid to hire because of uncertainty?
evince
Truthmatters
What business person would hire someone to make, pack or sell anything there was NO buyer for?
To pretend people hire jsut because they have extra money and NOT because they can make money is utter stupidity.
Maybe you need to read the Two Santas to understand why cons think this silly propaganda is true.
To pretend people hire jsut because they have extra money and NOT because they can make money is utter stupidity.
Maybe you need to read the Two Santas to understand why cons think this silly propaganda is true.
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, but not uncertainty regarding taxes. The uncertainty is the economy, in general.
When it was current news I did a breakdown on Joe the Plumber's rant. Remember the proposed tax increase on the earnings of small businesses going from $250,000/yr to $275,000/yr? The discussion was concerning 3% on the additional $25,000. That's $750.00. Would any business refuse to hire an employee if the business would have to pay an additional $750.00 after making $25,000.00?
This idea of lower taxes and "trickle down" is absolute nonsense. No business is going to hire on the bases of how much money they have or how much they pay in taxes. They are going to hire on how much money an employee can generate for them. No business is going to dip into their profits to pay an employee.
The "trickle down", lower taxes nonsense assumes a business is going to share it's profits by hiring an unemployed person. No business ever, ever does that. Businesses do not hire someone unless it can be shown the person they hire is going to make money for the company.
On that note I'm out of here. Errands to run.
evince
Truthmatters
Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.[6][7]
The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.
This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).
The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus.
The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.[6][7]
The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.
This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).
The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus.
cawacko
Well-known member
Who is arguing that companies need to hire because they are sitting on large amounts of cash?
I don't know.
I only know that someone needs to start hiring soon, or we will lose out to China and India.
How can America's economy recover without jobs?
cawacko
Well-known member
Lowaicue
英語在香港
IF the economy is improving and people are not hiring I suggest that employers are sharpening their operations and using OT if necessary.
No employer worthy of the name will shout 'Yippee' at the first signs of an improvement and rush out to the unemployment office. I can remember one of my senior people asking if he could take on an extra admin assistant.
My answer was that I have yet to hear the pips squeak. Downturns are the perfect tool to sharpen an operation and thus give it a chance of later success. There are too many people with the minds of four year olds who want it NOW! whatever IT is.
There is loads of work if you have the guts and the motivation to make it happen. From what we see of the US on TV many yanks prefer to sit on their arses and do nothing.
Get your mates together, put a proposal to your local authority for tree planting or street cleaning or school renovation or something. Go to your local manufacturing company and find out what they are sourcing from outside the country or the state. Tell them you will beat the 'imported price'. Make stuff in your back room, in a garden shed, in empty units.
OK you wont become millionaires but this I do know, when it comes to employing people, those that have shown willingness to help themselves will be at the head of the queue.
Your economy is losing out to India and China. Guess how they did it.
But you can't, of course, because you are American and you don't DO menial stuff! and you can't live without two friggin cars! and you cant exist without a luxury mansion - even though you cannot afford any of it.
No employer worthy of the name will shout 'Yippee' at the first signs of an improvement and rush out to the unemployment office. I can remember one of my senior people asking if he could take on an extra admin assistant.
My answer was that I have yet to hear the pips squeak. Downturns are the perfect tool to sharpen an operation and thus give it a chance of later success. There are too many people with the minds of four year olds who want it NOW! whatever IT is.
There is loads of work if you have the guts and the motivation to make it happen. From what we see of the US on TV many yanks prefer to sit on their arses and do nothing.
Get your mates together, put a proposal to your local authority for tree planting or street cleaning or school renovation or something. Go to your local manufacturing company and find out what they are sourcing from outside the country or the state. Tell them you will beat the 'imported price'. Make stuff in your back room, in a garden shed, in empty units.
OK you wont become millionaires but this I do know, when it comes to employing people, those that have shown willingness to help themselves will be at the head of the queue.
Your economy is losing out to India and China. Guess how they did it.
But you can't, of course, because you are American and you don't DO menial stuff! and you can't live without two friggin cars! and you cant exist without a luxury mansion - even though you cannot afford any of it.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
obama has been in office almost two years....and i have yet to see a dem blame obama for the economy....
cawacko
Well-known member
There's just more to it than saying 'it's Bush's fault' or 'it's Obama's fault'. Obama obviously wasn't President when the economy first tanked. I don't think it reasonable to assume that within two years the economy would be roaring again. I do think it is a legitimate criticism to say the economy is not showing the signs of growth and improvement that leads to a positive feeling around the country.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i agree....but it is interesting how the dems blamed bush for everything when the economy started tanking during his last two years, despite the previous years of ridiculous growth....but now....will not hold obama responsible for anything during his first two years....notwithstanding...a near trillion dollar stimulus that was passed over a year and a half ago and we still don't have shovel ready jobs....
cawacko
Well-known member
Well the voters spoke in 2010. And they will speak again in 2012 either for or against Obama based largely on how the economy is doing.
That really bothers you, doesn't it?
That people would actually hold Bush accountable for an economic crash that occurred after he was in office for almost 2 terms?
What is it w/ you & Bush?