18,000 jobs. Christ. Corporate America is Sabotaging American Progress.

[HughBeaumont]

You cannot have business unless customers are walking through the door.

Unfortunately, you cannot BE a customer unless you have a living-wage job.

Judging by these crappy numbers, either everybody is pretty much waiting for everyone ELSE to hire, or Corporate America is indeed intentionally trying to sabotage the economy so they can get President Romney.

I mean, what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

What has to happen first?

Ain't no spending until there's hiring.

Look at the stock market numbers. Look at your tax rates. Look at your profits.

He's given you EVERYthing. This admin couldn't be more business friendly if an idiot named Bush were running it.

So what gives?

Is this how America dies? With complete submission to Corporate power?

[Brickbat]

1. Yup.

K&R.

[xchrom]

2. except they're not lubing the repukes w/ cash either.

all this has meaning -- but i'm not sure they're betting on repukes.

[malaise]

3. K & R

And yes it looks like sabotage

[MadHound]

4. This has been the same conundrum that has plagued the jobs picture since the beginning,

In a consumption based economy, people have to have the money to consume. If they don't have jobs, they're not going to consume. If they're not consuming, companies and corporations are, at best, not going to add jobs, and will most likely cut jobs.

Which is why, from the beginning, we've needed a true, WPA style jobs creation program in order to not just employ people, but to jumpstart our economy. Until we get such a program, our economy is not going to recover.

But given the nature of our leaders, both Democratic and Republican, such a jobs creation program is not going to be forthcoming, and our economy is going to continue to flounder.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Not to mention a WPA program would make corporate America competitive.

Just like Universal Health Care would.

But competition is only for the hoi polloi. Corporations don't have to compete, they just have to profit and rule.

[Bluebear]

77. +

[hack89]

14. I disagree about the WPA program

the economy is private companies - the government doing work that private companies would normally be doing does nothing to help those companies.

Secondly, the WPA was not designed to fix the economy - it was a make work program to keep people from starving and to prevent civil unrest until the economy got better. WWII is what fixed the economy and ended the WPA - if WWII never happened there is no saying whether the WPA would be considered a model program now.

Some other issues to consider include union opposition. The WPA was not permitted to provide job training - unions were vehemently opposed on the ground that the government should not be able to undermine well paying skilled union jobs. Considering that most WPA jobs were public works and unions dominated the construction and building trades, a modern WPA program could be seen as modern union busting.

[bulloney]

20. Before Roosevelt took office and began New Deal programs, unemployment was as high as 24%.

The WPA and other Depression-era programs got the unemployment rate down to 14%. Then, Roosevelt backed off on spending and a spike in unemployment followed. Yeah, 14% is terrible, but it's a far cry better than 24%. Then, we entered WW II and more people went to work making weapons and other war-related products.

This notion that WW II saved our economy is the same mindset we have today--we have to always be a war-mongering country or else our economy goes down the crapper. Since Reagan, this country has spent money on military like a drunken sailor, and where has that gotten us? We spend more on military than the rest of the world COMBINED. We can cut military spending in the U.S. by 85% and we'd still be spending more on military than any other country. It's ridiculous.

[hack89]

32. WWII military spending was 43 percent of GDP - it is presently 4 percent.

Military spending has a minimal effect on the US economy has a whole - it certainly is not the engine that drives our economy.

[HughBeaumont]

21. Neither the private sector or the government is experiencing strong hiring.

Meantime, there are these little things called BILLS that have to be taken care of NOW.

Why the assertion that a WPA would be "make work"? Does the crumbling infrastructure, rail and damming systems of the US not need repair?

Are all of us just supposed to start our own businesses? The average small business owner makes just above poverty wage. Is that going to pay the rent? Are the crapshoot-level odds of success to be depended on to get us out of this mess? Is that a reliable solution to what ails us?

[hack89]

27. So funnel the money through existing private companies

why do we have to create a government company to build bridges and roads? Don't you think in the long run that keeping existing companies afloat will be more beneficial in the long run?

[HughBeaumont]

67. Well, if the private sector isn't going to do it . . .

. . . that is, do it at a wage that's fair and not slavery-level, then it pretty much goes without saying that the Government has to pony up some money to do it.

Or pay out millions in families who'll eventually sue after the collapse and resulting deaths happen. Their choice.

[hack89]

74. The discussion was about a WPA type organization

of course the government will have to pony up money - private money is never used for public infrastructure.

[rurallib]

5. how many jobs were created in foreign countries by US(?) companies?

This should be a stat that we get every month also.
There have been plenty, plenty of jobs created by what used to be loyal US companies - just not in the US.
And those jobs are low wage. And many of the jobs here do not sustain a person let alone a family.

[xchrom]

8. +1

[hack89]

33. How many jobs were created in America by foreign companies? nt

[HughBeaumont]

35. There's no zero sum in Direct Foreign Investment, once again.

No one's losing their job in Japan because Toyota builds a plant here - they're expanding markets, like a business SHOULD. But lots of people lose their jobs HERE when an American company shifts work to the third world to avoid taxes, bennies and a living wage. THAT's job offshoring and that's zero sum.

Is there a GOP economic talking point you WON'T "play Devil's Advocate" on? Just curious . . . :eyes:

[hack89]

46. So Ford and GM are not striving to open markets in China?

what company in the world can expand significantly without building and selling in China? Or India?

[rurallib]

36. are their profits re-invested in America?

[hack89]

47. Beyond expansion of their facilities and increased hiring?

Not sure - if they buy US treasuries or invest their pension plans in US stock I would say yes.

[rurallib]

75. frankly I really don't care.

Most of those companies avoid taxes here. They may expand and hire, but often using taxpayer money.
But the real point is that US(?) - now multi nationals - are manufacturing products in other countries using cheap labor to sell products back here.
I don't mind them making products in China for Chinese consumption - nor do I mind Toyota making cars here for our consumption.
What I do mind is closing factories here and opening them in lower labor cost markets to sell it back here.

These companies have no loyalty to the country that gave them their start.

That is the end of my discussion.

[hack89]

76. Nobody would buy their products if they stayed

low cost means low price.

[somone]

6. Worst combo in government: Hooverism + Reaganism

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. Just the America we came to love all those years ago....

even with all the blemishes and flaws, it still looked better than it does now.

[hack89]

10. I question your logic

After this brutal recession and extended unemployment, it does not automatically compute that an increase in employment would benefit every business. Many people have extensive debt - they have years of paying much of their income to pay down that debt and rebuilt their savings/retirement funds. That money will not be going to buy things.

A company will not hire unless they know for certain that demand for their product will increase. They are not going to hire people so they can buy some other company's product - it is asking too much for company owner to sacrifice everything he has for the "common good". He ends up bankrupt and all of his workers are unemployed. That is especially true for small and mid-sized companies.

Another big issue is that many types of jobs are gone forever - low tech manufacturing will never come back. Consequently you have a large pool of poorly educated, low skill workers that will have problem fitting into a modern economy. It is not business's responsibility to match their jobs to the applicant.

[robcon]

11. Companies hire in order to make more money. That's always been economic truth.

If they think their outlook is positive they will hire. If not, they will not.

[hack89]

15. Only if they are certain of an increase in demand for their product

not every phase of the economy is in perfect lock step with each other. Even if a strong recovery starts today, there are some industries will not see the benefit of increased demand until many months down the road. Which means they would not start hiring until they are certain that the recovery is real and they have a firm idea what the economy will look like a year or so down the road. They will not start hiring just to produce consumers.

[robcon]

16. There is never/ever certainty - either of increased business, lower cost, more efficiency, etc.

It is expectations, not certainty that drives hiring. Keynes called expectations "animal spirits" - which drive investment and hiring.

Your statement: "They will not start hiring just to produce consumers." is silly.

Companies NEVER hire to create customers - only to make more money (or lose less.)

[hack89]

29. We are arguing semantics

There is a point where expectations reach a given level and produce a degree of certainty that the future warrants increased hiring. Companies have different levels of expectations and certainty.

My only point is I disagree with the notion that businesses are deliberately holding back on hiring or that just the act of everyone hiring will somehow jump start the economy and every company will therefore prosper.

[Common Sense Party]

45. Your statement is silly.

Companies only hire to make money. ????

Really?

Then every company would hire all the people they can so they can make all the money they possibly can.

It IS expectations that drives hiring--expectations of future sales. When production has to increase due to ramped-up demand, then companies will hire.

You're saying, apparently, that companies should hire workers BEFORE there's any kind of increased demand. Why would that make any business sense?

[Broderick]

As a business owner

I shake my head and laugh........

[Common Sense Party]

52. I would think so.

Hey, you're a business owner. Why don't you go out right now and hire 400,000 people, so you can be the most profitable business in your state?

[HughBeaumont]

17. Uh, how else is a consumer based economy going to work?

If low-tech manufacturing goes the way of the dodo and nothing replaces it, what exactly are these people supposed to do? Starve to death?

[hack89]

28. Retrain your work force for mid and high skilled jobs

something has to replace low-tech jobs. We cannot compete in a low skill global market - for example, no company will ever bring back textile manufacturing to the US just to create jobs. There is a reason they all went out of business in the first place and that reason has not gone away.

[HughBeaumont]

34. Uh, we DID that. Those jobs went overseas too.

And you cannot retrain people for something that's an unknown. Again I ask - who PAYS for these multiple trips to college? And what good does that do if there isn't a viable living wage job market to come into, as there hasn't been for 10 years?

Your weird theory only works if the third world has no capability to get the same degrees or attain the same skills we can get. They'll always be cheaper.

Maybe corporate America is simply going to have to make do with less . . . you know, just like the rest of US have to??

[hack89]

42. So they spend that cash and it goes away

are you saying that it is sufficient to keep us at high employment forever? Because how do you create jobs after the next recession when corporations don't have all that cash lying around?

[brentspeak]

40. NYT: Massachusetts Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

How is it that you weren't aware that even high-tech jobs are moving to the regions of lowest-possible-wages?

"There is a reason they all went out of business in the first place and that reason has not gone away."

Ok - please tell us the reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?_r=2&hp

Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 14, 2011

BEIJING — Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.

But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.

snip

Chinese manufacturers, Mr. El-Hillow said in the statement, have been able to push prices down sharply because they receive considerable help from the Chinese government and state-owned banks, and because manufacturing costs are generally lower in China.

[hack89]

44. Making solar panels is not high tech

as they become commodities and price goes down all such technologies eventually move overseas - PC's are the classic example. It has to happen if solar power is to become common.

[brentspeak]

49. "Making solar panels is not high tech"

No point debating that logic :eyes:

[hack89]

54. Design and engineering are high tech

assembling components is not. An automobile engine is much more high tech than a solar panel yet they have been assembled for years by low skill workers. Indeed, all those expensive engineers are hired to find ways to make manufacturing cheap. You better believe that their business plan along was to drive the technology in such a direction that it could be made by low skill Chinese workers.

[brentspeak]

65. NYT: China Drawing High-Tech Research From U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html?hp

Also:

http://www.theday.com/article/20110316/BIZ02/303169949/1070/FRONTPAGE">Report: Pfizer moving R&D from Connecticut to China

And:

http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2010/03/high-tech-rd-moving-to-china.html">High Tech R&D Moving to China

[IDemo]

58. You've just clearly demonstrated you have no idea about the technology involved

Any product which relies on silicon wafers is using the most advanced fabrication equipment, processes and engineering anywhere. To term it "not high tech" because manufacturing has been relocated elsewhere for business reasons is flat wrong.

[hack89]

60. But assembly of components is not high tech

You simply engineer the solar panels to use as few high tech components as possible and have all the pieces(high and low tech) assembled in the cheapest place you can find that provides the required level of quality.

Do you have any doubt that the company's business plan all along was to spend money on research and engineering so they could develop a product that could be manufactured overseas at a lower cost? Making "high" tech into "low" tech is how companies make billions. It has happened to every other former "high" technology so why should solar panels be different?

[IDemo]

62. If you can find a reputable source to support silicon fab = low tech

I'd be very interested to see it. Cost of manufacturing or location of the fab isn't the sole determinant of the level of a technology. I'm employed in the industry, and it's apparent you're a bit out of your realm on this one.

[hack89]

64. China makes half of the world's solar cells/modules

and their share is increasing. So all things being equal - where do you purchase your solar panels from if you want to make money? It isn't Massachusetts.

Here is a "made in China" site that proves my point:

http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Solar_Cell.html

[IDemo]

69. Sorry, but you just missed my point

Relocating a high tech fabrication facility to China or anywhere else doesn't mean you've dumbed down the technology far enough so the local villagers can handle it. It more often means that people are willing to work for significantly lower wages and that environmental concerns and other factors are not as restrictive. It doesn't mean that the process has become the equivalent of a beer bottling line. If R&D is the only part of the process that qualifies as high tech in your mind, you're ignoring the ongoing test and engineering efforts that take place in every chip fab, every hour.

[hack89]

70. But what it does mean is that through design, engineering and automation

you can create a product that can be built anywhere in the globe at low cost and with few people. A handful of smart people in the US and a bunch of low cost semi-skilled labor in China.

America will not create a ton of jobs manufacturing commodity items no matter how high tech they might be. Commodity by definition means low cost and we don't do low cost manufacturing.

[IDemo]

72. "semi-skilled labor in China". Again, you've misrepresented the industry

I'm not going to belabor the point, but to ignore the complexity of the end-to-end process of taking a silicon wafer and creating a memory chip or solar cell, and to ignore what actually is required of chemists, engineers and technicians in a fab would get you laughed out of the room here. That the new fabs are largely being built elsewhere is true, yes, but back on your original statement - that it is not "high tech", is flat mistaken.

[hack89]

73. Parts of the solar energy industry are high tech

many parts are not.

My only point is that the solar energy industry will never replace the manufacturing jobs lost as the American economy evolved.

[HughBeaumont]

18. And many corporations are sitting on tons of cash. Admittedly.

What are they doing with it?

How does demand happen? You have to have customers. And you can't have customers unless they have excess cash to spend. And they don't have excess cash to spend if all of their money is tied up in bills. So either the cost of living has to go down (which it won't) or hiring/wage increases have to happen.

Either way, businesses need to take the first step. Logically, the customer cannot unless they have the need or excess cash to spend. Again, what comes first? What has to happen first?

You can easily employ the idle low-tech manufacturing workers in infrastructure repair, which the US desperately needs. Unfortunately, since we don't have the money to pay for that, I guess they're simply going to starve and die.

[bulloney]

23. For the past 30-40 years, middle class wages have been stagnant.

The reason this economy continued to move along was because we were too generous allowing approval of credit to people. As working class people lost ground in relation to the cost of living, many maintained that level through debt, largely by borrowing against the value of their homes, assuming it would continue increasing in value. Now that home values collapsed, few people have easy access to credit and it's time to pay the piper. Our consumer-driven economy has stalled, companies are reluctant to hire and pay a living wage and the cycle continues to feed itself. This despite the fact that they are collectively sitting on trillions of dollars of cash. The tax policy implemented for the past 30 years or so has encouraged leaders of private businesses to hoard their money for themselves and not put it back to their company, leading to a concentration of wealth not seen since the Great Depression.

[HughBeaumont]

25. When you stop and think about it . . .

Nearly every positive period of growth in the past three to four decades has not been the result of a solid wage matching the cost of living or strong manufacturing, but more due to speculative bubbles: Stocks, tech, credit, housing, S & L, etc.

And we all know what becomes of bubbles, right?

Other than these boom-bubble-CRASH instances, Reaganomics (the rule of thumb for three decades and some change) has pretty much been puttering along aimlessly for the reasons you listed. Except many people had to get access to credit because corporate America never had any intention of raising their wages, but still needed them to SPEND somehow.

It's kick-the-can, faith based thinking. And it's an embarrassment.

[hack89]

30. That cash can't produce many jobs

look at the top 20 companies with a lot of cash.



Many are not in the business of manufacturing - just how many jobs could Google, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, or Pfizer create? There are no massive Google or Microsoft factories - their ideas and intellectual property is what they make.

And the jobs they do create are high tech, requiring highly skilled and educated people. The vast majority of long term unemployed workers in America are not highly skilled and educated people so these companies hiring would not help them at all.

[HughBeaumont]

37. A million facepalms.

I can sit here and refute your craptastic talking points all day long, but I'm not going to . . .

[hack89]

41. Because you can't

all you have left is hyperbole.

[HughBeaumont]

51. No, it's because I don't WANT to.

Your talking points are pro-corporate silly bullshit which I and many others have refuted dozens of times over. Corporations have done nothing to this country but damage it beyond repair. Despite every effort . . . EVERY effort to please them, alleviate their tax breaks, lower their taxes, keep taxes low on the wealthy at the price of the Allosaur-sized debt, continue their wars of choice, they have not done ONE DAMNED thing in return except for themselves and their fellow shareholders.

Peruse my journal. Look at my charts, look at my links. The fact remains that there has been near zero job growth in 10 years because America is continuing pro-corporate trickle-down Republican policy. Just curious, have you been to any midwestern city/state? Have you seen the economic damage free trade has done to the Rust Belt? This brand of "prosperity" trickles down to state and local governments as well; with no tax base from industries that leave, there's less social services you can depend on.

The middle/working/poor classes have no excess cash to spend because the cost of living, particularly necessities (health care, housing, education, transportation, food, fuel, etc) has soared beyond their ability to pay for them. And why do they have no ability to pay for them? Wages in real dollars have practically frozen since 1979 and access to easy credit allowed people to continue spending, since corporate America never had any intent of raising wages.

Politicians appeasing the rich and ostentatious has done nothing for the working/middle/poor of this country.

SHAPE up.

[hack89]

48. So explain to me how Google can create a lot of jobs. nt

[HughBeaumont]

53. Expand into new products. Develop new applications.

More servers, more storage, expansion of services, upgrade of interfaces.

Yahoo can do the same thing.

Is this a trick question?

[hack89]

55. To meet what demand? nt

[HughBeaumont]

59. The faster and easier to use apps that users constantly demand.

Will you just please fucking STOP? This isn't the goddamned 9-11 forum.

[hack89]

61. No - I am enjoying this. So, for my next question

an app can be written by one person - a billion copies can be made and distributed by one person. So how did that app create a job?

Aren't you really saying is that the next Apple or Google needs to come along and invent a new technology and create a new demand? Isn't the economy always growing by the creation of new technologies and companies?

[HughBeaumont]

66. Well, first of all, an app isn't really "written by one person".

Their departments have staffs of people to create the app, research the app, design the app, code the app, means-test the app and distribute and market the app - just as any event-driven application would have, and there can be many, depending on the house. The assertion that application creation doesn't result in multiple jobs and that one person can wear many hats for a corporation the size of Google is laughable on it's face and displays a massive lull on knowledge of IT departments at worst.

Secondly, you still have not answered the initial question of how demand is going to be created if underpaid, under-employed and debt-shackled people have no excess cash to spend and there's a void of public and private sector hiring because corporations lurves them some cheap foreign labor. So please, explain to me how you can do business . . . without business. Chicken or egg?

[hack89]

68. If jobs are the answer why lay off people in the first place?

if people are kept employed, by your logic there will always be demand and the economy will just hum along.

Unless .... do you think that there may be circumstances beyond the control of individual companies?

[econoclast]

12. Actually, It's NEW business formation that is lagging

In a recent study by U Maryland and the Census Bureau, it was illustrated that historically in post recession periods most job creation comes not from corporate America but from NEW business formation.

This time it seems that while corporate America is behaving according to historical patterns, it is a dearth of new business creation that accounts for the dismal job growth.

Where are the young fire-pissers willing to take risks and start up new ventures? Why are they on the sidelines? Please don't cite bank lending. New ventures should be financed by equity rather than debt.

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. Ummmm......

I know several people who have started small micro businesses because they could not find work and determined to do whatever necessary to earn a livlihood.

I also know people who would start small business hiring other workers but have not done so. Access to capital (whether through debt or equity financing) is only one issue that deters them. The other issue is insurance. We are all well aware of the problems with acquiring and affording health insurance and obtaining health care. However, liability insurance, workers comp and business interruption insurance are also quite expensive.

It's really too bad that all those stimulus funds did not go to small business creation. That would have been a far more effective use for them.

[Safetykitten]

13. Obama's blame in this? 99% his fault. It did NOT have to happen this way.

[HughBeaumont]

19. Corporate America is to blame for this.

They have been for three decades.

Let's not throw tomatoes at the puppets without looking at whose hand is under them.

[RBInMaine]

22. How was it his fault? That is crazy.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Yes, the GOP and their supporters are doing their best to destroy the country so Obama won't be

re-elected. That's the plan and it's working.

[StarburstClock]

31. America died when we set up torture camps and didn't prosecute anyone

America also went bankrupt in 2008. The world is being run by criminal banks and until that changes there is nothing that resembles "America" anymore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Businesses are middlemen.

When you buy a car, you are hiring someone to put it together for you.

Everyone in the middle is merely facilitating the transaction. It doesn't make any economic sense to hire people to create an arbitrarily large pile of widgets that no one is buying.

The problem is lack of demand. Period. Coddling businesses doesn't make the above transaction happen. Without that transaction, no one is working.

In the last 30 years, americans have gotten so used to the goddamn doublespeak trickle-down dumbshittery, that we've forgotten how the world works.

The only kind of effective stimulus is putting $100 bills into the palms of people who will spend it on stuff which employs other americans. Not tax cuts, not deficit reduction, not business tax credits, not cuts in corporate tax rates.

[HughBeaumont]

39. Brazil gets it.

Put money in the hands of the poor people. They'll spend it, which benefits the economy, which in turn benefits them because that creates DEMAND.

Put money in the hands of the rich - they'll sit on it or invest it in themselves, which mostly benefits THEM. No demand.

2008 was a grand THEFT that we all paid for.

[flamingdem]

57. +1

[Quixote1818]

43. We have lost 500,000 public sector jobs, thats the fucking problem

Everyone is worried about debt and we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We should just hire back those 500,000 workers and get the economy moving again, raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it, or for that matter we might be growing ourselves out of debt.

[wiggs]

50. There are 500,000 fewer jobs in govt compared to 2009. Government is shrinking

and offsetting private job growth to a degree.

Why aren't dems pointing out that govt is smaller (state and fed), countering the 'runaway spending' meme of the RW and helping explain the jobs numbers? And that much of the 2009 stimulus was tax cuts and that the stimulus should have been bigger according to most economists? And that the GOP is undermining the ability of the govt to turn the ship and avoid hitting the iceberg? For that matter...that much of the deficit is bush policies and that Obama's budgets included war costs for the first time (Bush's were off the books)?

Don't get it...again.

[Hutzpa]

56. Its called 'Being President while Black'

no matter what he does they will never ever acknowledge his efforts until he lives.

I just saw a clip on MSNBC were Senator Orrin Hatch is saying that he liked Obama
personally but will do everything to bring him down, see, it is not about the American
people anymore, it is about personal ego and corporate masters.

[Unvanguard]

63. A large part is a decline in public-sector employment, actually.

Thanks to "austerity" insanity at the state level.

[defendandprotect]

71. Obam pushed three new trade agreements -- !!