here we go guys
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/10/more-inflation.html
personally I'm applying for a civil servant position ASAP
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Just FYI, during the 1930s depression, many civil servants were paid with vouchers rather than cash, because local governments were unable to collect property taxes and their receipts fell into the shitbin.
― Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
Economy's doing poorly enough as it stands, why do we deliberately want to roll it into the shitbin?
― Abbott, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
Because that way Hillary can rescue us all.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol property taxes
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
shitbin's a great word, BTW.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
you been loving my thread titles lately
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
i came to this country some time ago with little more than a crippling debt burden in GB Pounds and the shirt on my back. i used to have to send back $1,200 each month to pay off my UK debt, and now I'm sending back over $1,400 to cover the same amount of debt repayment. that's two and a half thousand dollars disappearing from my tiny disposable income every year, for no explicable reason. i *heart* the decline of the US economy.
― Roberto Spiralli, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
anyway why start this thread now because the bit where ritholtz points out that domino's pizza can't print new menus fast enough to keep up with inflation was pretty fucking amazing
I wish rasheed wallace was still around to show us the latest and greatest exploding bubble blogs
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
wow Roberto that was some shitty timing, that sucks
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
This was in the paper today:
Mortgage defaults
Hit an annual rate of 1.5 million in September. That compares with 900,000 last year from fewer than 800,000 in 2005. At the current rate, more than one million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure, making this the worst housing recession since the Second World War.
Housing starts
Sank to a 14-year low of 1.19 million in September. Starts are a vital economic engine, creating jobs and growth as people stuff their homes with sofas and TVs. Starts peaked at 2.3 million in early 2006, and the decline will be a drag on the rest of the economy until the slide stops.
Mortgages
A quarter of the roughly 50 million U.S. home mortgages are subprime. That's seven times the number of high-risk mortgages there were in 2001. That means that many more marginal homeowners have mortgages, making it far more likely they'll wind up in default.
House prices
Fell 3.2 per cent in the second quarter. Prices are falling faster and more broadly than they have in decades, according to the closely watched Case-Shiller index.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071018.IBUSECONOMY18/TPStory/Business
― everything, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
where the hell is rasheed anyway?
economic blogs I read (they're all fairly liberal):
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/ http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/ http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/ http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ http://www.janegalt.net/
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
In regard to inflation, in the USA during the past three years inflation has been soaring - but almost entirely in the housing sector. The fact that people are encouraged to see their houses as investments rather than as expenses doesn't mean that skyrocketing housing costs weren't inflationary. They were.
As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008. As it has for the past 30 years, the official CPI will understate the real inflation rate. It was rigged under Reagan so that government entitlement programs indexed to the CPI would not increase at the true pace of inflation.
If Bush continues to shovel shit on the dollar right up to the end of his term in January 2009, the inflation rate could hit 15%-20% by 2010.
― Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
There are some good economics articles put up here as well: http://www.VoxEU.org
― stet, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
Which shit on the dollar are you referring to?
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008.
lol
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Friday, 19 October 2007 06:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
this is why i live in canada!
― J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh wait.
Guys, this is a good time stay in academia right?
― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
It's a good time to learn a European language.
― Nubbelverbrennung, Friday, 19 October 2007 13:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
Prime shit examples:
When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down. Had this state of affairs continued, as projected, it would have led both to lower interest rates and a strong dollar, together. Instead, Bush submitted a series of enormous tax cuts to the Republican-controlled Congress and lobbied them through. Immediately, the CBO's projected budget surpluses turned to projected deficits for the next decade.
Bush also initiated a war of choice, not necessity, in Iraq. This war has already cost well over $700 billion. Yet, Bush insisted on making his tax cuts permanent. Overall, the national debt has increased under Bush by about $2 trillion in seven years. This represents a difference of about $3 trillion of debt from what was projected at the start of his first term.
Because, due to Bush's tax cuts and other policies, the Federal government was in a far weaker position to stimulate the economy when the recession started after 9/11, almost the entire stimulus was delivered via lower interest rates. Because these rate cuts were artificial, and not based on a stronger dollar, this stimulus not only inflated the current housing bubble, but it also undercut the dollar even more than the ballooning national debt did.
Now the dollar is at an all-time low against the euro and the canadian dollar. However, the incomes of the top 10% of American households have increased at a good clip, while the lower 50% of households have seen a decrease in income after inflation. This is largely thanks to Bush's shitty policies. I expect more of the same mismanagement until he is gone.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:36 (2 years ago) Permalink
I agree with everything you've just said. You're predictions still seem a tad extreme on the downside though, if I may so.
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
i wonder if income inequality will ever arrive as a political issue in this country. americans tend to not begrudge the rich - so it'll have to be more of a "for everyone's good" type of angle. no?
― jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
I remember the 1970s and early 80s quite well. Back then people couldn't belileve it, either. Bush has done a bangup job of recreating many of the same policy errors under Johnson and Nixon that led to raging stagflation back then, except the underlying economy is now weaker than it was in the 1970s and the oil shocks we are likely to get are not political, as when OPEC was formed, but structural.
Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.
I hope I am wrong.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
Anyone want to join my modern-day James Gang? We shall ride across the lower Midwest, robbing and pillaging.
― milo z, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
sounds fun
― jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, I don't want to relocate. But this scheme sounds ripe for franchising.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
-- Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (14 minutes ago) Link
The coming of $100/barrel oil is not Bush's fault. It's yours and mine and everyone else's for using too damned much energy. I agree Bush could and should have done a lot more with policy to encourage energy efficiency, but there's little he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
Part of the pricing of oil represents the weakness of the dollar. This hurts the USA more than it does other countries. US citizens are paid in dollars and the US government collects revenue in dollars, so they are stuck. EU countries can use euros to buy increasingly cheap dollars, so they don't see the same rise in prices as we do. The weakness of the dollar is mainly Bush's fault.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
The US also uses way more oil than other countries.
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level. Not starting a war in Iraq would definitely have helped here.
― stet, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
― El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
arrgh, if that won't work then http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/imf-mortgage-reset-chart.html
tombot u r freakin me out
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
i hope my small apartment + modest savings plan + job in "information services" is enough to weather the shitstorm, if it comes. i got myself out of credit card debt a few months ago, at least
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
well if you can hold down a job and don't have to worry about an ARM reset you should be okay, it's the homeowner with kids and a subprime loan and two cars who ought to be shitting themselves
― El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
apart from some student loans and binging on credit cards over a few years, i'm kind of debt phobic.
which has actually made me lose out over the past several years, i realize, since i pay for EVERYTHING with a debit/check card... i could have just paid that balance on a credit card with some rewards scheme and has some air miles or something
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
rolling gff personal finances into the shitbin thread, ha
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
This will give you a boner Tombot
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39952/
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
the economy increased by 3.9% this quarter! bull market forever, baby. economy's better than ever. golden age.
yet me and so many people I know are getting laid off next month. granted we're all in the writing/design field, but urhhhhh. gggg.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
^^^ lol
most of that guy's scenario is not really news to regular bigpicture/CR readers I don't think. But #5, the "we don't pay attention" thing, yeah, well, evidently the awareness campaign is underway, but hell if the big players are paying attention.
He also leaves out the approaching demographic catastrophe as millions of inexperienced thirtysomethings and even some late-twenties kids are forced to move into arguably tougher jobs that the boomers have been holding for two decades. Beyond the social security and healthcare costs associated with mass retirement, I don't really know if this generation has the work ethic and definitely not the rolodex to just start filling in and not fuck up royally. too busy updating their linkedin pages.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
can someone explain what "being upside down on your mortgage" means, in plain English?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 16:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
essentially, owing more than your home is worth.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
also Tombot I'm not going to blame this generation as much as I blame their parents.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
isn't that the way people buy homes? by paying for the privilege of a loan?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
When you enter into a contract with a bank for a mortgage, both you and the bank assume that the property value will not plummet. The bank doesn't want you to default any more than you want to default. But if for whatever reason you need to sell your home, and you can't get what you owe on it, then you will owe the difference to the bank. And the bank knows that when that happens, you probably will not have enough assets to cover the difference.
Predatory-type loans (which seems like a nebulous description to me) typically compound the problem because they have higher transaction rates (points, etc.)
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh certainly! well played baby boom letting healthcare slide for the 20 years you've owned the electorate
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah Tracer it's also called "negative equity"
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
SMH
― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Friday, 7 May 2010 14:35 (3 months ago) Permalink
i always wondered what happened to wolfman jack
― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Friday, 7 May 2010 14:36 (3 months ago) Permalink
ps I have 90 employees and 14 (afaik) kids so I think I am worried about the economy a little more than you guys
It's the "as far as I know" part that amuses me.
― Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Friday, 7 May 2010 15:00 (3 months ago) Permalink
"American policies have the least redistributive effect of any first-world country on the planet"http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-schaller-socialism-20100518,0,454344,full.column"What else would you expect from a relatively small, mildly redistributive government in a society where 'who's your daddy' matters more than it does in most of the rest of the first world?"
― kamerad, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:48 (3 months ago) Permalink
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/whats-ben-gonna-do
― Aren't there some GOP msg boards I can post on? (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, 24 June 2010 11:39 (2 months ago) Permalink
If the premise of that article is correct, that deflation is inevitable, then it makes a certain amount of sense. Lord knows, the implosion of mortgage-backed CDOs in late 2008 evaporated more than the few trillions that Bernanke has magically created to reflate the economy.
As I see it, we have already missed the chance to do what the logic of the doctrinaire free-marketers demanded we do, namely let the banking system collapse under the weight of its own accumulated greed and foolishness. This, of course, would have led to wreckage far beyond what anyone could accept. So, the purist free-market solution is already a non-starter.
Where we are today is only marginally better. We've bailed out the mega-banks and we've failed to make them pay the correct price. Now, one reason the banks were so eager to pay back their TARP obligations was to obfuscate what constituted that price, by making it appear that it was simply a matter of a few tens of billions of dollars. It wasn't. The correct price was re-regulation and a thorough housecleaning. Bad debts exposed and taken off the books as assets. Forced bankruptcy and new management. That was the correct course. It still is.
I hate to say it, but the Democrats hold the keys to the government and they could be doing the right things to solve this. They will be majorly to blame when their timidity and capitulation to the banks steers us into even more dire straits than we are in today.
― Aimless, Thursday, 24 June 2010 16:56 (2 months ago) Permalink
would like to draw everyone's attention to this disturbing trend: http://christwire.org/2010/07/with-unemployment-benefits-extended-rates-of-domestic-masturbation-and-sodomy-are-poised-to-skyrocket/
― selected ambient worker (another al3x), Friday, 30 July 2010 00:19 (1 month ago) Permalink
i've been wondering a lot lately about the underlying problems with the economy (not the unemployment benefits/masturbation and sodomy-link). i was recently talking with a smart and accomplished friend of mine, who has been (somewhat by choice) out-of-work for a few years. he is somewhat sympathetic toward tea-partiers and survivalists; though, to be clear, he isn't part of either group. we saw a cnn story on survivalists storing canned goods, water and weapons. i asked "what exactly are they preparing for?" he said, basically, "idk, but these groups are full of guys who aren't bums. they want to work. years ago, they'd graduate high-school, and get a good job. now they can't. and they're angry and disoriented about it." i guess all that's obvious, but as i say, it got me wondering.
when the economy has legitimately boomed in the past, it was supported by one or more big industries, e.g., steel, coal, automobile-manufacturing. but many of those jobs have been shifted outside the united states or been eliminated through technological developments (indeed, whole industries have withered). so what can take their place, creating a sustainable future for the group my friend mentions? the group that isn't going to college, but wants to work. i've said before that i think -- maybe hope -- that green technology and energy, smart cars, and other emerging technology might fill this gap. my uncle thinks that there's no reason we can't thrive in the medical research and technology areas.
anyway, obviously i have no conclusive answers. i don't believe the answer, or the right attitude, is to say "we're in inevitable decline." but i wonder what planning the administration has done to try and drive the economy to where it really needs to go (instead of a stopgap solution).
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 00:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE WATCHED ALL THOSE ALEX JONES AS THE JOKER VIDEO CLIPS THIS EVENING.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 00:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
Just maybe!
But the question is an intelligent one regardless.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 July 2010 00:43 (1 month ago) Permalink
why is the us bureau of labor statistics monitoring my masturbation
― baby i know that you think i'm just a lion (schlump), Friday, 30 July 2010 00:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
I've been wondering what our government has been doing to help our economy as well. And I'm not just saying this because I'm a republican because I ain't a republican. But all I hear is doom and gloom for our economic future. Even the CBO is pumping out gloomy info and they tend to have slightly more optimistic predictions
― @( * O * )@ (CaptainLorax), Friday, 30 July 2010 01:13 (1 month ago) Permalink
daniel esq I have been wondering the same thing lately and have come to pretty much the same conclusions. what's a blue collar guy gonna do in a world like this?
― dyao, Friday, 30 July 2010 01:15 (1 month ago) Permalink
in some ways i think the administration had it exactly right: large-scale infrastructure projects and research grants -- even financed by foreign debt -- is a great means of jump-starting the economy short term. it can create many jobs at once, putting people into useful positions (e.g., america's roads and highways were badly in need of repair), which will pump funds bottom-up, leading to more taxable income. and i still suspect the impact of those projects has yet to be felt. but those are only temporary measures. you still need a thriving industry for future prosperity (and to create the wealth that will generate a need for other services in the community, which is where even more jobs would be created).
ford's introducing the volt. this is the kind of innovation that i think (maybe "hope" is the better word) that could revitalize the economy in a sustainable way. right now, the car will cost 41K, but they're just seeding the market. the price will come down soon.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 02:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
don't think cars and roads are the answer
― iatee, Friday, 30 July 2010 02:23 (1 month ago) Permalink
i really was using the volt by way of example, not ultimate solution. i see your point.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 02:25 (1 month ago) Permalink
lets bring back guilds and apprentices
― max, Friday, 30 July 2010 03:15 (1 month ago) Permalink
not really for economic reasons, just cause i like the middle ages
you ever read that book "the year 1000" max? the chapter on what a city must have smelled like then was awesome
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
you probably get used to it
― max, Friday, 30 July 2010 03:30 (1 month ago) Permalink
it's a cool if not super-challenging book is more my point
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
i can read challenging books dude
― max, Friday, 30 July 2010 03:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
are you intentionally misreading me to make me paranoid if so you are succeeding I just meant the book is kinda cool but it doesn't really go super-deep on stuff
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:34 (1 month ago) Permalink
^^^ rather a challenge to tease "you are suggesting I can't read challenging books" out of this tho
I was saying like I imagine a fair bit of what you read is advanced-level stuff, this book I'm talking about which I now deeply & painfully regret bringing up is more popular-history-for-the-talk-show-circuit stuff but is kinda interesting for all that
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:37 (1 month ago) Permalink
in that respect it is probably similar to 'a world lit only by fire' and 'the last apocalypse' which are popular histories abt the same topic--the grim reality of the middle ages.
― not everything is a campfire (ian), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
I don't know if "blue collar" as we've known it for two hundred years will survive. The natural process of extinction that began during the Carter and Reagan administrations -- when deregulation and globalization were in their nascent phases -- is almost finished.
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
this is an interesting discussion.folks who say the british drank so much gin because the drinking water was polluted by waste etc. xp
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:34 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
;-)
― max, Friday, 30 July 2010 03:40 (1 month ago) Permalink
it was just a goof!
Union Membership In America
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2007 and 2008 unions gained 428,000 members - 152,000 on private payrolls and 276,000 in government employment.
As a result, the percent of the total workforce that belonged to unions increased from 12.5 in 2007 to 12.4 in 2008. On private payrolls it rose from 7.5 to 7.6 percent and in government employment it fell from 35.9 to 36.8 percent.
This is the second year in a row that the BLS has reported a small increase in union membership. The source of the information is the BLS's Current Population Survey. In both instances the small increases were within the margin of error for the survey.
Click here to see the whole BLS "Union Members Summary" report for 2008.
There's a good reason union membership is so much higher in government. Politicians have bartered the dues of public employees for union political support. Maybe public employees are getting tired of being exploited for the political gains of their union bosses and the politicians.
There was a time when things were different. In the mid 1950's more than 35 percent of all employees on private payrolls were union members. But then unions decided to focus more on political power than representing the interests of workers. Not surprisingly union membership has been on the decline ever since.
Unions like to blame their failure on opposition from management but the fact is that the working people of American have rejected the unions' class-warfare, us-against-them approach to employment.
Proof of this is available from several sources. According to a 1999 Gallup survey only 21 percent of employees who aren't union members would like to be in a union.
A Zogby Poll conducted in 2005 found that only 16 percent of employees said they would definitely vote for union representation compared to 38 percent who said they would definitely vote against. When you combine those who would definitely and probably vote for a union compared to those would would definitely or probably vote against a union the numbers were 36 percent for and 56 percent against with the rest undecided.
Another indication is the results of National Labor Relations Board Elections. Even though employment covered by the NLRB grew by more than 2.3 million jobs in 2006, the NLRB conducted only 1,755 union representation elections covering 87,172 employees. Unions won 60 percent of these elections but they don't petition the NLRB to conduct an election until they think they have a pretty good shot at winning.
In other words, even when they thought they had a good shot at it the unions only won 60 percent of the time and only tried to organize workers in less than 4 percent of the new jobs.
The NLRB also conducts decertification elections - elections where employees petition to get rid of a union - the unions lose about 65 percent of the time.
Updated September 2009
Home - Donate - Contact - Privacy Policy
― not everything is a campfire (ian), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
xp man you sounded mad I was like damn
think I'm going to bed though, everybody have fun in in the middle ages and/or the economic shitbin
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
if that's so, it leads to a host of interesting -- and sobering -- questions, like (a) whether we seriously miscalculated by thinking that globalization would allow us to primarily occupy the highest-tier of the workforce (with less of a need for blue-collar workers and jobs) and (b) what, precisely, are the social and economic impacts if waves of blue collar jobs permanently disappear across-the-board?
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 03:45 (1 month ago) Permalink
Is the spike in membership related to the promise of health care and benefits?
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 July 2010 03:45 (1 month ago) Permalink
i bet the economy sucked in the middle-ages, too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-01/how-to-make-an-american-job-before-it-s-too-late-andy-grove.html
have you read this, daniel? it made the blog rounds a few weeks ago. i'm not sure people were really sold on his solutions, but it's a pretty interesting assessment of what's going on.
― circles, Friday, 30 July 2010 04:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
that is a good read. he mentions the "Golden Projects" but never says "we should do that!" Instead he goes with tariffs?
― bnw, Friday, 30 July 2010 04:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
i hadn't seen it. what a sobering and fascinating article. this jumped out at me --
Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 -- lower than it was before the first personal computer, the MITS Altair 2800, was assembled in 1975. Meanwhile, a very effective computer-manufacturing industry has emerged in Asia, employing about 1.5 million workers -- factory employees, engineers and managers.
-- as did the notion that the cost of creating an american tech job jumped from a few thousand per job in the 70s to 100K per job today. the importance of "scaling" as an essential compliment to "innovation" also makes sense. all the innovation in the world won't help if, once innovated, the ideas are physically produced elsewhere (i guess it's good for american innovators, management and shareholders, but bad for prospective workers). this notion of "scaling" produced another crucial point in the article:
How could the U.S. have forgotten? I believe the answer has to do with a general undervaluing of manufacturing -- the idea that as long as “knowledge work” stays in the U.S., it doesn’t matter what happens to factory jobs. It’s not just newspaper commentators who spread this idea.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 04:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
not just tariffs, bnw. it seems to me a much more radical proposal to (partially, at least) roll-back globalization. use the revenue from the "foreign-product" tax to loan to companies that will "scale" domestically? that's massive gov't engineering of the economy. i'm not afraid of it, but many in the nation (many, frankly, who stand to benefit from such a plan) are rabidly opposed to such an idea.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 04:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
counterarguments from the WSJ:
So what if we have outsourced 100,000s of low-level semiconductor manufacturing jobs to China? Silicon Valley has continued to innovate with Google, Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, etc. There are lines around the block still for the latest Apple iPhone and the chipmakers for the iPhone (BRCM, TXN, OVTI, etc) don’t seem too worried that they have to outsource to Foxconn in China. If we bring the jobs back here, would the iPhone suddenly become twice as expensive. Would a trade war start that would drive up prices even further? Furthermore, would the resulting spikes in unemployment in the third world countries we outsource to suddenly dip into massive recessions, causing a global spiral down in the economy?
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 30 July 2010 05:06 (1 month ago) Permalink
the whole trade policy coupled with industrial policy is pretty radical, especially since if you ask economists and policy people whether the u.s. should have a active industrial policy, the answer's been a pretty resounding "no" for a long time (though it happens to an extent anyway, obv). paul krugman's been banging on some similar stuff lately, but he's much more focused on currency manipulation and the way that it ends up being protectionism by other means. i think he'd probably disagree about grove's basic prescription and would say that any sort of trade barriers should be solely about rectifying currency imbalances.
― circles, Friday, 30 July 2010 06:59 (1 month ago) Permalink
a totally different perspective on the broader situation by (boring, but undervalued) nyt op-ed columnist bob herbert
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 31 July 2010 12:28 (1 month ago) Permalink
What sucks is that I have a friend with a cushy top tier job at a corporation that probably has more money than they know what to with. So he gets a huge paycheck doing little to nothing while his corporation isn't hiring anyone but actually had layoffs last year (my friend got to fire people).
I have no job and it might take forever to work my way up to a high tier position even if I had a job. Meanwhile it's hard to even hang out with my friend because he has the cashflow to eat at any restaurant and I have to be picky with where I eat and how often I can go to the movies etc. What I hate the most is that I feel belittled even though I'm doing my near best at trying to find a job while he acts like a pompous ass when he occasionally says things like "I get invited to VIP sections at clubs all the time where I can drink as much as I want for free but I don't drink" (and he would never be caught on a dancefloor).
I don't have many friends so sometimes I take what I can get even if my friend can be annoying
― @( * O * )@ (CaptainLorax), Saturday, 31 July 2010 15:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
I was going to say, exactly why is he your friend again?
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:00 (1 month ago) Permalink
i hope you lol at that kind of nonsense talk from your friend.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:02 (1 month ago) Permalink
Or else just make sure he picks up the bar tab at least.
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:02 (1 month ago) Permalink
lol at him, then hand him the bar tab.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:05 (1 month ago) Permalink
Then pick his pockets, then steal his identity.
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:14 (1 month ago) Permalink
I hope your friend is saving money.
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 31 July 2010 16:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ominous.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 1 August 2010 00:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
1) get him to post to ILX2) we'll schedule a FAP at an expensive restaurant3) Daniel will hand him the tab4) Ned will pick his pockets5) Alfred will walk up to him and "ominously" say "I hope you're saving money."51) we'll suggest ban him
― markers, Sunday, 1 August 2010 00:51 (1 month ago) Permalink