Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

how does that differ from today's spending breakdown?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://digitivity.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/death-and-taxes-poster-512x339.png&imgrefurl=http://digitivity.org/868/visualizing-federal-spending-the-federal-budget-in-one-poster&usg=__W7B06eidberUXZjEFS37ReHkm4I=&h=339&w=512&sz=246&hl=en&start=1&sig2=ABMBV_Y701a-N3Cowyl9pA&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=5lkLekOxNeqaeM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfederal%2Bspending%2Bposter%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=-jHjS__QJoeqNs_z0bcC

oh wait, better: http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

ok maybe not :/

how does that differ from today's spending breakdown?

I assume the interest portion is larger in 2010 but don't know offhand. The entitlements are also a wildcard given that none of the proposed cuts in Medicare have passed, let alone their status each of the next ten years. Also, the interest payments could change given other economic conditions (inflation, deflation, changes in monetary/fiscal policy, etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppEJ8r7bQ2o

Get's good at 1.10.

SMH

i always wondered what happened to wolfman jack

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.

"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?"

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/whats-ben-gonna-do

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.

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/

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).

MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE WATCHED ALL THOSE ALEX JONES AS THE JOKER VIDEO CLIPS THIS EVENING.

Just maybe!

But the question is an intelligent one regardless.

why is the us bureau of labor statistics monitoring my masturbation

http://i30.tinypic.com/29f6yoy.jpg

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

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?

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.

don't think cars and roads are the answer

i really was using the volt by way of example, not ultimate solution. i see your point.

lets bring back guilds and apprentices

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

you probably get used to it

it's a cool if not super-challenging book is more my point

i can read challenging books dude

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

it's a cool if not super-challenging book is more my point

^^^ 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

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.

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?

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.

this is an interesting discussion.
folks who say the british drank so much gin because the drinking water was polluted by waste etc. xp

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), Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:34 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it's a cool if not super-challenging book is more my point

^^^ 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), Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban 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

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

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.

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?

Is the spike in membership related to the promise of health care and benefits?

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.

that is a good read. he mentions the "Golden Projects" but never says "we should do that!" Instead he goes with tariffs?

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.

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.

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?

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.

a totally different perspective on the broader situation by (boring, but undervalued) nyt op-ed columnist bob herbert

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

I was going to say, exactly why is he your friend again?