Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You just can't hire those middle managers and bank tellers and tell them to go fix a bridge.
The FIRE economy (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) know how to type and enter data on a computer, not pave roads and rebuild bridges.
That's what Ellis Island was all about... They brought in the Italian and Irish peasants in the early 1900's and made them U.S. citizens... They are the ones who built all our roads and bridges...
If they made all the current day illegals citizens... they would be able to pay taxes... maybe then would could afford tax cuts for all... not just the elite...
You just can't hire those middle managers and bank tellers and tell them to go fix a bridge.
The FIRE economy (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) know how to type and enter data on a computer, not pave roads and rebuild bridges.
Actually, yes you can. Physical labor is easily taught and learned. Obviously, any construction work is under supervision and direction. Taking a man or woman formerly behind a desk, is no more complicated than taking them off the street.
You just can't hire those middle managers and bank tellers and tell them to go fix a bridge.
The FIRE economy (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) know how to type and enter data on a computer, not pave roads and rebuild bridges.
Further on that, I know from personal experience having done that for a while, that when a person does make that kind of work change, they feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment for having done it. Perhaps it is a little pride in creating something. Construction, although physically demanding at times, is very rewarding. I have a lot of respect for people that do that, and perhaps some envy as well.
Proponents of benefits extensions point out that corporations are sitting on approximately 1.8 trillion in cash while not hiring.
Reluctant to Spend or Expand, U.S. Companies Are Sitting on a Record $1.6 Trillion. A fairly staggering figure that comes out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Despite widespread unemployment, the BEA reports that U.S. corporations, reluctant to expand in an uncertain economy, are sitting on $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, a record amount, according to BEA economist Greg Key. Even looking at the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index of blue chips -- and stripping out financials, which are required by regulators to keep large cash reserves in order to cushion against risk -- the cash on hand number is still rather monstrous: $1.1 trillion. To put that in perspective, as a percentage of companies' total market capitalization, that $1.1 trillion is more than double the ratio seen before the crisis.
The Economic Policy Institute's March 2010 report cites an average of five applicants for each job opening.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released a report on the long-term experience of the jobless.
By the end of 2009, the jobless rate stood at 10.0 percent and the number of unemployed persons at 15.3 million. Among the unemployed, 4 in 10 (6.1 million) had been jobless for 27 weeks or more, by far the highest proportion of long-term unemployment on record, with data back to 1948.
So much for lazy Americans looking for a handout...
Why do companies have to spend?
Those cpmpanies are NOT spending because they dont know what this IDIOT of a Pres. will do next!
Canada has weathered the recession far better than we have, mostly because their financial system operated much more prudently. But a significant additional reason is that Canada aggressively encourages high-skill immigrants who earn good incomes, pay taxes, and consume. That has helped to minimize their unemployment problem.
For some reason our policy of limiting immigration to indigents who pay no taxes but drain public resources isn't working quite as well...
Excellent post.
I have often stated we should move to the point based, skilled immigration system, that the Canadians use, instead of the free for all (except for the American middle class of course) that we have now.
I believe the Canadians have recently modified their immigration system further by only allowing close family members (like a spouse, child or parent) for citizen sponsorship.
We just have too many holes that need plugging in our immigration system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Actually, yes you can. Physical labor is easily taught and learned. Obviously, any construction work is under supervision and direction. Taking a man or woman formerly behind a desk, is no more complicated than taking them off the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Further on that, I know from personal experience having done that for a while, that when a person does make that kind of work change, they feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment for having done it. Perhaps it is a little pride in creating something. Construction, although physically demanding at times, is very rewarding. I have a lot of respect for people that do that, and perhaps some envy as well.
Great posts Bob.
We have way too many un- and/or under employed teenage and 20-35 year old American citizens that are able, ready and willing to work.
Its a shame and I've noticed this on the job and in casual conversations, that way too many Americans have been conditioned to believe people from other countries are naturally smarter and harder workers than us.
There has been a major push to go into business and office management instead of science/technology and the trades.
I'm telling you, the mantras of the corporatist Ayn Randers & Friedman lovers will be the death and destruction of the American middle class.
I don't think the move from a producing society to a consuming Paris Hilton idolizing, Glen beck worshiping society is accidental.
None of these programs are going anywhere. Congress will just keep baling them out. 49 out of 50 states have laws that their annual budgets have to be balanced. There were at least a half million firefighters, police, teachers, etc who were going to be unemployed until Congress sent them 26B.
Well I find it interesting that when the Social Security System was facing problems in the 1980's Ronald Reagan gave them a massive bailout.
If President Obama proposed the same thing he would be accused of being a "socialist".
I wonder why so few American don't think Ronald Reagan was a "socialist" for bailing out the Social Security system?
This isn't necessarily directed at you but why is it that the left and even the media loves to compare Obama to Reagan yet many of these same people will continually tell you Reagan was a horrible POTUS?
that is bek deflation. they can get assets and workers cheaper not too far down the road, say another 6 months?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
