Indiana alone Accounts for 12% of the nations Job Creation! (Fort Wayne: crime, credit rating)

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by OpenD

It all depends on WHICH unemployment rate you look at. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks unemployment six different ways, with six different definitions, as detailed here:

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

The rate that usually gets quoted by State Governments and mentioned in news stories (like the one quoted) as the "official" rate is the U3 rate, which includes those who have recently stopped receiving unemployment compensation but who are still actively pursuing work (i.e., have searched within the last 4 weeks).

Many economists, however, assert that the true unemployment rate must include "discouraged workers," those who have been out of work so long they've given up looking, or haven't looked recently because they believe there are no jobs for them due to the economy. That is the U4 rate.

Then the U5 rate adds those who want to work but who have stopped looking for other reasons.

And finally, the U6 rate includes those who have taken part-time or marginal jobs (burger flippers), so they are technically not unemployed, but who are not working at their normal economic level. For 2nd quarter 2011 through 1st quarter 2012 Indiana's U6 Unemployment rate averaged 15.6%.

The other thing to keep in mind is that although Indiana has improved, at 7.9% (April 2012 U3) the state is only #33 overall. That's nothing to brag about.

Unemployment Rates for States

How fast has Indiana improved though relative to other states?
Have to consider that too.
Plus heres something: CAT Supplier Growing in Evansville - Newsroom - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick
another job announcement these are a daily occurance in Indiana.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by jman07

Amazing how clueless and stupid people are about the "bailouts". The bailouts were not at all necessary for the automakers. Thats why we have something in business called Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was favored by Mitt Romney, but because people are so gullible and uninformed they took that to mean "allow to go out of business". In reality, that would have allowed them to not be liable for the debt they owed or restructure it, along with total freedom to restructure the UAW contracts. Anyone ever hear of Chapter 11 bankruptcy???????????

The bank "bailouts" were another thing that people are clueless about. It wasn't a bailout the way the media made it out to be. It was a US purchase of stock in the banks for money so they could stay afloat. It was essentially a loan collateralized by stock. So it was a trade of ownership for equity, that the banks later bought back after the company and stocks recovered. The US actually made money and got all of their money back on the bank "bailouts" because the stocks were so low when the US purchased the stock. Most of the banks at least. Google it. Almost all of the banks paid back the money.


"Chapter 11 affords the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure its business. A debtor in possession can acquire financing and loans on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority on the business' earnings. The court may also permit the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts. Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue."

True, Romney is being unfairly pilloried for his bankruptcy stance. Personally, I felt that the government should've forced them into Chapter 11 and provided the debtor-in-possession financing.

As for TARP, while you are factually correct, as someone employed in the industry, I still don't understand why the government insisted on direct equity injection into the banks, which shifted a lot of risk to taxpayers. I would've rather seen an insurance scheme pre-funded by the government that could've been recovered through a tax on the affected banks. This insurance would've set a price floor for the bad assets that, I believe, could've opened up the markets for those assets and allow banks to start taking the capital hits.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by jman07

Amazing how clueless and stupid people are about the "bailouts". The bailouts were not at all necessary for the automakers. Thats why we have something in business called Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was favored by Mitt Romney, but because people are so gullible and uninformed they took that to mean "allow to go out of business". In reality, that would have allowed them to not be liable for the debt they owed or restructure it, along with total freedom to restructure the UAW contracts. Anyone ever hear of Chapter 11 bankruptcy???????????

The bank "bailouts" were another thing that people are clueless about. It wasn't a bailout the way the media made it out to be. It was a US purchase of stock in the banks for money so they could stay afloat. It was essentially a loan collateralized by stock. So it was a trade of ownership for equity, that the banks later bought back after the company and stocks recovered. The US actually made money and got all of their money back on the bank "bailouts" because the stocks were so low when the US purchased the stock. Most of the banks at least. Google it. Almost all of the banks paid back the money.


"Chapter 11 affords the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure its business. A debtor in possession can acquire financing and loans on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority on the business' earnings. The court may also permit the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts. Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue."

The automakers bailout was necessary and the government has actually gotten a good return on their investment as the automakers are profitable. The government should not have involvement with the autos now. Am I much of a fan of any bailout? No. 2008 was an extremely awful economic period that was nearly unprecedented. It was a necessary move at the time to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs in a time of already high unemployment and the indirect results propped up existing small businesses that were dependent on cconsumer spending. I think you need to actually go out to the ground level in small towns and see how jobs and consumer spending drive an entire economy at a small-scale level. This political bickering gets nothing accomplished when the "bailout" is long over and done with.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The automakers bailout was necessary and the government has actually gotten a good return on their investment as the automakers are profitable. The government should not have involvement with the autos now. Am I much of a fan of any bailout? No. 2008 was an extremely awful economic period that was nearly unprecedented. It was a necessary move at the time to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs in a time of already high unemployment and the indirect results propped up existing small businesses that were dependent on cconsumer spending. I think you need to actually go out to the ground level in small towns and see how jobs and consumer spending drive an entire economy at a small-scale level. This political bickering gets nothing accomplished when the "bailout" is long over and done with.

The last information I saw indicated that the government does expect to take a loss on the auto part of TARP. The same result could've been accomplished through a managed Chapter 11 (rather than the government providing loans to GM and Chrysler, which wound up in bankruptcy anyway).

[jman07]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The automakers bailout was necessary and the government has actually gotten a good return on their investment as the automakers are profitable. The government should not have involvement with the autos now. Am I much of a fan of any bailout? No. 2008 was an extremely awful economic period that was nearly unprecedented. It was a necessary move at the time to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs in a time of already high unemployment and the indirect results propped up existing small businesses that were dependent on cconsumer spending. I think you need to actually go out to the ground level in small towns and see how jobs and consumer spending drive an entire economy at a small-scale level. This political bickering gets nothing accomplished when the "bailout" is long over and done with.

Like most uninformed posters you are not interested into actually reading into the facts and other peoples information. You simply skip to the part where you get to post. What did you not understand about Chapter 11 bankruptcy? That doesn't mean "go out of business." The same amount of jobs would have been lost either route. There has to be demand for vehicles for there to be jobs. As long as there is demand they will produce vehicles and use man hours to do so.

[jeremybrooks772]

Does anyone know what industries these jobs are involved with? Is it one or two particular industry(ies) or is it a big job growth wave in most industries?

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by jman07

Like most uninformed posters you are not interested into actually reading into the facts and other peoples information. You simply skip to the part where you get to post. What did you not understand about Chapter 11 bankruptcy? That doesn't mean "go out of business." The same amount of jobs would have been lost either route. There has to be demand for vehicles for there to be jobs. As long as there is demand they will produce vehicles and use man hours to do so.

Yes, they could have gone the Chapter 11 route instead, but the bailout deal is over and done with so we would be rehashing all kinds of "what ifs" that might have happened if the other route was taken.

[rrtechno]

I do have one more "what if" What if the automakers had been allowed to file bankruptcy and then the small businesses who supply them with parts and machinery would have had to wait in line to possibly get pennies on the dollar for their investment in the industry. What would have happened to them? (the small, independent businesses)

[jman07]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Yes, they could have gone the Chapter 11 route instead, but the bailout deal is over and done with so we would be rehashing all kinds of "what ifs" that might have happened if the other route was taken.

Well it was a response to your original untrue rehashing of what should have been done. Think of it as an educational post for correcting uninformed posters.

[jman07]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

I do have one more "what if" What if the automakers had been allowed to file bankruptcy and then the small businesses who supply them with parts and machinery would have had to wait in line to possibly get pennies on the dollar for their investment in the industry. What would have happened to them? (the small, independent businesses)

Fair point.