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.
The issue is not just about hiring it's also about wage increases. Most middle class Americans have seen very little wage growth for the last decade. On the other hand, high income wage earners have seen substantial increases in comparision. It's increasing the level of inequality in the country and in the long run THAT NOT HEALTHY economically or socially.
I take the opposite view - labor should be a market-priced resource. What isn't healthy for workers or for the economy is paying workers more than market conditions warrant. I think most can easily see the long-term consequences when compensation is disconnected from market forces - that is exactly the situation with public employees. In the long term, paying employees more than their competitive value does not serve them well. When their overpaid jobs disappear, as they inevitably will sooner or later, they will face limited options and painful readjustments.
Not so many years ago, an undistinguished HS grad could walk into an unskilled union job, make 3x a teacher's salary, and retire with almost full pay at 48 (actually earlier for some whose overtime was counted toward retirement years of service). Is it any surprise that most of those jobs have disappeared?
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,153,826 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meesterjojo
Why should a company that doesn't need new hires, hire anyone?
I think it's wonderful the research you did with the long-term experience of us unemployed, but what we need is figures on what the impact of not hiring on these same companies is.
As-is your statement sounds like resentment for not getting a job from a company that is doing well without you. In other words, a handout.
Seeking a job......a desire to actually work and earn a paycheck; is now a "Handout"?
To me it seems foolish to call what is happening 'hoarding' capital. If the banking industry had 'hoarded capital' over the last few decades they might have survived this downturn without federal bailouts. Granting jobs is meaningless is the business goes bankrupt at the next market downtick!
Having a financial safety net to use to weather an economic storm is never a foolish strategy. I don't think we will see dramatic increases in hiring until the economy in general is more favorable to businesses.
Excellent point. And instead, this administration wants to make it harder on businesses and then in the same breath expect that they start handing out jobs...that makes no sense whatsoever.
Seeking a job......a desire to actually work and earn a paycheck; is now a "Handout"?
Are you kidding me?
What a joke.
If someone does not need you and just gives you a job for the sake of giving you a job, yes...it is a form of handout.
I don't need any of the people who work around my house (pool guy, gardener, occasional maid), but I employ them because it benefits us both - but definitely them more by allowing them to work and earn money.
However, when I hire a friend to help me clean out the garage because I know she needs the money (like I did 2 weeks ago - I didn't need her help at all), then it is absolutely a handout. A handout with dignity, but a handout nonetheless.
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Excellent point. And instead, this administration wants to make it harder on businesses and then in the same breath expect that they start handing out jobs...that makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
If someone does not need you and just gives you a job for the sake of giving you a job, yes...it is a form of handout.
I don't need any of the people who work around my house (pool guy, gardener, occasional maid), but I employ them because it benefits us both - but definitely them more by allowing them to work and earn money.
However, when I hire a friend to help me clean out the garage because I know she needs the money (like I did 2 weeks ago - I didn't need her help at all), then it is absolutely a handout. A handout with dignity, but a handout nonetheless.
What happened to all the demand before the crisis?... I guess the middle class should just go away and die...
Layoffs tend to be more pronounced at the beginning of a downturn because companies go very quickly from staffing up to meet future quarters' higher sales forecasts, to downsizing. So in addition to a reduced need for some of their current capacity, they also have an overhang of anticipated capacity requirements that instantly disappears.
When the economy fell off a cliff in Oct2008, my company took only 2 weeks to revise its 2009 forecast from +13% to flat. But since hiring was well under way to support the +13%, a 6% workforce reduction was needed to realign capacity.
The problem with just about every recession since the early 1990's is that the profits have come but the jobs haven't. Companies have adopted the strategy of doing more with less. Since there is no pressure in terms of labor or skills shortage there no motivation by companies to increase wages above a bare minimum.
At this time I have to serioiusly wonder why some many people want to be employees? Notice I didn't say have a way to make money I said "employee" as in being hired to work for a specific company. There is no job security, you are basically "disposed of" like a piece of garbage when you are no longer needed, the benefits are in many cases not that great, and the company has total control over how much money you can make.
The way the current economy is set up I think people are much better served to get a specific set of skills that can be contracted out and work accordingly. Many people should consider contract, consulting or free lance work.
The whole concept of working for a company and expecting them to treat you decently and gave you a path to a middle class lifestyle is so 20th century.
Exactly! What many people don't understand is that economic dynamcs the lasted during the later part of the 20th century ARE GONE.
The old mantra was "Go to school. Get a good job. Save for your retirement". The new dynamnics of the economic situation require a new way of thinking. Educate yourself with a SKILL that will allow you to make money. Make sure that skill is transferable across geographic regions. Looks for gigs NOT JOBS. By gigs I mean contract work, temporary assignments where you are in a much better position to negotiate your salary and have more control of you time than a permanent job. Learn how to be financially savvy with regards to investments, world capital markets and money management. People can and do make money in the financial markets. Multiple income streams beat one income stream. In other words LOOK FOR WAYS TO MAKE MONEY DON'T LOOK FOR A JOB!
You've basically got to manage your skills and ability to make money the same way a corporation manages its products.
Exactly! What many people don't understand is that economic dynamcs the lasted during the later part of the 20th century ARE GONE.
The old mantra was "Go to school. Get a good job. Save for your retirement". The new dynamnics of the economic situation require a new way of thinking. Educate yourself with a SKILL that will allow you to make money. Make sure that skill is transferable across geographic regions. Looks for gigs NOT JOBS. By gigs I mean contract work, temporary assignments where you are in a much better position to negotiate your salary and have more control of you time than a permanent job. Learn how to be financially savvy with regards to investments, world capital markets and money management. People can and do make money in the financial markets. Multiple income streams beat one income stream. In other words LOOK FOR WAYS TO MAKE MONEY DON'T LOOK FOR A JOB!
You've basically got to manage your skills and ability to make money the same way a corporation manages its products.
Contract jobs have no benefits or Health Insurance... not to mention being treated like garbage with all the infighting and backstabbing from employees as everyone struggles to survive... and contractors can be let go at the drop of a hat by those who do enjoy benefits and Health Insurance...
The problem with just about every recession since the early 1990's is that the profits have come but the jobs haven't.
There's no inherent reason a company has to become unprofitable if sales fall. In most cases, sales levels will fall to a level they were at a year or two earlier, and the company was presumably profitable at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Companies have adopted the strategy of doing more with less. Since there is no pressure in terms of labor or skills shortage there no motivation by companies to increase wages above a bare minimum.
At this time I have to serioiusly wonder why some many people want to be employees? Notice I didn't say have a way to make money I said "employee" as in being hired to work for a specific company. There is no job security, you are basically "disposed of" like a piece of garbage when you are no longer needed, the benefits are in many cases not that great, and the company has total control over how much money you can make.
The way the current economy is set up I think people are much better served to get a specific set of skills that can be contracted out and work accordingly. Many people should consider contract, consulting or free lance work.
The whole concept of working for a company and expecting them to treat you decently and gave you a path to a middle class lifestyle is so 20th century.
On these points I'm in total agreement. I think of it as the "plumber" model. He (I'll cite a male) competes with other plumbers in his area on price and quality. In times of high demand his services command higher rates and he can work more hours if he wants to. When demand is lower he can lower his rates, offer extra services, take some time off, etc. And of course his "employers" benefit by only paying for his services when they're actually needed. He can pursue a one-man career or, if so inclined, undertake the risks of growing a larger multi-employee business. His wife can raise a family while supporting the business by handling administrative chores. The economics are highly efficient, and workers are incentivized to acquire and maintain the most economically valuable skills consistent with their talents and ambitions.
There's no inherent reason a company has to become unprofitable if sales fall. In most cases, sales levels will fall to a level they were at a year or two earlier, and the company was presumably profitable at that time.
On these points I'm in total agreement. I think of it as the "plumber" model. He (I'll cite a male) competes with other plumbers in his area on price and quality. In times of high demand his services command higher rates and he can work more hours if he wants to. When demand is lower he can lower his rates, offer extra services, take some time off, etc. And of course his "employers" benefit by only paying for his services when they're actually needed. He can pursue a one-man career or, if so inclined, undertake the risks of growing a larger multi-employee business. His wife can raise a family while supporting the business by handling administrative chores. The economics are highly efficient, and workers are incentivized to acquire and maintain the most economically valuable skills consistent with their talents and ambitions.
What about Health Insurance and benefits for the contractor?
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.
