Sure glad we passed that stimulus bill. Who knows how many jobs have been "saved or created".
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/nations-unemployment-rate-edging-closer-double-digits/
No suprises here, things continuing along as most economists projected at the end of last year that the economy would continue to decline well into this year and possibly start to rebound later this year or beginning of 2010 with unemployment numbers being the "lagging indicator" and expected to increase for even longer. Its probably still too early for the stimulus package to have had much of an effect, or even be able to tell whether or what effect it will have on those predictions or the resutling outcome. We will have to wait a few more years, at least, in order to tease out those kinds of numbers.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 02, 2009, 08:19:55 AM
No suprises here, things continuing along as most economists projected at the end of last year that the economy would continue to decline well into this year and possibly start to rebound later this year or beginning of 2010 with unemployment numbers being the "lagging indicator" and expected to increase for even longer. Its probably still too early for the stimulus package to have had much of an effect, or even be able to tell whether or what effect it will have on those predictions or the resutling outcome. We will have to wait a few more years, at least, in order to tease out those kinds of numbers.
We were assured by the President, who I can only assume listened to economists, that if stimulus passed, unemployment would not exceed 8%. Here we are at 9.5% AFTER stimulus. Nearly a TRILLION dollars pi$$ed away for pet projects is what we got. The bottom line is either Obama is an inexperienced dolt or a liar. Or both.
The only upside is the hope that most of those 9.5% are Obama supporters.
On CNBC this morning, they were giving an analysis of the jobs picture. 52,000 have shrunk from gov't payrolls. I'm not clear if that was federal only or counts muni and state payrolls. The only area of gain is 34,000 in education.
Let's see. 26 years ago. Oh, yeah, 1983...Reaganomics in full bloom. I suppose you were too young to rail about him being an inexperienced dolt, a liar and a profligate spender. Not too late though.
There is no optimism and fairness in your posts. No break from the Obama Derangement Syndrome. Do you just want this man to fail so badly that you're willing to consider total collapse of our economy and perhaps our system, just to satisfy that hate. Is that it? That might hurt your asset base and put you back with us bottom feeders.
Quote from: waterboy on July 02, 2009, 09:22:23 AM
Let's see. 26 years ago. Oh, yeah, 1983...Reaganomics in full bloom. I suppose you were too young to rail about him being an inexperienced dolt, a liar and a profligate spender. Not too late though.
There is no optimism and fairness in your posts. No break from the Obama Derangement Syndrome. Do you just want this man to fail so badly that you're willing to consider total collapse of our economy and perhaps our system, just to satisfy that hate. Is that it? That might hurt your asset base and put you back with us bottom feeders.
Fairness? Screw fairness. Our country is out a TRILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS. I don't recall Reagan spending like that in his first five months in office amid assurances the country that job losses would not exceed a certain percentage. You may excuse Obama's abject idiocy or lie about stimulus, I won't.
As for ODS, if you think pointing out the numerous broken campaign promises, criticizing his adoption of several Bush policies re: terrorism after he campaigned against them, his bullcrap double standard about meddling in foreign affairs, then I am guilty as charged.
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/ObamaandChavez2.jpg)
Gwee doe,
Same old nonsense from you. Pathetic how you try to make your rigid ideology out to be some kind of Saviour.
The bill was signed into law just a little over four months ago; it's not surprising, therefore, that stimulus projects are just now coming online. Perhaps if Bush had gotten on the stick a few months sooner...
Here's a cool, related, link. Tulsa World is apparently tagging stimulus articles and keeping them on a special page:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/category.aspx?l=stimulus_tracker
A ton of these articles are dated May and June. I'm taking a wild guess here, but it seems like it might take more than 30 seconds to get this money from the federal gov't to states, then to agencies, then to employees, and finally out into the economy.
That said, I'm impressed by things that the articles listed: IDL rehab; new cops; health clinics; child nutrition; converting our school and city buses to CNG; "Brady Village Green Sustainability Project"; pediatric brain injury research, prevention, education; defense; and development in North Tulsa. That's not even all of it. A lot of stuff will be happening here in Tulsa and around the country. And a lot of these ideas seem like sound investments in our future, things that will spark new technologies and new growth.
Cry all you want, Guido; somewhere there's a whole teency violin orchestra getting tuned up for a performance in your honor. I'm not worried that the stimulus will have an economic impact, I'm just worried if it will be enough to correct the Bush recession. I doubt it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2009, 09:41:49 AM
I don't recall Reagan spending like that...
You don't have to "recall", you just need to use your eyes...and brain:(http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif)
Wear this, Gwee.
Boehner is fed up with the "we inherited this" meme and smashes Steny Hoyer.
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2009, 06:33:28 PM
Boehner is fed up with the "we inherited this" meme and smashes Steny Hoyer.
Boner sounds like the man that beats up his wife and then says "Hey grumble, look what you made me do!"
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2009, 06:33:28 PM
Boehner is fed up with the "we inherited this" meme and smashes Steny Hoyer.
Right. This is the same boehner that approved $3.8 trillion in bushspend and now we're supposed to believe he's a conservative? How gullible can you be? And "the dog ate my homework" is a "smackdown"? Maybe in Candyland. Boehner should stick to what he knows about, i.e., tanning booths, Foley's creepiness, and...uhh...that's about it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2009, 09:10:52 AM
We were assured by the President, who I can only assume listened to economists, that if stimulus passed, unemployment would not exceed 8%. Here we are at 9.5% AFTER stimulus. Nearly a TRILLION dollars pi$$ed away for pet projects is what we got. The bottom line is either Obama is an inexperienced dolt or a liar. Or both.
The only upside is the hope that most of those 9.5% are Obama supporters.
"Dolt?" "Liar?" All just a little bit of history repeating.....
You sound EXACTLY like the
liberals sounded in the early 80s..... they were rooting for Reagan to FAIL.
In this same spirit of nutjob liberals in the 80s against the Reaganites; and nutjob conservatives these days against Obama supporters....
"I hope you lose all your money.... I hope you die penniless.... I hope you get a nasty disease and have to declare bankruptcy to pay off the medical bills....."
"Now, go die in a fire." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=die+in+a+fire
The 1982 Recession http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html
When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.
The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier.
By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.
The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)
As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 1980: National unemployment rate: 7.2%
Ronald Reagan sworn into office: January 1981.
Reagan's Economic Tax Recovery Act proposed: February 1981
Reagan assassination attempt: March 30, 1981
Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law: August 1981
Nine months later, May 1982: National unemployment rate: 9.4%
November 1982: National unemployment rate: 10.8%
--double digit unemployment ten straight months from September 1982 to June 1983
November 1984: National unemployment rate: 7.2%
-------------------------------------------------------------------
December 2008: National unemployment rate: 7.2%
Barack Obama sworn into office: January 2009.
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package passed: January 28, 2009
Six months later, July 2009: National unemployment rate: 9.5%
November 2010: National unemployment rate: ?
November 2012: National unemployment rate: ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there were a few good things going on for a certain 18 yr. old soccerpunk back in 1983........
1983 NASL pregame Tulsa Roughnecks vs Team Americahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNGFueAJEfA&feature=PlayList&p=91A12818258ADA76&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39
Soccer Bowl 1983 Tulsa vs. Torontohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubCSWZanEQ
Soccer Bowl 1983 Tulsa vs. Torontohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odRPM5e9Qjc
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2471803080_7b0be43484_o.jpg)
OSS in full apology mode in here. Obama assured us employment would not exceed 8% if stimulus passed, did he? Yes or No. This lie was the driving force behind this thing Trillion dollar, which has failed by any objective standard, passing. Hell, even Biden is saying they got it wrong. But noooo, Chicken Little and other TN Obama spooners are taking the "hey, look over here" or burying the head in the sand positions because their hero can't be wrong.
Boehner is right, where are the jobs that were promised? The response? Hey, what about Reagan. Obama's administration backing off his pledge not to raise taxes on those making $250K? Hey, what about Bush. That's right, it's Bush's fault that the stimulus went through (only three rino repubs in the Senate voted for it); it's Bush's fault that the govt took over GM & Chrysler, it's Bush's fault that the Omnibus bill passed, it's Bush's fault that smokers got a nice tax increase, it's Bush's fault that cap and trade has made it through the house...
I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:
(http://op-for.com/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2009, 08:30:22 PM
OSS in full apology mode in here. Obama assured us employment would not exceed 8% if stimulus passed, did he? Yes or No. This lie was the driving force behind this thing Trillion dollar, which has failed by any objective standard, passing. Hell, even Biden is saying they got it wrong. But noooo, Chicken Little and other TN Obama spooners are taking the "hey, look over here" or burying the head in the sand positions because their hero can't be wrong.
Boehner is right, where are the jobs that were promised? The response? Hey, what about Reagan. Obama's administration backing off his pledge not to raise taxes on those making $250K? Hey, what about Bush. That's right, it's Bush's fault that the stimulus went through (only three rino repubs in the Senate voted for it); it's Bush's fault that the govt took over GM & Chrysler, it's Bush's fault that the Omnibus bill passed, it's Bush's fault that smokers got a nice tax increase, it's Bush's fault that cap and trade has made it through the house...
I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:
Such a rigid little Doofus, Gweedoe doe
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2009, 08:30:22 PM
I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:
(http://op-for.com/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg)
heh, and imagine how lowly it is to not even be worthy to eat and drink at their hand.....
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2009, 06:33:28 PM
Boehner...
From the Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1246955468164200.xml&coll=2):
QuoteBoehner backpedals on stimulus comments
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter
When U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner told a newscaster Sunday that not a single stimulus-funded road contract in his home state of Ohio had been let, he was wrong.
The Ohio Department of Transportation has OK'd 52 stimulus-funded road and bridge projects at a cost of nearly $84 million.
Boehner told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that in "Ohio, the infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago," as part of the economic recovery package, "there hasn't been a contract let, to my knowledge."
Like I said before, Boehner doesn't know what he's talking about...but don't let that stand in the way of your unrequited love for the guy, Guido.
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2009, 08:30:22 PM
OSS in full apology mode in here. Obama assured us employment would not exceed 8% if stimulus passed, did he? Yes or No. This lie was the driving force behind this thing Trillion dollar, which has failed by any objective standard, passing. Hell, even Biden is saying they got it wrong.
I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:
LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.
(http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/02/Republican-Stimulus-Plan_95450.jpg)
Barack Obama is a politician, not a messiah.... keep building that STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, freeper spooning Guido.
(http://badattitudes.com/MT/lookingglass1.jpg)
You are beyond obnoxious.
You should be ashamed of yourself. When you REVEL in other people's misery, it shows how wicked you yourself have become....
Reagan went back on MANY of his promises..... his economic advisers were WRONG on several occasions... and the country paid for it, with the Reagan recession.
Whose presidency was the only one since the depression that had double digit unemployment?
Nixon? No.
Ford? No.
Carter? Nope.
Bush? No, neither one.
It was Ronald Reagan.
The highest unemployment rates were a full two to three years into Reagan's first term.
The American people will give Obama 2-3 years before judging how effective or ineffective his economic policies have been... rabid flat-tax Republicans like Guido clearly have no interest in history, other than their feeble attempts to re-write it.
Quote from: rhymnrzn on July 07, 2009, 12:17:23 PM
heh, and imagine how lowly it is to not even be worthy to eat and drink at their hand.....
Some story about a camel and the eye of a needle comes to mind.....
The result of Reaganomics and their banksters....we need to print more money and get it out there to stimulate jobs. The Repigs will say "NO." So this time, jam it down.
U.S. consumers fall behind on loans at record pace
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE56638720090707
"The biggest driver is job losses," ABA Chief Economist James Chessen said in an interview. "When people lose their jobs or work fewer hours, it makes it that much harder to meet their obligations. Unfortunately, we're going to see higher job losses in the next year, and I expect elevated delinquencies."
Saw Larry Krudlow belly aching about raising the minimum wage just yesterday....he's on CNBC and plays the Bill Olielly part....he's an a$$bite conservative who was willing to bail out the creeps from Wall St. and the banksters. When it comes to saving the middle class, he's absent.
There's alot of lying about hiring going on, as they say they are hiring, and take people through the motions, all to maintain appearances. It is hard to have a good conscience about persuing employment, when we have multiple individuals competing for the same position; I'd rather let the next brother get his needs who has a household to provide for: I can get by on little.
It's either years of plenty or years of famine with this nation, it seems. Here we have the prospect of cutting off people from their employment, to what end who knows. The pillars deserve to be compensated for their help to society: but how long do we not support the weak, and suffer the value of a day's wages for the labour of the field (which everybody partakes of) to be diminished and undermined? It is true that if one does not work, neither should they eat, yet, the hire of man and beast should include ample time for rest and debt forgiveness in common seasons.
But whoredoms and drunkeness, especially of the spiritual sort (which lead to carnal wars), will take away the heart, and choke out the healing of the nation.
Quote from: rhymnrzn on July 09, 2009, 03:50:38 PM
It is hard to have a good conscience about persuing [sic] employment, when we have multiple individuals competing for the same position;
That would be capitalism. Even when unemployment is low and falling, a position with an appropriate salary should have 5-10 qualified applicants seeking to be hired. If you are only applying for positions that no one else wants, you are probably setting the bar a little low.
Not to detract from the overall rambling intent of your post . . .
^oh, so the intent of your post is to put me back in line with respecting your persons, and continue to add to the 50 plus employment [sic] applications I've already hopped and skippped to deliver?
My intent was to point out that nearly always there is more than one person applying for a single job and that in fact such competition is healthy and how the most qualified or best fitting person is hired. If you are only applying for jobs that no one else wants then it denotes the quality of jobs you are seeking or the compensation associated therein. Your sense of altruism is misplaced, don't avoid applying for a job simply because others are seeking it.
I have no idea what you mean by respecting my persons or encouraging you to skip dropping off applications.
And "[sic]" denotes a mistake in a quotation that was in the original. It is not commentary. Merely a way to quote a person without having their mistakes attributed to the quoting author.
Quote from: rhymnrzn on July 09, 2009, 03:50:38 PM
There's alot of lying about hiring going on, as they say they are hiring, and take people through the motions, all to maintain appearances.
I can tell you that's just plain false. Companies do NOT go through the motions on interviewing to in order to "maintain appearances". I have hired enough people over the years that I can tell you that the process that happens with getting a position approved, posted/advertised, vetted, interviewed, reinterviewed, checked, hired, trained, and nurtured into a valuable employee is so time consuming, frustrating, difficult and exhausting, not to mention expensive, that no one does any part of it to go through the motions. It's even worse when you are replacing someone. All that person's work has to be done by someone while you are in the hiring process. And hiring is very time consuming. Firings don't happen easily, and neither do hirings.
When hiring you have to be sensitive to the emotions of everyone you deal with, especially in the bad times when people are desperate. Good or bad for your job, everyone deserves respect. There are so many people that look good on paper that once you talk to them you have no idea how that piece of paper is related to the person you are speaking with, but you can't show that. Then here are a lot of people that look good on paper and then even in person but are in reality just good con men. Figuring it all out and finding the right person to hire is almost an art form.
The hiring process might just be the hardest part of management. That and firing. And about the worst part is dealing with a mistake you've made in the hiring process and then having to go back through it all again.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 09, 2009, 04:33:11 PM
My intent was to point out that nearly always there is more than one person applying for a single job and that in fact such competition is healthy and how the most qualified or best fitting person is hired. If you are only applying for jobs that no one else wants then it denotes the quality of jobs you are seeking or the compensation associated therein. Your sense of altruism is misplaced, don't avoid applying for a job simply because others are seeking it.
Yet it is acceptable, and not offensive, for a brother such as myself, with only myself to provide for, to be humble and base. At that, what job is there that one reasonably wants done (having the loot to pay) that cannot find someone to do it? are we not watching unemployment taking a monsterous course? I see many job fairs, and other posts for hiring that are not sincere. If they are in it for the best employees they can get, yet it cannot always benefit for being exclusive and judgemental: in fact it is a sore drain, with all this processing. It quickly turns into defrauding and over-demanding of good people, even if you like to say their work is "denoted". Either hire or deny on the spot (or shortly) with straight dealing, or quit taking dozens and dozens more apps (which requires the time and effort of those people) for the same "job openning".
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 09, 2009, 04:33:11 PMI have no idea what you mean by respecting my persons or encouraging you to skip dropping off applications.
Respecting the capitalist persons you spake of. Wealth gotten by honest gain is good, but the covetous should not be allowed to damage the dollar, let alone bear rule, period.
Quote from: swake on July 09, 2009, 04:42:24 PM
I can tell you that's just plain false. Companies do NOT go through the motions on interviewing to in order to "maintain appearances". I have hired enough people over the years that I can tell you that the process that happens with getting a position approved, posted/advertised, vetted, interviewed, reinterviewed, checked, hired, trained, and nurtured into a valuable employee is so time consuming, frustrating, difficult and exhausting, not to mention expensive, that no one does any part of it to go through the motions. It's even worse when you are replacing someone. All that person's work has to be done by someone while you are in the hiring process. And hiring is very time consuming. Firings don't happen easily, and neither do hirings.
When hiring you have to be sensitive to the emotions of everyone you deal with, especially in the bad times when people are desperate. Good or bad for your job, everyone deserves respect. There are so many people that look good on paper that once you talk to them you have no idea how that piece of paper is related to the person you are speaking with, but you can't show that. Then here are a lot of people that look good on paper and then even in person but are in reality just good con men. Figuring it all out and finding the right person to hire is almost an art form.
The hiring process might just be the hardest part of management. That and firing. And about the worst part is dealing with a mistake you've made in the hiring process and then having to go back through it all again.
Spoken like someone who's actually
had to manage people.
+1 Swake
I guess if this were Little House on the Prairie, I'd like the concept of hiring "on the spot."
But in the big city, this very same concept of "straight dealing" can morph into ...... "it's not what you know, it's who you know"... aka "cronyism" or "crony capitalism"....
Unfortunately, Job Fairs are notoriously inefficient in bringing qualified applicants to employers. That's why good "headhunters" get paid good $$$. Problem is, the very same people who tell prospective employers they JUST NEED A JOB and will take anything that is available, rarely last very long after they're hired... of course, job applicants in places where the economy really sucks will eventually understand the nuances of the system, try to game the system, which becomes a vicious circle which raises the bar in that particular job market-- an applicant in Chicago will be required to score higher on certain initial interviews than corresponding applicants in Tulsa or Nashville....
Rhymnrzn, sounds like you have a collection of those dreaded "postcards of rejection." The job market in Tulsa is not nearly as bad as it is in other cities, and unemployment isn't nearly as bad as it was in the "Great Depression"....
Job hunting is like fishing...... you find the right bait (your resume)...... you get a few nibbles, you get a bite....... and you reel in the catch by communicating to your employer what makes you tick, and why this job will be personally satisfying to you, which will, in turn, convince them to hire you.
Now, if overqualified people with college degrees and decades of work in high profile industries were stuck applying for call center work rather than be forced to relocate (like former Eastman-Kodak employees in Rochester, NY), then I'd be concerned about the job market.
Until then, although I feel bad for people in this economy..... most of those people aren't Tulsans.
Ran across this today. The unemployment situation is worse than people realize:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
Change they can believe in.
To those favouring management and hierarchy, and other practices of authority over others: All that stuff is not full-proof, as we can see a fair number of breaches of trust and corruption (waxing astronomical, here lately), and other occasions and fallouts as a result of loopholes in many cases, many of whom went through all these rigorous hiring procedures. However, more necessary to life than food, clothes, and jobs, is whether the people keep the words of Christ, wisely building their house upon a rock; or whether they sin against the common good, and do not do unto others as they would have done unto themselves, so building large foundations upon unstable sands.
Quote from: USRufnex on July 14, 2009, 10:33:46 AM
I guess if this were Little House on the Prairie, I'd like the concept of hiring "on the spot."
But in the big city, this very same concept of "straight dealing" can morph into ...... "it's not what you know, it's who you know"... aka "cronyism" or "crony capitalism"....
If it's down to one extreme or the other, get ready: a house divided will not stand through this storm. Who desires for the people and nation to come this far only to flop? rather, every one nourishes and cherishes their own flesh. The selfish ones will abide alone: but if the corn of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it will bear chance of grain, and yield much much more. If one of these fruitful trees were to leave off cheering the hearts of God and men, in order to rise to prominence, what am I? but a thorn-bearing bramble bush among the near un-moveable cedars threatens to command your actions. I know God can bring a man up out of a dunghill to be present on high, and he can take a man down as if he was lopping a bough. Yet if these hardened cedars continue to prop up the bramble and trust in its shadow, surely a fire will come out of it and burn the down all the cedars.
Quote from: USRufnex on July 14, 2009, 10:33:46 AM
Rhymnrzn, sounds like you have a collection of those dreaded "postcards of rejection." The job market in Tulsa is not nearly as bad as it is in other cities, and unemployment isn't nearly as bad as it was in the "Great Depression"....
Job hunting is like fishing...... you find the right bait (your resume)...... you get a few nibbles, you get a bite....... and you reel in the catch by communicating to your employer what makes you tick, and why this job will be personally satisfying to you, which will, in turn, convince them to hire you.
Now, if overqualified people with college degrees and decades of work in high profile industries were stuck applying for call center work rather than be forced to relocate (like former Eastman-Kodak employees in Rochester, NY), then I'd be concerned about the job market.
Until then, although I feel bad for people in this economy..... most of those people aren't Tulsans.
There's alot of well-to-do types all over this nation and the world, proud, full of bread, with idleness of hands, and busybodies who shoot the lip: but there is no strengthening of the needy, which would prolong tranquility for everybody. Here we are, all of us benefactors of the labours of former generations, and benefactors off of the labours of the poor the world over: but some will act like they did all these great things by their own greatness. I am content to be least among you, and much more intentionally I reject bribes or dishonest gains. If for that I be "rejected", yet, why do I find myself in good campany? I don't wish anyone to be in bad relations either, or for them to begin to lodge their trust in just any brother, or guide, for that matter.
Now we watch as these false ministers turn aside to consecrate their gains, take delight in their scant measures (none of them can redeem their brothers), and seek favor while they blow a trumpet to proclaim and publish the free offerings, all recieved by people that cannot discern between the reasonable green time of rest and healing, and the year of visitation and recompense!
Sixteen states' unemployment rate over 10%:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99G8T580&show_article=1
Dude, where's my green shoots? I think some dog just took a huge dump on them.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99G8T580&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Labor Department says unemployment topped 10 percent in 16 states last month. The rate in Michigan surpassed 15 percent, the first time any state hit that mark since 1984.
Home to the nation's struggling auto makers, Michigan has been clobbered by lost factory jobs. Its jobless rate of 15.2 percent in June was the highest in the country, but the record-high for the state was 16.9 percent in November 1982.
Thanks for proving my point.
Jan. 20, 1981
Reagan is sworn in as the 40th president of the United States.
April 28, 1981
Reagan appears before Congress for the first time since the assassination attempt. He receives a hero's welcome and overwhelming support for his economic package, which includes cuts in social programs and taxes, and increases in defense spending.
July 29, 1981
Congress passes Reagan's tax bill. Instead of a 30% tax cut over three years, Reagan accepts 25%.
Oct. 18, 1981
Reagan concedes that the United States is in "a slight recession" but predicts recovery by the spring.
Nov. 10, 1981
Budget Director David Stockman charges that the 5% economic growth rate that the administration had assumed was a "rosy scenario," and pans "supply side" economics as a way to benefit the rich.
Fall 1982
The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On Nov. 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.
June 2009 Unemployment figures...
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-07-17-Picture6.png)
One more thing you won't hear from the Freepers......
Monday, Mar. 08, 1976
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879612-3,00.html
Reagan estimated his earnings last year at $282,253, chiefly from speeches, newspaper columns and radio commentaries. The statement listed $200,000 in bonds, divided equally between California school-building securities and San Jose city notes, and $326,560 in stocks, at market value. Among them were investments in two bank holding companies, $132,000 in Continental Illinois Corp. of Chicago and $111,000 in First Union, Inc. of St. Louis, and $42,432 in Salant Corp., a New York-based clothing manufacturer.
8 years later........... the Reagan Administration rescued a bank deemed "too big to fail"...... guess which one.....?
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Illinois_National_Bank_and_Trust_Company
The Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company was at one time the seventh-largest bank in the United States as measured by deposits. In May 1984, the bank became insolvent due, in part, to bad loans purchased from the failed Penn Square Bank N.A. of Oklahoma—loans for oil producers and service companies and investors in the Oklahoma and Texas oil boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Illinois was renamed Continental Bank. It continued to exist, with 80% of its shares owned by the federal government, until Bank of America acquired it in 1994 to broaden its midwestern presence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2009
Bank of America bail-out agreed
Bank of America will receive $20bn (£13.4bn) in fresh US government aid and $118bn worth of guarantees against bad assets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7832484.stm
And so it goes..........
It is worthwhile to note that the US population, in general, is the most armed society on the planet. FOTD reckons there's going to be a lot of p!!sed off people with weapons who will do anything to survive. Pity the rich bankers and those who stand in their way.
A rising tide of social misery
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/econ-j16.shtml
By David Walsh
16 July 2009
"Contrary to Obama administration and media claims about the recession "easing," millions of working people in America are losing their jobs, earnings and health care benefits at an accelerating pace.
While executives at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other financial giants prepare to pay themselves billions of dollars this year in salaries and bonuses, life has continued to become more and more difficult for a broad layer of the population.
The New York Times pointed out on Wednesday that in California and a number of other states, "one out of every five people who would like to be working full time is not now doing so."
The official jobless rate of 9.5 percent excludes both those who have stopped looking for jobs because local conditions are so bleak and those obliged to accept part-time employment.
If these unemployed and underemployed were included, the real jobless rate in the country's most populous state, California, for example, would be 20.3 percent, according to the Times. In Oregon it would be 23.5 percent, in Michigan and Rhode Island, 21.5 percent, and in South Carolina, 20.5 percent. The figure would be just below 20 percent in Tennessee, Nevada and a number of "states that have relied heavily on manufacturing and housing."
Given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' national jobless rate is skewed, for political reasons, to minimize the actual conditions, various analysts step in and attempt to come up with a "real unemployment" number.
The Center for Labor Market Studies at Boston's Northeastern University places the current jobless rate at 18.2 percent, higher than the official figure on the eve of World War II. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics puts the "Alternative Unemployment" rate at 20.6 percent. Other analysts calculate an "Effective Unemployment" figure of 18.7 percent. Whatever the precise number, the army of unemployed is large and swelling. A great many lives have already been devastated.
David Rosenberg, chief economist at the investment firm Gluskin Sheff in Toronto and former chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch, argues: "The official ranks of the unemployed have doubled during this recession to 14 million and if you take into account all forms of labour market slack, the unofficial number is bordering on 30 million, another record."
The figures on job losses in the current slump are staggering. Since the start of the recession in December 2007 the US economy has lost a total of 6.5 million jobs. In fact, the economy presently has fewer jobs than it did in May 2000. The Economic Policy Institute points out that "the entire growth in jobs over the last nine years has been wiped out," while the labor force has actually expanded by 12.5 million workers.
According to economist Rosenberg, "We have lost a record 9 million full-time jobs this [business] cycle, more than triple what is normal in the context of a post-WWII recession, with over 2 million pushed onto part-time work." He notes that three-quarters of those laid off over the past year were let go on a permanent, not a temporary basis, and that a record 53 percent of those currently out of work were displaced for good.
Rosenberg estimates that more than four million jobs in financial services, residential construction, durable goods manufacturing, wholesale-retail and leisure-hospitality "are not going to come back." The destruction of millions of better-paying, full-time jobs has enormous implications for the living standards of working families.
Job openings in the US have dropped by 42 percent since the end of 2007, so that in June 2009 there were some six unemployed looking for every job. As a result, the percentage of the jobless out of work for more than six months increased by nearly 70 percent from June 2008 to June 2009 (17.1 to 29 percent).
Since employers, who can afford to pick and choose, are generally taking experience over youth, and workers over 55 are holding on to their jobs for dear life, the official unemployment rate for young people has jumped to 15.2 percent for 20-24 year olds (a 49 percent increase in 12 months!) and 24 percent for 16-19 year olds. For African-Americans 16 to 19, the jobless rate is currently 38 percent.
As serious as they are, the jobless figures are only part of the story. Public and private employers across the country are taking advantage of the recession to cut wages, hours (through "unpaid leave," "furloughs" and other means) and benefits, impoverishing many of those still employed.
The average work week fell to 33 hours in June, the lowest since data was collected in 1964, and 48 minutes shorter than when the recession began. The combined decline in jobs and hours in June was the equivalent of a loss of some 800,000 jobs.
Business Week notes that "Cuts in pay and hours are rippling throughout the economy in businesses large and small and industries from mining to retail." A survey commissioned by the Economist in June found 5 percent of respondents had already taken a furlough in 2009 and 13 percent had taken a pay cut.
Mortimer Zuckerman in the July 14 Wall Street Journal commented: "Full-time workers are being downgraded to part time as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water, and factories are operating at only 65% of capacity." Average weekly earnings fell to $611.49 in June, from $613.34 in May.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday that real average weekly earnings fell by 1.2 percent from May to June after seasonal adjustment. The drop resulted from a 0.3 percent decrease in average weekly hours and a 0.9 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index, driven by a sharp jump in gasoline prices.
Also on Wednesday, reports showed that industrial production declined in the US, for the eighth straight month. The industrial sector operated at 68 percent of its capacity in June, down from 68.2 percent in May, a new low in the 42 years since the data have been collected.
Meanwhile, eleven of the 17 Federal Reserve governors and regional bank presidents are predicting that unemployment will be 10 percent or higher in the final three months of 2009, and they expect the downturn, according to the Washington Post, "to be long-lasting."
American workers are not only losing jobs and homes, they are also losing health care "at an alarming rate," says a new report from Families USA. While the latest data from the Census Bureau indicated that 45.7 million Americans lacked health coverage in 2007, "economists believe the situation has only worsened in the intervening months as the economic downturn has taken its toll." Experts predict an additional 6.9 million people in the US—a 15 percent increase—will lose their health coverage by the end of 2010.
Behind this health care disaster are the combined effects of rising costs, businesses slashing or eliminating coverage, and unemployment.
Noting that the rapid increase in joblessness means that the various states will probably "experience even greater losses ... than can be captured by our Key Findings," Families USA estimates that between January 2008 and December 2010, 995,200 people in California, for example, will lose health coverage—or 6,380 per week. In Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured, some 866,000 residents will lose coverage by the end of next year.
In Florida, more than 3,500 people a week are losing coverage; in New York, nearly 2,500 people; in both Illinois and Georgia some 1,600 people; in New Jersey, 1,200, and in Michigan, a little more than 1,000 people each week.
In the US as a whole, the group estimates that 44,000 people are losing their health care every week.
On July 7 the American Bankers Association reported delinquencies on consumer debt rose to record levels, as customers had difficulty paying for everything from credit cards to automobiles. The percentage of borrowers at least 30 days late paying a balance is the highest since the association began keeping records in 1974.
ABA Chief Economist James Chessen stated bluntly, "The number one driver of delinquencies is job loss. When people lose their jobs, they can't pay their bills. Delinquencies won't improve until companies start hiring again."
Public outrage at the present situation is growing. It is not uncommon to hear the rich, the "filthy" bankers, being denounced in work places and neighborhoods. Many workers—abandoned by the unions to their fate, lied to and cheated by the Democrats—have been stunned by the rapidity of the crisis. The Economist, a little nervously, refers to "The quiet Americans," who are "proving stoical in the face of pay cuts and compulsory unpaid leave." Later the magazine adds, "for the moment."
Whatever the initial problems and hesitations of the population, the raging economic crisis will destabilize American political and social life, and radicalize vast numbers of people. It is inevitably creating the conditions for a showdown between working people, the vast majority, and the corporate aristocracy. Building an independent political movement of the working class based on a socialist and internationalist program to offer a progressive way out of the crisis is the most pressing task. "
FOTD and soccerboy have gone from spooning to shrimping Obama. He ASSURED us that if we passed stimulus, er stabilization, that unemployment would not get passed 8%. We are at 9.5% with stabilization and nearly $1T in spending. Obama LIED us into debt that those yet born will have to pay and you want to talk about Reagan. Help me, did Reagan and the democrat controlled congress he was dealing with spend $1T to get us out of the malaise from the late 1970s?
Quote from: guido911 on July 18, 2009, 10:41:00 AM
FOTD and soccerboy have gone from spooning to shrimping Obama. He ASSURED us that if we passed stimulus, er stabilization, that unemployment would not get passed 8%. We are at 9.5% with stabilization and nearly $1T in spending. Obama LIED us into debt that those yet born will have to pay and you want to talk about Reagan. Help me, did Reagan and the democrat controlled congress he was dealing with spend $1T to get us out of the malaise from the late 1970s?
Right! Far Right!
Guido the whackobama man.
Aw...that malaise of the 70's. If we could only get it back! Good times for me and mine. Good jobs, clean, prosperous city and cool Corvette. Sorry you missed out on all that. :)
All motion is relevant.
The economy is a 50 trillion dollar economy today.
But the unemployed is disproportionate to the increase in value.
Trickle down voodoo.
Quote from: USRufnex on July 17, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
One more thing you won't hear from the Freepers......
Monday, Mar. 08, 1976
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879612-3,00.html
Reagan estimated his earnings last year at $282,253, chiefly from speeches, newspaper columns and radio commentaries. The statement listed $200,000 in bonds, divided equally between California school-building securities and San Jose city notes, and $326,560 in stocks, at market value. Among them were investments in two bank holding companies, $132,000 in Continental Illinois Corp. of Chicago and $111,000 in First Union, Inc. of St. Louis, and $42,432 in Salant Corp., a New York-based clothing manufacturer.
8 years later........... the Reagan Administration rescued a bank deemed "too big to fail"...... guess which one.....?
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Illinois_National_Bank_and_Trust_Company
The Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company was at one time the seventh-largest bank in the United States as measured by deposits. In May 1984, the bank became insolvent due, in part, to bad loans purchased from the failed Penn Square Bank N.A. of Oklahoma—loans for oil producers and service companies and investors in the Oklahoma and Texas oil boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Illinois was renamed Continental Bank. It continued to exist, with 80% of its shares owned by the federal government, until Bank of America acquired it in 1994 to broaden its midwestern presence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2009
Bank of America bail-out agreed
Bank of America will receive $20bn (£13.4bn) in fresh US government aid and $118bn worth of guarantees against bad assets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7832484.stm
And so it goes..........
Continental, as with many other banks and S&L's, were bailed out in the or parcelled out in the 1980's to other institutions by the FDIC and FSLIC. If your implication is that Reagan saved his own investment, shareholders in Continental were substantially wiped out in the FDIC rescue. Obviously buying the assets of failed banks proved too risky in this instance. I'm still not sure why the gov't hasn't figured out that major bank consolidations are a bad thing. If a local or smaller regional bank goes under it's not such a disaster. But if a bank which consists of a bunch of former local and small regional systems fails, that's a major cataclysm.
French TV: Goldman Sachs are scum
NPR did a report today saying that in 2008, a year ago, only %40 approved of America. In one year, last month, America was being accepted by %80 of France.
Anyway, unemployment will go much higher due to the banksters.
With the ouster of Bush pretty much all the countries have returned to 2000 levels of "favorability" on the USA. Britain remains down a little bit, Kenya and Indonesia are way up. But pretty much the status quo.
Which is true for the Middle East also. Ratings have not improved. To my surprise, Turkey and Pakistan hate the United States as much as Palestinians do. Which is odd. Also, why does Argentina dislike the USA so much?