The haters and bigots are at it again:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama earned his lowest marks ever on his handling of the economy in a new Associated Press-GfK poll, which also found that an overwhelming majority of Americans now describe the nation's financial outlook as poor.
A frustrated electorate could take it out on the party in power — Obama's Democrats — in the November elections.
Eleven weeks before the Nov. 2 balloting, just 41 percent of those surveyed approve of the president's performance on the economy, down from 44 percent in April, while 56 percent disapprove. And 61 percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same on Obama's watch.
Still, three-quarters also say it's unrealistic to expect noticeable economic improvements in the first 18 months of the president's term. And Obama's overall approval rating was unaffected; it remained at 49 percent, in part because most Americans still like him personally.
Americans' dim view of the economy grew even more pessimistic this summer as the nation's unemployment rate stubbornly hovered near 10 percent. That's been a drag on both Obama and Democrats, who control Congress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_obama_economy
What's fair is fair. I like that most Americans think 18 months isn't enough time to expect improvements. I'd like to see how it looks with the same time frame the tide started to turn for President Reagan. That's still painful waiting though for someone not working and with no hopes of finding a job.
You're $hittin me! Down?
QuotePresident Barack Obama said Tuesday that he has "never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction."
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/obama-confident-us-headed-in-%27right-direction%27-dpgonc-km-20100817_9224354
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 12:21:31 PM
I'd like to see how it looks with the same time frame the tide started to turn for President Reagan.
You obviously fail to recognize the depth of the financial shock compared to the 80s.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 12:50:37 PM
You obviously fail to recognize the depth of the financial shock compared to the 80s.
Not hardly. I think two years would be fair. How long do you think is fair? There has to be a point you admit failure and try something else
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Not hardly. I think two years would be fair. How long do you think is fair? There has to be a point you admit failure and try something else
I think you have to recognize failure first. That's the big divide.
This administration has successfully:
- Grown government in size and income for government employees
- Passed 20 years worth of special programs unable to pass under previous administrations
- Created hundreds of new bureaucracies and funding initiatives to be paid for by our children
- Taken control of 1/6th of the US economy with healthcare legislation
- Attacked the evil rich with threats and actions designed to limit wealth creation "Hey, at some point you've earned enough."
- Punished evil corporations
- Nationalized a large percentage of the domestic auto industry
Many of the above points are viewed as failure by conservatives but victory by progressives & liberals.
The only failures we can both agree on is:
- Increased unemployment
- GITMO Still open
- Weak foreign policy
- Poor disaster response
- Low-priority economic response
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Not hardly. I think two years would be fair. How long do you think is fair? There has to be a point you admit failure and try something else
Reagan began office in 1981 with a jobless rate of 7.5 percent. It hit 10.8 percent in late 1982. The jobless rate didn't get back to his pre-office levels until June 1984. It took 3 1/2 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Not hardly. I think two years would be fair. How long do you think is fair? There has to be a point you admit failure and try something else.
Businesses aren't doing that poorly.
Honda
Record Quarter Profit
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/honda-posts-record-profit-raises-forecast-2010-07-30 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/honda-posts-record-profit-raises-forecast-2010-07-30)
John "We are going to lose millions and zillions because of the health care reform" Deere
Record Quarter Profit
http://wcfcourier.com/business/local/article_ff09324e-aac2-11df-822b-001cc4c03286.html (http://wcfcourier.com/business/local/article_ff09324e-aac2-11df-822b-001cc4c03286.html)
Intel 2Q
Record Profit
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2010/8/18/intel-bullish-on-3q-sales-sandy-bridge-in-4q-2010.aspx (http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2010/8/18/intel-bullish-on-3q-sales-sandy-bridge-in-4q-2010.aspx)
Just companies aren't hiring.
I would like to see a chart of the DOW and the amount of profit they made in the first 3 quarters of 2010 vs the first 3 quarters of 2009... Or maybe just Q1 2008 vs Q1 2009 vs Q1 2010 to see what is really happening.
Obama can't make the Fed do their job. Until they do, we're going to be stuck in a rut. This will be the new normal. We are Japan at the moment. The Bank of Japan's legendary unwillingness to do anything about their problems has kept them in the same underemployment rut for over a decade now.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 01:44:52 PM
I think you have to recognize failure first. That's the big divide.
This administration has successfully:
- Grown government in size and income for government employees
- Passed 20 years worth of special programs unable to pass under previous administrations
- Created hundreds of new bureaucracies and funding initiatives to be paid for by our children
- Taken control of 1/6th of the US economy with healthcare legislation
- Attacked the evil rich with threats and actions designed to limit wealth creation "Hey, at some point you've earned enough."
- Punished evil corporations
- Nationalized a large percentage of the domestic auto industry
Many of the above points are viewed as failure by conservatives but victory by progressives & liberals.
The only failures we can both agree on is:
- Increased unemployment
- GITMO Still open
- Weak foreign policy
- Poor disaster response
- Low-priority economic response
Obama is making friends, influencing people out in L.A.
QuoteNo matter their politics, Los Angeles residents found themselves united. "It was a beautiful thing," said Brentwood resident Myles Berkowitz, commiserating with his neighbors on Montana Avenue. "Young, old, black, white — everyone was pissed off."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0818-obama-traffic-20100818,0,7604411.story
O/T:
To Trog's point:
QuoteThe Dow ended the second quarter down 1,082.61 points, or 10%, at 9774.02, its first quarterly drop since the first three months of 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704334604575339242598727752.html
On the upside, though, I think things are getting better, if recent events are an indication, with the market. Jobs...not so much.
Things are getting better. People of every political persuasion are beginning to realize that things need to change.
I think November will mark "The Season of Change"
Not change we can believe in, but change we rely on.
We will exchange hope for opportunity.
YES WE CAN!
I feel faint.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 02:43:43 PM
To Trog's point:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704334604575339242598727752.html
On the upside, though, I think things are getting better, if recent events are an indication, with the market. Jobs...not so much.
The problem is that the DJIA is hardly based on "reality" and has tons of external issues to stock prices. $ Profit vs Loss are "hard numbers" which may or may not be reflected in the stock price depending on who is buying, who is selling, short sales, etc etc. I want to know the "profit" of the companies the 2nd quarter, not their stock price.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 03:16:40 PM
The problem is that the DJIA is hardly based on "reality" and has tons of external issues to stock prices. $ Profit vs Loss are "hard numbers" which may or may not be reflected in the stock price depending on who is buying, who is selling, short sales, etc etc. I want to know the "profit" of the companies the 2nd quarter, not their stock price.
Well I looked at my portfolio over 2Q and got smacked in the face with some real "reality".
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 03:27:25 PM
Well I looked at my portfolio over 2Q and got smacked in the face with some real "reality".
Yeah, well from the time Bush took office to when he left the DJIA was -24%. Obama is still up about 20-25% I believe. You should have bought a lot of Ford stock.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 03:37:08 PM
Yeah, well from the time Bush took office to when he left the DJIA was -24%. Obama is still up about 20-25% I believe. You should have bought a lot of Ford stock.
I've sent Obama a huge "thank you" card because it was obviously he and he alone that has turned around the market. Seriously, I do think the market condition has improved, but I cannot see how companies are going to be hiring any time soon.
And then there's this bit of fan-freakin-tastic good news:
QuoteU.S. bankruptcy filings have reached the highest level since 2005, government data released on Tuesday show, as the economy slows and the unemployment rate hovers just below double digits.
There were 422,061 bankruptcy filings between April and June, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, up 9 percent from 388,148 in the prior three-month period, and up 11 percent from 381,073 a year earlier.
For the year ended June 30, there were 1.57 million bankruptcies, up 20 percent from 1.31 million a year earlier.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38744090
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 04:02:01 PM
And then there's this bit of fan-freakin-tastic good news:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38744090
There's the captain obvious situation. Of course that was going to happen. Remember? The economy tanked.
People over-extended themselves.
These folks disapprove of the way the economy is going.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 03:57:26 PM
I've sent Obama a huge "thank you" card because it was obviously he and he alone that has turned around the market. Seriously, I do think the market condition has improved, but I cannot see how companies are going to be hiring any time soon.
Correct, unlike what republicans have spouted year after year. Companies are making record profits, so do they a) keep doing what they are doing or b) figure that they better hire more people because they have more money.
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 04:06:37 PM
There's the captain obvious situation. Of course that was going to happen. Remember? The economy tanked.
People over-extended themselves.
These folks disapprove of the way the economy is going.
Why is it Captain Obvious? We have had TARP, auto bailouts, nearly $1T in stimulus, 2009 Omnibus, and on and on. We were told those would fix everything.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 04:12:59 PM
Why is it Captain Obvious? We have had TARP, auto bailouts, nearly $1T in stimulus, 2009 Omnibus, and on and on. We were told those would fix everything.
By whom? Who told us that? Who said anything would fix everything?
And how long did it take for us to get in this mess? It sure won't take two years to get us out of it.
That's like saying putting a band-aid on someone's chest will cure their heart disease...sheesh.
Quote from: Hoss on August 18, 2010, 04:15:50 PM
And how long did it take for us to get in this mess? It sure won't take two years to get us out of it.
That's like saying putting a band-aid on someone's chest will cure their heart disease...sheesh.
If fox news says it its true. Did you hear this on fox news? Because I am going to go buy some band aids!
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 04:16:48 PM
If fox news says it its true. Did you hear this on fox news? Because I am going to go buy some band aids!
I have water proof ones. They also enable underwater breathing. Thanks FOX, you're swell.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 03:37:08 PM
Yeah, well from the time Bush took office to when he left the DJIA was -24%. Obama is still up about 20-25% I believe. You should have bought a lot of Ford stock.
Only a problem if someone was stupid enough to not sell at the high over 14,000.
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
I have water proof ones. They also enable underwater breathing. Thanks FOX, you're swell.
I found me some of these:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31cJ9co04BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Now they just need to make them waterproof..
Quote from: Trogdor on August 18, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Correct, unlike what republicans have spouted year after year. Companies are making record profits, so do they a) keep doing what they are doing or b) figure that they better hire more people because they have more money.
That defies economic logic: "Let's spend money on new employees because we have a bunch of cash and not enough people standing around."
Or are you implying they better hire more people or the government will tax them harder if they don't? Companies are making "record profits" because they are operating at leaner sustainable levels at lower sales figures.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
Or are you implying they better hire more people or the government will tax them harder if they don't? Companies are making "record profits" because they are operating at leaner sustainable levels at lower sales figures.
And you wonder why we have higher structural unemployment now. Short of forcing companies to hire, what do you expect Obama to do about unemployment? The fed has tools that could get things moving, but they're unwilling to use them, apparently.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
That defies economic logic: "Let's spend money on new employees because we have a bunch of cash and not enough people standing around."
That's spot on. It is mind blowing to me when I read that companies are obligated to hand out jobs to people.
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 04:14:24 PM
By whom? Who told us that? Who said anything would fix everything?
As for the stimulus, did you forget that unemployment would not go over 8% if it were passed? Guess so.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
As for the stimulus, did you forget that unemployment would not go over 8% if it were passed? Guess so.
How about you document his saying that?
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 05:51:15 PM
That's spot on. It is mind blowing to me when I read that companies are obligated to hand out jobs to people.
They're only obligated to do so if they would like to have customers. People without money can't buy things. It blows my mind that you don't understand that.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 06:03:14 PM
They're only obligated to do so if they would like to have customers. People without money can't buy things. It blows my mind that you don't understand that.
Companies that "hand out" jobs do not make money. That philosophy is reserved for government.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 07:40:33 PM
Companies that "hand out" jobs do not make money. That philosophy is reserved for government.
Way to miss the point.
Do you agree that people without money can't buy things?
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 06:03:14 PM
They're only obligated to do so if they would like to have customers. People without money can't buy things. It blows my mind that you don't understand that.
That is perhaps the most inane post you have made in this forum. Companies need to hire people they may not need in order to have customers for its products? Are you freakin serious? He!!, why don't companies just start handing out its profits to the public in general and just screw the hassle of dealing with employees?
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 08:28:01 PM
That is perhaps the most inane post you have made in this forum. Companies need to hire people they may not need in order to have customers for its products? Are you freakin serious? He!!, why don't companies just start handing out its profits to the public in general and just screw the hassle of dealing with employees?
It really helps when you don't read things through ideological blinders.
It's pretty simple, really. If nobody is employed, nobody can buy anything, so business doesn't get done. I didn't say anything about hiring people they don't need, only if they keep laying people off, they'll soon have no customers. It's a vicious cycle. Layoffs lead to lower demand, lower demand leads to more layoffs, which leads to less demand. It's called deflation. We're seeing it take hold right before our eyes.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 08:56:22 PM
It really helps when you don't read things through ideological blinders.
It's pretty simple, really. If nobody is employed, nobody can buy anything, so business doesn't get done. I didn't say anything about hiring people they don't need, only if they keep laying people off, they'll soon have no customers. It's a vicious cycle. Layoffs lead to lower demand, lower demand leads to more layoffs, which leads to less demand. It's called deflation. We're seeing it take hold right before our eyes.
Thanks for that piece of prophetic wisdom:
(http://www.treygarrison.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/captain_obvious.jpg)
The context of my original post was to adopt Conan's contention, now you back-pedal.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 09:03:03 PM
Thanks for that piece of prophetic wisdom:
The context of my original post was to adopt Conan's contention, now you back-pedal.
I'm not backpedaling at all. Businesses have an obligation to themselves to employ people.
Your gotcha style is getting tiresome.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 09:22:09 PM
Your gotcha style is getting tiresome.
And so is your "jack of all trades, master of none" style.
I think the forum can do without the pissing contest which was here
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 09:30:34 PM
I'll take it over your hateful xenophobic schtick any day of the week.
And I'll tell you one more damn time, I have done more to advance the rights of minorities than you any day. I am tired of slapping you around Nate.
I think the forum can do without the pissing contest which was here
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
That defies economic logic: "Let's spend money on new employees because we have a bunch of cash and not enough people standing around."
I am pointing out the only point of Republican tax policy. If the companies make more money, they hire more people. Which as you said, is complete and total BS.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 08:56:22 PM
It's pretty simple, really. If nobody is employed, nobody can buy anything, so business doesn't get done. I didn't say anything about hiring people they don't need, only if they keep laying people off, they'll soon have no customers. It's a vicious cycle. Layoffs lead to lower demand, lower demand leads to more layoffs, which leads to less demand. It's called deflation. We're seeing it take hold right before our eyes.
Why this is news to them I don't know...
So no one argues that 1) businesses are flush and 2) they aren't hiring. Right now we're looking at a relatively short envelope of time in between these rising profits and the nonhiring. In other words, corporate America's profits haven't been this high for that long, and the lack of hiring may be a pause rather than a permanent state of affairs.
But what if it is? Conan suggests it might be, and I don't think it's implausible, either. Where do the jobs come from? How do we employ more people if business decides it doesn't need to? It may or may not be business's responsibility to provide employment, but that's where we've decided "quality" employment has to come from, so if not them then who?
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 06:52:34 AM
So no one argues that 1) businesses are flush and 2) they aren't hiring. Right now we're looking at a relatively short envelope of time in between these rising profits and the nonhiring. In other words, corporate America's profits haven't been this high for that long, and the lack of hiring may be a pause rather than a permanent state of affairs.
But what if it is? Conan suggests it might be, and I don't think it's implausible, either. Where do the jobs come from? How do we employ more people if business decides it doesn't need to? It may or may not be business's responsibility to provide employment, but that's where we've decided "quality" employment has to come from, so if not them then who?
One problem Americans face is an ever increasing aspiration for a higher standard of living at static or very slowly inflated pricing on lifestyle items and an ever-increasing list of jobs Americans don't want to do anymore. We, as consumers and workers helped create this mess: "we want cheap durable goods, and oh yeah, we don't want to have to manufacture them either."
With increased profits, but lower hiring rates, let's hope this translates into re-investing in new equipment and facilities. That, in-turn would lead to more hiring in related industries.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
Way to miss the point.
Do you agree that people without money can't buy things?
Oh lookie! It's "economic modality guy"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 09:19:52 AM
One problem Americans face is an ever increasing aspiration for a higher standard of living at static or very slowly inflated pricing on lifestyle items and an ever-increasing list of jobs Americans don't want to do anymore. We, as consumers and workers helped create this mess: "we want cheap durable goods, and oh yeah, we don't want to have to manufacture them either."
With increased profits, but lower hiring rates, let's hope this translates into re-investing in new equipment and facilities. That, in-turn would lead to more hiring in related industries.
I do not buy this (don't want to do it). There are a ton of people looking for manufacturing jobs. They are moving manufacturing to lower labor countries thats the problem. Yes, American's don't want to work in a factory for the wages of Mexico. (which is capitalisms goal, drive wages down, get profits up)
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 06:52:34 AM
But what if it is? Conan suggests it might be, and I don't think it's implausible, either. Where do the jobs come from? How do we employ more people if business decides it doesn't need to? It may or may not be business's responsibility to provide employment, but that's where we've decided "quality" employment has to come from, so if not them then who?
This curiosity is what should really scare people in the manufacturing sector.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 19, 2010, 10:54:53 AM
I do not buy this (don't want to do it). There are a ton of people looking for manufacturing jobs. They are moving manufacturing to lower labor countries thats the problem. Yes, American's don't want to work in a factory for the wages of Mexico. (which is capitalisms goal, drive wages down, get profits up)
You think the reason why businesses ship their manufacturing out of the country is just because of wages? You don't think regulation, cost of raw materials, unions, market expansion, etc. have anything to do with it?
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
You think the reason why businesses ship their manufacturing out of the country is just because of wages? You don't think regulation, cost of raw materials, unions, market expansion, etc. have anything to do with it?
In some instances, so no. Not ALL businesses move because of wages and not all do it because of regulation, unions, market expansion. But I bet unions are a big part.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 19, 2010, 01:35:38 PM
In some instances, so no. Not ALL businesses move because of wages and not all do it because of regulation, unions, market expansion. But I bet unions are a big part.
Unions = wage protection. I know on this board they get tarred as being the antichrist, but they serve a function in advanced capitalism, which is to push back against unfettered lowering of wages. It's a necessary pressure, IMO, because otherwise fungible workers (the easily replaced, low-skilled ones) have no leverage over the system, which they should have. They shouldn't control the system or hold it hostage, but unions ensure that they have a seat at the negotiating table.
A sure sign of the success of unions is that many of the older and more established ones have found ways to launch their members into the middle class, not just through wage negotiation but through pensions, pooled health care, college loans, housing credits, etc. for members. This is a crucial thing for the growth of our society, and in the 50's-60's (a time when the US did most of its strong middle class growth) unions were also expanding and maturing.
Also: that's a lot of nanny-statin' transferred away from the state and onto a semi-private organization. Why you anti-government folks don't support things like unions is beyond me . . . unless you're hostile to the entire idea of social support networks in general.
Sorry Trog, didn't mean to derail your comment.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 02:42:11 PM
A sure sign of the success of unions is that many of the older and more established ones have found ways to launch their members into the middle class, not just through wage negotiation but through pensions, pooled health care, college loans, housing credits, etc. for members. This is a crucial thing for the growth of our society, and in the 50's-60's (a time when the US did most of its strong middle class growth) unions were also expanding and maturing.
The costs of which pretty much cratered the "old" GM and Chrysler. The unions nearly brought down the U.S. auto industry and now they are a major shareholder in it...that's nuts.
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 01:26:20 PM
This curiosity is what should really scare people in the manufacturing sector.
It should scare us all. It means we either some how force-create the jobs or we announce that we're satisfied with permanent 10% unemployment and buffer up our welfare networks. I'm pretty sure we will be very unhappy with the long term effects of a permanently underemployed workforce.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 03:00:11 PM
It should scare us all. It means we either some how force-create the jobs or we announce that we're satisfied with permanent 10% unemployment and buffer up our welfare networks. I'm pretty sure we will be very unhappy with the long term effects of a permanently underemployed workforce.
And if that is the solution, then the government needs to tie unemployment or welfare benefits to some sort of job performance the government can use. We've talked about that before and seems like a solution everyone is okay with.
God only knows how many jobs were being kept afloat by borrowing and for how long that went on. For certain, we know not as much credit is being used for expenditures these days.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 03:00:11 PM
It should scare us all. It means we either some how force-create the jobs or we announce that we're satisfied with permanent 10% unemployment and buffer up our welfare networks. I'm pretty sure we will be very unhappy with the long term effects of a permanently underemployed workforce.
I am sincerely curious, how do you "force-create" jobs?
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
You think the reason why businesses ship their manufacturing out of the country is just because of wages? You don't think regulation, cost of raw materials, unions, market expansion, etc. have anything to do with it?
The cost of raw materials is the same anywhere. It's a global market.
There is a difference in regulation, but that regulation is what differentiates us from China. I guess if you'd rather we let manufacturers pollute indiscriminately, that's one way to do it.
The main difference is wages, though. Would you rather pay someone 50 cents an hour or 20 dollars an hour? Even when you have to throw away half of the widgets the factory made due to poor quality control, you still come out ahead. Pollution control technology, while expensive in absolute terms, doesn't add much per unit cost for most manufacturers. If the main issue wasn't labor, you wouldn't see the constant trickle down of factories from one developing country to the next. As soon as the labor supply becomes at all constrained and wages are forced up, they pack up and move elsewhere. Exploitation of labor is the dark underbelly of free trade.
As energy becomes more expensive, the cost of shipping will go through the roof and more manufacturing will be done close to demand, rather than halfway around the world.
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 03:12:16 PM
I am sincerely curious, how do you "force-create" jobs?
Well, if the private sector won't voluntarily create them, then the government has to. When I said "force" I meant "artificially."
I know you're on a constant lookout for us dangerous socialists and all the iffy measures we might take to "force" private industry to do something it might prefer not to do. Please be assured I don't think we can force businesses to hire. It only means government has to do what business can't or won't.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 04:52:49 PM
Well, if the private sector won't voluntarily create them, then the government has to. When I said "force" I meant "artificially."
I know you're on a constant lookout for us dangerous socialists and all the iffy measures we might take to "force" private industry to do something it might prefer not to do. Please be assured I don't think we can force businesses to hire. It only means government has to do what business can't or won't.
That's rather what I was hinting at. Instead of paying for people to search for jobs (U/E benefits) or procreate (welfare), the government could pay people for temporary jobs and pay for productivity instead of being idle. They could help shore up manpower shortages caused by state and local budget constraints in such a scenario.
Quote from: nathanm on August 19, 2010, 03:12:55 PM
The cost of raw materials is the same anywhere. It's a global market.
Absolutely untrue. Raw materials mined or produced 1/2 a world away will cost more than those produced and supplied locally. You must be confusing commodities with raw materials. Even commodities will have fluctuations in cost from country to country regardless what they are trading for on the Merc.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 05:20:53 PM
Absolutely untrue. Raw materials mined or produced 1/2 a world away will cost more than those produced and supplied locally. You must be confusing commodities with raw materials. Even commodities will have fluctuations in cost from country to country regardless what they are trading for on the Merc.
Sure, there are transportation costs involved, but the price of the materials themselves is essentially the same, for the same quality. It's a global market out there, and as has been proven by the offshoring of manufacturing all the way across the Pacific, any extra cost involved in transporting things around is only a small part of the cost of the finished good, or at least is when compared to the cost of US labor on a labor-hour basis. (That's not an entirely fair comparison, as I mentioned earlier, as factories here tend to be more automated, so use less labor to do the same work)
You really think commodities traders won't take arbitrage profits when prices are vastly different between countries? If the price difference isn't meaningful enough for them to make the trade and take the profit, it's not significant enough to make a big difference to the manufacturers, either.
Until transportation costs increase significantly, that's just the way it's going to be.
Stick to topics you actually know something about, Nate. When I buy heat exchanger tubes, the prices vary between the mill in Sand Springs and the one down the block. They pay differing prices for the steel coils they make tubes with depending on which mill they get it from. When I buy plate steel it varies from vendor to vendor. When I buy rolled shells it varies.
The real world operates independently of text books.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 02:42:11 PM
Unions = wage protection. ... They shouldn't control the system or hold it hostage ...
My grandfather said the only thing the union (machinists) ever guaranteed him was a strike.
Shouldn't is the key word.
Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2010, 03:00:11 PM
It means we either some how force-create the jobs...
No problem, just pass a federal law requiring all employers with 10 or more employees to increase their number of employees by 10%.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 19, 2010, 09:26:24 PM
My grandfather said the only thing the union (machinists) ever guaranteed him was a strike.
Shouldn't is the key word.
My dad was a machinist as well. He got guaranteed a strike also (Byron Jackson in the late 70s). He moved from there to Sun Oil (step up, in my opinion). I remember him going through that strike and how much he hated it. Unions CAN be for the workers, but nine times out of ten I think they're out for themselves and their coffers. Never worked at a place with a union. My dad did at Byron Jackson and said he'd never work somewhere that required it again. Sun Oil was non-union.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 08:13:28 PM
Stick to topics you actually know something about, Nate. When I buy heat exchanger tubes, the prices vary between the mill in Sand Springs and the one down the block. They pay differing prices for the steel coils they make tubes with depending on which mill they get it from. When I buy plate steel it varies from vendor to vendor. When I buy rolled shells it varies.
The real world operates independently of text books.
In the real world though those are not "raw materials" as they have been processed. But to your business it is a raw material. Obviously there isn't much price fixing at a low price point so people will bid at varying prices. Generally I believe most raw raw materials are traded on an exchange which sets the price?
What Trogdor said. A specific counterexample I can think of is granite. It's much cheaper for me to source granite from Brazil than it is here in the US (so long as oil stays below about $200 a barrel), despite the much greater shipping cost and the presence of another middle man. Why? Labor is cheap in Brazil, and not so much here.
So it goes with many items.
I've never been a steel buyer, but I've been told (by people who work for domestic steel producers) that it's usually cheaper to get steel rolls from China rather than one of our domestic producers, depending on the cost of shipping, which is still very low today. The cost disparity was much smaller a few years ago before the financial meltdown when there weren't thousands of boats parked and waiting for work.
Obviously, different suppliers will take different markups or buy their input materials at different times, thus leading to different prices if they have a set markup like a lot of them do.
Why don't you just admit you were wrong with your original statement instead of a three paragraph back-track:
"The cost of raw materials is the same anywhere. It's a global market."
And in the real world, anytime a material comes in the door to have value added to it, whether it's ore to be processed or copper tubing to be installed as plumbing pipe or used as a tube in a heat exchanger, it's a raw material.
Thanks for playing, guys.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 20, 2010, 09:08:32 AM
Why don't you just admit you were wrong with your original statement instead of a three paragraph back-track:
"The cost of raw materials is the same anywhere. It's a global market."
And in the real world, anytime a material comes in the door to have value added to it, whether it's ore to be processed or copper tubing to be installed as plumbing pipe or used as a tube in a heat exchanger, it's a raw material.
Thanks for playing, guys.
Why don't you admit that we're both using different definitions of raw materials (look it up, it has multiple definitions) rather than trying to win the internets? You're right. Apparently some "raw materials" (I'd use a different term to describe the things you're buying when looking at it from a wider perspective, for clarity's sake, but whatever) are irrationally priced. Presumably, the further you go along the line from "just came out of the ground" to "input for further processing" the more irrational the pricing becomes.
Still don't know why your suppliers are paying such widely differing prices for rolls of steel, though.