Orwell called it Newspeak. We see it employed whenever politicians propose unpopular ideas that require a new definition to pass. The most recent one I am beginning to hear from Pelosi et. al. is "We can't afford spending money on tax cuts."
First of all a tax is where the government takes your money and spends it "on your behalf." This removes that money from natural flow of the free market based on organic demand, and puts it in a position where it has far less, if any, impact on growth, and promotes artificial demand.
To make the statement "we can't afford spending money on tax cuts" naturally makes the assumption that personal income belongs to government, and allowing you to keep that a portion of that income is equivalent to government expenditure. Anyone concerned with fiscal responsibility would say "we can't afford more spending" instead. The re-invention and re-engineering of language is the weapon of the politician, used not on his opponents, but on his constituants. The untrained mind cannot perceive this Jedi mind trick, and in some cases the Newspeak becomes mantra.
Well, now you've done it.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2012, 04:43:48 PM
To make the statement "we can't afford spending money on tax cuts" naturally makes the assumption that personal income belongs to government, and allowing you to keep that a portion of that income is equivalent to government expenditure.
You don't understand that?
I am practicing to become a Democrat when I (hopefully) retire.
Gassy, aren't you one of the deficit whiners? Are you just being deliberately obtuse or what?
Quote from: nathanm on June 09, 2012, 03:48:45 PM
Gassy, aren't you one of the deficit whiners? Are you just being deliberately obtuse or what?
Yes. We can't afford any more spending.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 11, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yes. We can't afford any more spending.
Ok. From where I sit targeted tax cuts are effectively the same thing as spending. I would like to get rid of them all, or at least the vast majority. (there may be a few that literally pay for themselves)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 11, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yes. We can't afford any more spending.
And that is why spending has been slowing for the last 3 years - to the detriment (making it slower, too) of economic recovery. I know you got the memo... did you accidentally delete it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 11, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
And that is why spending has been slowing for the last 3 years - to the detriment (making it slower, too) of economic recovery. I know you got the memo... did you accidentally delete it?
Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 09:37:04 AM
Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.
Now you've done it. Nate is going to pull up an obscure graph.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 11, 2012, 09:42:01 AM
Now you've done it. Nate is going to pull up an obscure graph.
Preemptive strike. I'm just going to leave this here
(http://images.inmagine.com/img/aspireimages/dvs043/dvs043523.jpg)
Wrong country.
(http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1x5636442/donkey_dominican_republic_1071-3212.jpg)
That's better...
Lucky you, I have to go finish packing now, gotta leave in an hour. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on June 11, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
Wrong country.
(http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1x5636442/donkey_dominican_republic_1071-3212.jpg)
That's better...
Lucky you, I have to go finish packing now, gotta leave in an hour. ;)
Presidente time?
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 09:37:04 AM
Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.
Except for the reality that it is NOT anywhere near double...but then, what would we be if we didn't have our fantasies. It IS actually 20% higher from 2008 through the end of 2011. Hard to say about 2012, since it isn't over yet, but estimates are putting it at about 5% over last year.
The spending increases have been at the lowest rate since...well, since forever. Nice try, though. The Murdochian's love you for it!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 11, 2012, 01:42:46 PM
Except for the reality that it is NOT anywhere near double...but then, what would we be if we didn't have our fantasies. It IS actually 20% higher from 2008 through the end of 2011. Hard to say about 2012, since it isn't over yet, but estimates are putting it at about 5% over last year.
The spending increases have been at the lowest rate since...well, since forever. Nice try, though. The Murdochian's love you for it!
My, mistake, deficit spending is still well over double what it was near the end of the Bush (Republican years, prior to stimulus programs).
Spending is only roughly 20% higher than 2008. Truly this was a mistake on my part. But spending, was up the most recent completed year. Not much, but spending has been over $3.5 trillion every single year, whereas prior to FY09, it never broke $3T.
I don't think the difference make me feel any better about anything our representatives are doing in D.C. It just seems that the benchmark has been moved. When Bush was in office, this kind of spending would have been criminal. Now, it is good because we are reducing spending. It's just that we had to ramp it up 20% so we could say we then reduced spending.
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 01:54:19 PM
My, mistake, deficit spending is still well over double what it was near the end of the Bush (Republican years, prior to stimulus programs).
Spending is only roughly 20% higher than 2008. Truly this was a mistake on my part. But spending, was up the most recent completed year. Not much, but spending has been over $3.5 trillion every single year, whereas prior to FY09, it never broke $3T.
I don't think the difference make me feel any better about anything our representatives are doing in D.C. It just seems that the benchmark has been moved. When Bush was in office, this kind of spending would have been criminal. Now, it is good because we are reducing spending. It's just that we had to ramp it up 20% so we could say we then reduced spending.
Yes officer, I've been drinking, but not as much as yesterday!
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 01:54:19 PM
My, mistake, deficit spending is still well over double what it was near the end of the Bush (Republican years, prior to stimulus programs).
Spending is only roughly 20% higher than 2008. Truly this was a mistake on my part. But spending, was up the most recent completed year. Not much, but spending has been over $3.5 trillion every single year, whereas prior to FY09, it never broke $3T.
I don't think the difference make me feel any better about anything our representatives are doing in D.C. It just seems that the benchmark has been moved. When Bush was in office, this kind of spending would have been criminal. Now, it is good because we are reducing spending. It's just that we had to ramp it up 20% so we could say we then reduced spending.
Geezzzz...don't you ever listen... we have been over that, too. Time and time again. The REALITY - again - is that deficits are down to almost - no, not quite, but almost - what Obama said they would be. From about $1.9 trillion of Bush's last to about $1.1 trillion of this last year.
So, since Bush ran up spending at higher rate, and left deficits that were 60% more than today, would you consider what he did criminal now that you know the reality?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 11, 2012, 01:28:08 PM
Presidente time?
Tomorrow. I have to overnight in Miami first. :(
Quote from: nathanm on June 11, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Tomorrow. I have to overnight in Miami first. :(
You can find Carib in Miami, my friend.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 11, 2012, 03:05:10 PM
You can find Carib in Miami, my friend.
Hmmmm. I may have to look into that! Probably will make me late for my flight tomorrow, though. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 11, 2012, 02:26:35 PM
Geezzzz...don't you ever listen... we have been over that, too. Time and time again. The REALITY - again - is that deficits are down to almost - no, not quite, but almost - what Obama said they would be. From about $1.9 trillion of Bush's last to about $1.1 trillion of this last year.
So, since Bush ran up spending at higher rate, and left deficits that were 60% more than today, would you consider what he did criminal now that you know the reality?
You're right, I recall going over this too, except you're off again.
FY08 Def - $459B
FY09 Def - $1,413B
FY10 Def - $1,294B
FY11 Def - $1,300B
So from the peak, the deficit is down 8%. Spending is up 2% since the peak. Prior to Democrat control of congress deficit spending is up 183% and overall spending is up 21%.
Look, I'm not saying Obama is the end all be all when it comes to laying blame, but people that think like him are a major contributor to the lack of velocity in this recovery.
And just because I know everyone loves graphs, this yahoo has come up with 13 (graphs/reasons) Obamanomics isn't working. I know when Nathan shows graphs he always shows relatively short time frames. Mostly because I know if you looked back prior to the recession, and compared it to now, it would suck. That's what I have been talking about, the goalposts are being moved. Now, we are to accept that 8% unemployment is good, and reducing the yearly deficit or spending (even though it is way higher than it should be) is good. Unfortunately for the administration, voters don't grade on a curve.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:43:19 AM
Now, we are to accept that 8% unemployment is good, and reducing the yearly deficit or spending (even though it is way higher than it should be) is good. Unfortunately for the administration, voters don't grade on a curve.
8% is a bit of a curve. Most estimates have it at around 14% or higher. If you throw in underemployment estimates (folks with advanced degrees and training working at Taco Bell to save their house) it's even higher.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 08:49:57 AM
8% is a bit of a curve. Most estimates have it at around 14% or higher. If you throw in underemployment estimates (folks with advanced degrees and training working at Taco Bell to save their house) it's even higher.
See, I even gave them the benefit of the doubt. I know that even that 8% number is whatever they want it to be, there so much wiggle room in it. By no means is it that great of an indicator of the true difficulties people are having finding jobs.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:43:19 AM
You're right, I recall going over this too, except you're off again.
FY08 Def - $459B $1 trillion - Fixed this for you since it was hugely wrong - the rest are wrong, too, but I will leave that as an exercise for you to figure out. You have the valid information source (hint; a link is shown below).
FY09 Def - $1,413B
FY10 Def - $1,294B
FY11 Def - $1,300B
So from the peak, the deficit is down 8%. Spending is up 2% since the peak. Prior to Democrat control of congress deficit spending is up 183% and overall spending is up 21%.
Look, I'm not saying Obama is the end all be all when it comes to laying blame, but people that think like him are a major contributor to the lack of velocity in this recovery.
And just because I know everyone loves graphs, this yahoo has come up with 13 (graphs/reasons) Obamanomics isn't working. I know when Nathan shows graphs he always shows relatively short time frames. Mostly because I know if you looked back prior to the recession, and compared it to now, it would suck. That's what I have been talking about, the goalposts are being moved. Now, we are to accept that 8% unemployment is good, and reducing the yearly deficit or spending (even though it is way higher than it should be) is good. Unfortunately for the administration, voters don't grade on a curve.
Ok, I will try one more time - listen carefully!
Here is the Federal Debt History directly from the treasury department. Going back to the 90's... 1790's!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush's next to last year spending ended Sept 2008 - with $10.024 trillion in debt.
Bush's last year spending ended Sept 2009. - with $11.909 trillion in debt.
Simple subtraction - which you should have learned in about 4th grade - leaves a difference of $1.885 trillion.
Obama's first year ended Sept 2010 - with $13.561 trillion in debt.
Again, simple subtraction shows a difference of $1.652 trillion - or an actual decrease in the deficit of roughly $300 billion.
The projections that I have been hearing are estimating about $1.1 trillion in deficit for this year. That is over 40% reduction in deficit, and comes very close to the noise Obama made when he originally said deficits would be down to $1 trillion in his first term.
I know you are really just trying to jerk my chain with this - it's tough to imagine actually being that obtuse. But there would be a tremendous benefit to pull your head out of the Fox "environment" once in a while and just casually indulge in the bright, brilliant fresh air of reality.
If you are big into graphs, I have posted an excellent source that has an amazing array of graphical information that shows an extremely wide variety of information about many, many things. Finding the reference in past posts is another LAE - "leave as exercise" for you - if you are into true enlightenment. Some of the info shows good things, some shows bad things. It is a good overview of what is happening in our economy. It is much more nuanced than you will ever get from Fox, MSNBC, CBS, or here.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 08:49:57 AM
8% is a bit of a curve. Most estimates have it at around 14% or higher. If you throw in underemployment estimates (folks with advanced degrees and training working at Taco Bell to save their house) it's even higher.
They already lost the house, and are just trying to pay rent in the trailer park.
Counting 'underemployment', I bet it is higher than 14. And with engineers, it is over half a million who have given up and moved on. So much for technical talent "shortages" as touted by the supporters of the H1-B....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 09:10:16 AM
Ok, I will try one more time - listen carefully!
Here is the Federal Debt History directly from the treasury department. Going back to the 90's... 1790's!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush's next to last year spending ended Sept 2008 - with $10.024 trillion in debt.
Bush's last year spending ended Sept 2009. - with $11.909 trillion in debt.
Simple subtraction - which you should have learned in about 4th grade - leaves a difference of $1.885 trillion.
Obama's first year ended Sept 2010 - with $13.561 trillion in debt.
Again, simple subtraction shows a difference of $1.652 trillion - or an actual decrease in the deficit of roughly $300 billion.
The projections that I have been hearing are estimating about $1.1 trillion in deficit for this year. That is over 40% reduction in deficit, and comes very close to the noise Obama made when he originally said deficits would be down to $1 trillion in his first term.
I know you are really just trying to jerk my chain with this - it's tough to imagine actually being that obtuse. But there would be a tremendous benefit to pull your head out of the Fox "environment" once in a while and just casually indulge in the bright, brilliant fresh air of reality.
If you are big into graphs, I have posted an excellent source that has an amazing array of graphical information that shows an extremely wide variety of information about many, many things. Finding the reference in past posts is another LAE - "leave as exercise" for you - if you are into true enlightenment. Some of the info shows good things, some shows bad things. It is a good overview of what is happening in our economy. It is much more nuanced than you will ever get from Fox, MSNBC, CBS, or here.
In all fairness, I am looking at budget deficits. Outstanding debt and yearly deficits are not the same thing.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 11, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yes. We can't afford any more spending.
Thankyou. Eliminate 3/4 of the defense budget.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 09:34:40 AM
In all fairness, I am looking at budget deficits. Outstanding debt and yearly deficits are not the same thing.
You are partially right - the "yearly deficit" is the wordsmithed "spin" version of what is happening - much like when Bush had so many off budget items that made his yearly deficits look so much smaller than they really were. The difference year to year of the outstanding debt is the real live deficit without the propaganda.
Quote from: carltonplace on June 12, 2012, 09:41:29 AM
Thankyou. Eliminate 3/4 of the defense budget.
+1000
The amount the United States spends on the military is the highest in the world. So high that it is more than countries 2 through 19 spend combined.
When can we ever cut military spending? When we are not in a war?
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:43:19 AM
You're right, I recall going over this too, except you're off again.
FY08 Def - $459B
FY09 Def - $1,413B
FY10 Def - $1,294B
FY11 Def - $1,300B
So from the peak, the deficit is down 8%. Spending is up 2% since the peak. Prior to Democrat control of congress deficit spending is up 183% and overall spending is up 21%.
Look, I'm not saying Obama is the end all be all when it comes to laying blame, but people that think like him are a major contributor to the lack of velocity in this recovery.
And just because I know everyone loves graphs, this yahoo has come up with 13 (graphs/reasons) Obamanomics isn't working. I know when Nathan shows graphs he always shows relatively short time frames. Mostly because I know if you looked back prior to the recession, and compared it to now, it would suck. That's what I have been talking about, the goalposts are being moved. Now, we are to accept that 8% unemployment is good, and reducing the yearly deficit or spending (even though it is way higher than it should be) is good. Unfortunately for the administration, voters don't grade on a curve.
Like most haters, Obama IS the reason why the economy isn't growing. Hell, we're lucky there aren't bread lines (even though the fast food industry serves to keep the masses fat and "happy").
You really need to understand basic economics to get the grasp on the velocity of money going around. If congress were doing their job instead of the Boner/MCKonkel plan of outing the executive branch we'd be doing a little better and have some comfidence. But not much. Too much hangover from the decline during the Bush era.
We've come a million miles since Paulson's Plan in 08.
You want velocity? Print more money, cooperate to make government work instead of hating government, and rebuild our country's infrastructure. The private sector will come around once Germany secures the European continent.
The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of "The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take."
Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else's, they say.
This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.
The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.
In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.
The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.
The second major contributor to budget surpluses that emerged in 1998 was tough budget controls that were part of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals. The main one was a requirement that spending could not be increased or taxes cut unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This was known as Paygo, for pay as you go.
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.
This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.
The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.
According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.
However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.
In late 2010, Mr. Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for another two years. In 2011, this reduced revenues by $105 billion.
On the spending side, legislated increases during the Bush administration added $2.4 trillion to deficits and the debt through 2008. This includes $121 billion for Medicare Part D, a new entitlement program enacted by Republicans in 2003.
Economic factors added almost nothing to increased spending – just $27 billion in total. This is mainly because interest rates were much lower than C.B.O. had anticipated, leading to lower spending for interest on the debt.
After 2008, it becomes harder to separate spending that was initiated under Mr. Bush from that under Mr. Obama. We do know that spending for Part D has risen rapidly – Republicans phased in the program to disguise its budgetary cost – adding $150 billion to the debt during 2009-11.
According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the debt by $795 billion through the end of fiscal 2008. The continuation of these wars by Mr. Obama added another $488 billion through the end of 2011.
Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.
Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.
Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.
Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.
Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 09:10:16 AM
Ok, I will try one more time - listen carefully!
Here is the Federal Debt History directly from the treasury department. Going back to the 90's... 1790's!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush's next to last year spending ended Sept 2008 - with $10.024 trillion in debt.
Bush's last year spending ended Sept 2009. - with $11.909 trillion in debt.
Simple subtraction - which you should have learned in about 4th grade - leaves a difference of $1.885 trillion.
Obama's first year ended Sept 2010 - with $13.561 trillion in debt.
Again, simple subtraction shows a difference of $1.652 trillion - or an actual decrease in the deficit of roughly $300 billion.
The projections that I have been hearing are estimating about $1.1 trillion in deficit for this year. That is over 40% reduction in deficit, and comes very close to the noise Obama made when he originally said deficits would be down to $1 trillion in his first term.
I know you are really just trying to jerk my chain with this - it's tough to imagine actually being that obtuse. But there would be a tremendous benefit to pull your head out of the Fox "environment" once in a while and just casually indulge in the bright, brilliant fresh air of reality.
If you are big into graphs, I have posted an excellent source that has an amazing array of graphical information that shows an extremely wide variety of information about many, many things. Finding the reference in past posts is another LAE - "leave as exercise" for you - if you are into true enlightenment. Some of the info shows good things, some shows bad things. It is a good overview of what is happening in our economy. It is much more nuanced than you will ever get from Fox, MSNBC, CBS, or here.
Dude! That's debt. Not the same subject at all! He's talking about federal spending. . ."Deficit".
Different critter.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
They already lost the house, and are just trying to pay rent in the trailer park.
Counting 'underemployment', I bet it is higher than 14. And with engineers, it is over half a million who have given up and moved on. So much for technical talent "shortages" as touted by the supporters of the H1-B....
Well, I was trying to be kind. Some have it as high as 21% - 22%. I know several Civil engineers doing landscaping, and one that is selling Amway. Unemployment is more realistic when you break it apart and look at various professions. Construction unemployment is in the mid 20% range as compared to government sector unemployment which is hovering around 4%. When you throw in the rather subjective and difficult to quantify underemployment numbers those totals are much higher.
The president likes to tout current hiring trends, but what he fails to mention is that we are not even keeping up with population when it comes to job growth. Once the number is adjusted, the US shows negative job growth. Until we clear that hurdle the REAL unemployment numbers will continue to rise.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 12:11:04 PM
Well, I was trying to be kind. Some have it as high as 21% - 22%. I know several Civil engineers doing landscaping, and one that is selling Amway. Unemployment is more realistic when you break it apart and look at various professions. Construction unemployment is in the mid 20% range as compared to government sector unemployment which is hovering around 4%. When you throw in the rather subjective and difficult to quantify underemployment numbers those totals are much higher.
The president likes to tout current hiring trends, but what he fails to mention is that we are not even keeping up with population when it comes to job growth. Once the number is adjusted, the US shows negative job growth. Until we clear that hurdle the REAL unemployment numbers will continue to rise.
Amway is great stuff! Love the toothpaste and the laundry detergent! Dish washing liquid used to be great for chocolate cake, too, but don't know if they have changed it.
The problem I have with them is that in EVERY single instance of me contacting someone from Amway, they will not talk to me about buying product - that's ALL I want to do - and want me to go through all the sales pitches and join the pyramid! Geez,... does anyone ever actually sell anything from that company? So, I gave up, and have found the alternates that I will use from now on.
Jobs in this country are a much more complex situation. We have spent literally decades "outsourcing" jobs to the point that now, labor has become as fungible as oil. The job recovery is not happening because of the global nature of labor, and until we put some barriers back in place - to even the playing field - the job creation machine that was the US economy will not happen.
I honestly had no idea there was a unemployment problem with engineers. I was always under the impression that it was a much larger problem for lower skill value workers. Is the same true for math/science fields? I'm an accountant, so as long as we have a government, there will always be a need for accountants. They seem to pass an Accountant Employment Bill (Sarbanes-Oxley) every so many years.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 02:12:22 PM
I honestly had no idea there was a unemployment problem with engineers. I was always under the impression that it was a much larger problem for lower skill value workers. Is the same true for math/science fields? I'm an accountant, so as long as we have a government, there will always be a need for accountants. They seem to pass an Accountant Employment Bill (Sarbanes-Oxley) every so many years.
Anything related to new construction, development, or even the introduction on new products is in a bad spot right now. I don't know a single engineer that doesn't feel like a goldfish living in a blender right now.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 02:12:22 PM
I honestly had no idea there was a unemployment problem with engineers. I was always under the impression that it was a much larger problem for lower skill value workers. Is the same true for math/science fields? I'm an accountant, so as long as we have a government, there will always be a need for accountants. They seem to pass an Accountant Employment Bill (Sarbanes-Oxley) every so many years.
If you are young, no problem. Over 50 and it is brutal. As noted by the local division of mult-national oil related company - saying they have to get the average age down. From 42.
Luckily, I am with a really great company that turned a blind eye to my age and lets me design products that go in moderate volume products. Couple hundred thousand per year type things. Very fun, but much stress, too. Who knows - you may have some of my electronics and software in your house (less likely)! Or in a building you go in sometime during your day. Ever been to Kum & Go? Or Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Kohl's? Even the occasional Quik-Trip. Scared??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Ever been to Kum & Go? Or Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Kohl's? Even the occasional Quik-Trip. Scared??
I wasn't until now. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 12, 2012, 06:16:19 PM
I wasn't until now. :D
Good! Be afraid...be very afraid!!!