The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Interesting way to try and lay the failure of the porkulus at the hands of the corporate world.  It would be helpful if the President actually understood how business works, but, well, details.  Companies will hire workers when needed.  With very rare exceptions, they don't supply jobs just for the sake of supplying jobs.  When they need the employees, they will hire them.  

That said, there's a lot else I actually like in his comments.  If he succeeds in reeling in speculation on commodities, particularly oil, that could be a true legacy move on his part.

"We've got a lot more work to do to get businesses to invest and to hire," he told the audience in remarks broadcast on Thursday."

"It is time for companies to step up," Obama said. "American taxpayers contributed to that process of stabilizing the economy. Companies have benefited from that, and they're making a lot of money, and now's the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-obama-economy-idUSTRE74B2KZ20110512?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Why should companies "step up" to anything. After, there is nothing more important than working for government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/12/obama_there_is_nothing_more_important_than_a_government_job.html

What do you expect since he's been suckling on the public teat for what, 15 years and has been living in government housing for the last couple of years.  ;)

He's right to some degree. We've been throwing fistfuls of dollars at the private sector for a couple of years now and all we've got to show for it is a very slowly growing economy. If we had full employment demand would obviously be higher.

It's something of a catch 22. There's no political will to throw money at average folks, so consumption spending is lower than usual. This low consumption spending leads to lower demand and thus fewer jobs. Without money, demand will not recover in the short term.

I took it that his comments were aimed at the bailed out banks.

Shhhh.  This is my bash Obama moment, Carlton.

I did gather that context in another story as well.  If the banks have no use for the additional workforce though, it's the same problem other companies would have.  Why hire people who have nothing better to do than post on Facebook or TNF all day?  They could just go to work for the government instead ;)

Carry on - Bash away.

maybe those bailed out banks can start loaning money to small business owners so that those entrepreneurs can grow their businesses and hire more people? Its trickle down economics "Obama style":Big Government bails out too big to fail banks which relax their purse strings and throw money at small business owners which grow the economy and hire people and pay them and those people buy goods and services sending more small business owners back to the banks to get more loans. Makes perfect sense...how could you find any fault with that.

  How is it these companies have all this extra money... if they arent selling goods and services?  

Don't step out of the circle.

Bahahaha!  I agree with your prior post.  Unfortunately banks seem to be making too much profit on other investments instead of loaning money.  I don't know what the solution is to get them to loosen up.  It's obvious with CD rates around 1.5% they aren't interested in loaning.

Obama's got to make this argument, because his stimulus (and, it should be noted, the Bush Admin's TARP programs) were based on saving industry first, so it could turn around next and save the citizenry. 

I support him in asking this of business -- especially banks, but also of most of the fortune 500 -- because the trickle down mechanism has obviously stalled, and since that's the mechanism the stimulus strategy was (erroneously IMO) based on, I want it to work now, if only to improve the country's fortunes.  I think trusting that mechanism was wrong from the beginning and is wrong now, but as a wise man once said, you can't change horses in midstream -- especially when slightly less than a $trillion has already gone out the door on the horse's back. 

Or hopefully a better dynamic has occurred: we've finally learned something from binge & purge cycles of the past and employers are getting better productivity out of the workforce and being far more cautious moving forward.  A slow and steady recovery would be far preferable to an artificial one which might collapse again in a matter of years, much like 2001 to late 2007 when it became apparent the wheels were coming off again.

I'd mentioned several months ago that small business people I've spoken with in my day-to-day work seem to agree 9% UE may be the new norm.  Keep in mind the 9% does not include those not working who have slipped off the rolls.  I hope I'm wrong.  I'd love to see it back near 5% again so long as it's not the result of unsustainable borrowing.  One serious problem we have right now is pump prices when it comes to consumer demand for goods.  The demand is still there, but gasoline being $1 or so higher than this time last year means a large portion of consumers have less to spend at Walmarts and Whorehouse Market.

They also aren't spending much, so they have ridiculous cash reserves right now.

And they are selling stuff; the economy isn't that bad for those with college degrees. Unemployment is only around 6% among that set. It's much, much higher among those with only a high school diploma (16% last I looked) or associates degree (12%). There is even job growth, it's just not much higher than the growth in those seeking employment, leaving us looking at 10-15 years to get back to full employment at the present rate.

And it turns out that last year's job vacancy data that prompted everyone to claim that structural unemployment was now higher than it was in the past was just bad data.

Part of the problem is that the Fed is being very skittish because of all the people claiming that our bond yields and inflation are on the rise, which is in complete contradiction to the data. It's like the people in the UK and Germany claiming that austerity is actually expansionary, economically speaking. People are, as usual, talking a bunch of ideological bullshit that has nothing to do with reality. Including a lot of economists. (One reason why I like to read Krugman is that he is usually very clear about when his writing is flowing from his ideology and when it's flowing from actual data)

Oh, and Conan, the 9% includes everyone who is looking for a job, regardless of whether they actually are receiving benefits. There are in fact a couple percentage points more of 'discouraged' workers who were looking for a job and would like to have a job but have not looked in the last two weeks or month (I forget which), plus another cadre of folks who are working part time but would prefer full time employment (aka the underemployed).

There has been a decline in the labor participation rate, but that's largely due to the beginning of the baby boomer retirement wave.

Hey, if you young guys want to support me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed (better than now), I will gladly retire and leave room in the labor market for you youngsters.  I deserve it!

Some of us are attempting to make sure you don't see your Social Security benefits decreased and your Medicare turned into a discount program. I'd go on about the challenge of doing so in this political environment, but as Conan mentioned in a recent thread, it's gotten to the point of beating a dead horse.

You want to contribute? Start hiring.

One of the things that concerns me is a means test for SS benefits after about 40 years of paying in to the system.  Because I've been saving for my retirement, I expect to be told I don't need my SS benefits.

I don't support a means test, except perhaps on those with the very highest incomes/savings levels. Clearly Warren Buffett getting Social Security is a waste of money for everyone (unless he manages to lose or give away his entire fortune). Since we have a $102,000 income limit on Social Security tax, how about a $102,000 income limit on benefits? (As in, you get paid SS until the point where you draw more than $102,000 a year out of other retirement accounts with a rolling average)

Guido, I haven't had bailout money directed my way. Not even the $8,000 FTHB credit. :(

Artist said;
How is it these companies have all this extra money... if they arent selling goods and services?  

Look at the tag on everything you buy, everything you have bought in the last 10 years.  That will tell you the true story of where the jobs are.  Start a list with the country of origin.  Place a tick by each one for every item you look at.

Wanna bet on which one is first??  (Hint; it ain't the US.)

You can't even go to Lowe's and buy something as simple as a bolt or screw made in US.  Hillman brand.  Made in China.

That is the story of the last 25 to 30 years in America.  Jobs have been exported wholesale.  There are no jobs to "step up" for.  They are gone.  And will remain gone for at least decades, even if we started tomorrow morning about 10:15 to work to bring them back.  That is the new reality.  They just don't exist any more.


Nathan;
SS benefit is based on that 102,000.  When Warren gets his, it will be based on his contribution up to the 102,000.  Won't be a hill of beans to him, but it will be based on his tax.

Then it only becomes a matter of where to draw the line.  I'm afraid that line will be drawn a lot lower than what you propose.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnHQammdwGQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]