Saturday, February 2, 2013

As the Market Ticks Upward the Economy Remains Sluggish...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


The economy has made gains under the Presidency of Barack H. Obama. Gains the democrats feel proud of. Perhaps they should given the rocky road they inherited. Right? Here's a slightly different perspective.


Investors Business Daily - Economy: So the economy created 157,000 new payroll jobs in January. Wow. At this rate, we might actually get back down to Bush-era unemployment rates sometime, oh, within the next 100 years.

The January jobs report is supposed to be good news. After all, the economy has now added a total of 6.1 million jobs over the past three years, and the BLS revised last year's jobs numbers sharply upward.

But it doesn't take much effort to notice that, when it comes to job creation, we are barely treading water.

Case in point: Despite these "big" gains, unemployment climbed to 7.9% — higher than when Obama took office amid the "worst recession since the Great Depression."

That 7.9% is deceptively low: It fails to account for the exodus of 8.5 million from the labor force under Obama.

As a result, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' broader measure of unemployment remains stuck at a depressing 14.4% — also higher than when Obama took office.

In addition, there are still 4.7 million long-term unemployed — nearly twice as many as when Obama was first sworn in. And at 35 weeks, the average length of unemployment is far higher than any time between World War II and the Obama era.

But the worst news of all is that we remain 3.2 million jobs shy of the previous employment peak of five years ago...
{Read More}

There is still hope that following the recent market uptick things will substantially improve. We should all hold our breathe and keep our fingers and toes crossed. After all, there are still 3.2 million individuals that need and want employment.

Via: Memeorandum

38 comments:

  1. Unless wages are increased so people have money to spend on more than just basics, corporations will continue to post record profits and the economy will still be sluggish.
    If the private sector won't invest in America, then it's left to the government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon,

      But Americans are investing in private companies, hence this uptick in the market.

      The government, which is the entity burdening you and I with unrealistic and unsustainable debt, cannot help the American people get out of debt unless it assumes our debts through Socialism. In simpler terms, "We are all part of One Team and One Nation Now, so there is no longer any kind of class differentiation between us at all. Scary.

      Delete
  2. Anon; If people earn the increase, wages will increase. So there's no real problem. We can't just handout unearned money. The real problem is all the people who aren't earning wages at all.

    As for the investment statement, the government over-regulation and over-taxation has discouraged investment in America.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Private investors and the companies they help found and develop produce ALL the "wealth" there is. These private companies -- and their stockholders, if the company has issued marketable shares -- are responsible for creating products and performing services the public needs, wants and is willing to pay for.

    In its increasingly oppressive relationship with Business Government has proven itself a largely DESTRUCTIVE force -- a spanner in the workings of the business cycle. What do ever-increasing taxation, unsolicited intervention, supervision and ever-tightening regulation actually do to Industry?

    Raise costs and reduce efficiency, which forces businesses to charge higher prices. This works against the best interests of all of us -- especially the work force, itself, because whatever theoretical or statistical "gains" may be accomplished by the Union-Government alliance will be eaten up -- neutralized -- almost immediately by higher costs.

    I believe this is one of the most signifiant factors that has caused the purchasing power of the dollar to decline roughly a THOUSAND PERCENT in the last hundred years ago.

    BUSINESS makes PRODUCTS and supplies GOODS and SERVICES.

    GOVERNMENT does nothing but STEAL PROFITS and RAISE COSTS in the guise of "helping to build a better, fairer, more just and equitable society."

    That kind of "help" we do not need, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This problem has been brewing for over thirty years now. It was caused by the Milton Freedman school of economics, the destruction of the labor movement, supply side policies on a demand side economy, and Free Trade with controlled economies.

    A little patriotic nationalism is sometimes not such a bad thing. Instead of flag waving and sabre rattling, perhaps a little real, tangible economic patriotism is in order.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey,

      You never seem to hear anything but the rumbling of those few rocks you have rolling around inside your otherwise empty head.

      Your aggressive ignorance and assertive misunderstanding of reality might be amusing if it weren't so embarrassing. I know you actually believe the rot you endorse. That's what makes me feel embarrassed for you, because you're good-hearted, but so thoroughly indoctrinated with Marxist cant and rhetoric you've been rendered blind to reality.

      Get away from DU, HuffPo, Daily Kos, The Nation and The Daily Worker. Stop watching MSNBC, and read The History of the English Speaking Peoples by Winston Churchill, instead. It would do you a great power of good.

      Delete
    2. Will: Blame the unions for the destruction of the labor movement. The unions have become primarily fundraising outfits for politicians, and are so bad at representing the workers that their last ditch hope for power is forcing workers to be members. And once workers get a choice in the matter, half of them flee the unions.

      Free Trade, however, has created more jobs than have been lost. Besides, it is a great idea. Shouldn't you, Jersey, be able to make your own informed economic decisions, instead of ignorant and arrogant ruling elites forcing boneheaded decisions on you? Like, say, if you want to buy a Honda instead of a Chrysler?

      "A little patriotic nationalism is sometimes not such a bad thing."

      But the ruling elites forcing bad economic decisions on individuals in the sake of nationalism smacks of 'national socialism'

      Jersey, what you are demanding with ""little real, tangible economic patriotism" is nothing more than thick-skulled jingoism... the type that has a direct result in incidents such as the murder of Vincent Chin. Come on, what's so wrong with getting the best product, even if it happens to be made by those yellow devils on the other side of the Pacific or those brown-skinned folks south of the border?

      Delete
    3. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years. Consumers are not buying. They cannot afford to. It's not government regulations that are stopping them from buying. Tax levels have little to do with growth. Purchasing power is what spurs growth. As proven by our growth of the 1950's and 1960's, when tax levels were twice as high. Americans have the lowest level of personal savings than most, so if Americans have money, they will spend it. Clinton raised taxes and growth went up. I'd love to see your evidence that tax cuts alone created significant growth - show me a tax cut that created 22 million jobs as happened after Clinton raised taxes..

      Delete
  5. dmarks, I worked for many years for two of the world's largest container lines. When I started, in the mid-90's, I would check the manifests on the ships coming in compared to those same ships departing, and remember, most of the world's trade goes by sea. A ship would arrive with say 10 million dollars in cargo, and that same ship would depart with perhaps 1/2 that amount. By the time I left the business, in the mid-2000's, it would be a tenth. I remember empty containers piling up in yards so high that they would interfere with nearby airport radar! Take out agro and scrap, and our trade deficit would be astronomical. So, obviously, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. But at least, unlike FreeThinke, I'll give you credit for actually trying to present an argument, even if it includes some unfortunately sleazy baiting and Nazi talk.

    Why can't you guys actually try to make a grown-up, mature, un-insulting argument once in a blue moon?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  6. I definitely have more than a clue of what I am talking about. And there was nothing sleazy at all of me pointing out the jingoism which is ultimate at the very root of the opposition to free-and-fair trade. Ths dislike of the people making their own informed trade decisions is what is immature, non grown up, and insulting.

    As for the 1/2 empty cargo containers, the "trade defecit" is really a non-issue. What is shipped here is paid for. There's no gap.

    But if you fear the Yellow Peril, Jersey, by all means, refused to buy goods touched by yellow fingers. It is your choice. I welcome and support and defend it. But what I oppose is draconian, jackbooted anti-trade policies in which the people with the most power force their personal choices in others. Besides being fascistic, these policies are destructive in other ways: they made the Great Depression a lot worse and result in trade wars and massive layoffs.

    And no, I won't do something silly and abitrary like "take out agro and scrap" in order to cook the numbers to make my side look better. I will honestly look at the whole picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dmarks, no intelligent person who's ever blogged with me would accuse me of jingoism. It is a blatant, sleazy bait 'n switch, and beneath any further engagement.

      God, you're so sleazy.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. It's not sleazy, or a bait and switch in any way. You are taking the low road here, with senseless opposition to free and fair trade. And then using the "sleazy" insult.

      If anything is sleazy, it is your jingoism... which you chose to label as "A little patriotic nationalism". Again, I support your right to refuse to buy products made by scary foreigners (such fear of foreigners is an old bigoted type of sleaze). Just respect the choice of the rest of us in that matter.

      Delete
    3. And yes, This is the face of your "economic nationalism". An idea which is as "sleazy" as they come. Clearly, these trade decisions are best left to the people, not the state.

      Delete
    4. dmarks, in this post alone, you have essentially pinned Nazism, racism, and jingoism on me - a prototypical modern educated liberal/progressive. It's insane. You're a loony. You're insane. And you're sooooooo sleazy.

      Look, loony bird, I am not anti-trade, you lunatic. I worked in trade. I'm fascinated by it. It 'makes the world go round.' But there's a big difference between doing business and pimping your own country to the lowest bidder.

      I get the feeling all this is way over your head. You are all simplistic black and white, my loony friend, but the world is far more sane and complex than can be understood in such a simplistic and loony way.

      JMJ

      Delete
  7. Anon said; "Wages have been stagnant for 30 years. Consumers are not buying."

    Is this the same Anon who said that all Republicans want to eliminate government? That guy is fact-free. Seems you are too. Consumers spend more than $4 trillion every year, on retail alone. Sorry, mr Fact Free, but spending many trillions completely contradicts "not buying"

    "It's not government regulations that are stopping them from buying."

    They aren't stopping people from buying, but they reduce it from what it could be.

    "Tax levels have little to do with growth."

    Taxation actually forces companies to rise the price of products a lot, which makes it harder for producers to purchase them.

    But you are right: tax levels have nothing to do with growth. They only inhibit growth.

    "Clinton raised taxes and growth went up."

    The taxes Clinton raised each and every one slowed down growth. The situation was, however, that the strength of the economy was such that it was able to grow despite the Clinton taxes. Thank Newt and the others in the opposition for keeping Clinton's taxes low enough.

    "I'd love to see your evidence that tax cuts alone created significant growth - show me a tax cut that created 22 million jobs as happened after Clinton raised taxes."

    You are basing your question on a false premise: that tax hikes, which always damage the economy, ever cause growth at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All they know. or think they know, is what they glean from sources that pander to whatever crap they already believe Jersey. Dmarks continues his lies about forcing workers to join unions when this is a negotiated part of a labor agreement.

    They subscribe to the randian nonsense about how we all owe the wealthiest because if not for them we'd still be hunting and gathering and sleeping in caves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were it not for science and technology knowledge increasing exponentially over time, and the creative efforts and productive capacity of all we still would be back hunting, gathering, and sleeping in caves.

      As for your inaccurate characterization of Ayn Rand I will only say it is an absurd characterization/allegation.

      Delete
  9. GDP = Consumer Spending + Business Investments + Government Spending +/- (Net Export/Import of goods and services).

    Our balance of trade dropped dramatically with NAFTA, and Jersey documents it well. With that drop so have the number of jobs that have been created in the USA; Thus Dmarks is full of shit as usual.

    Government spending makes up 20% of our GDP and if you add the fact that 19.5% of Consumer spending is derived from government support (social security, welfare, medicaid, and medicare) that means the total government effect upon our GDP is almost 34%.

    As far as Free Thinke goes and his/her rant well, its obvious that if a third of the "value" of our GDP in the USA is done via the government spending/borrowing its obvious where "wealth" comes from.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... its obvious that if a third of the "value" of our GDP in the USA is done via the government spending/borrowing its obvious where "wealth" comes from."

      So, are we to assume by what you say TAO that if the share were to increase to say 50, 75, or even 90% we would be better off?

      I think I know the answer but thought you might want to further clarify.

      Delete
    2. Whats obvious Les is you want to take the conversation in that direction, which is not a direction I insinuated in anything I wrote. But I do acknowledge your consistency!

      The reality is we are gradually downsizing our economy and most likely right now, we are at peak employment. The unemployed represent excess labor. The underemployed represent the new reality of our economy.

      Corporate profits are at 11% of our GDP, the highest they have ever been, but it is a trend that has been developing for a long time while wages now account for only 43% of our GDP, again, a downward trend that started in the 1980's. By the way, corporate profits are measured after tax.

      Thus, you have the perfect economy and it is as good as it gets.

      So, its 2013 and Dmark still rants about unions, like they matter! They haven't mattered since the 1970's. Free Thinke wants to claim that business owners and shareholders create all the wealth in this country; that's called supply side economics and both republicans and democrats have fell into that trap the last 30 years and look where it got us....an economy that depends on the government for a third of the value of goods and services produced in this country in a year!

      Still want to throw cliches around?

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your response. And no I did not want to take the conversation in any particular direction.

      I have always maintained that wealth is created by production. IE: Manufacturers and businesses creating tangle products needed and desired by the consumer.

      As we have downsized and off shored production because it was advantages for businesses bottom line we in essence downsized our productive capacity and with it the number of good paying jobs.

      I do not intend to throw cliches around TAO. I will however continue to believe in the importance of productivity (the US still has the best) as well a business's need to make a healthy profit and the obviously interrelated connection.

      What I have grown to realize is that businesses in America (specifically corporations and mega corporations) in general, do not care about the macro picture as it relates to the national economy or how business decisions affect the average American productive worker.

      I have had over the years many experiences with unions, some bad, some good, but in general I have to say it has really been a toss up between the two. In some cases it has been the result of short sighted shithead union bosses and in others it has been shithead short sighted managers. I was never popular with both sides consistently as a manager. Nor should I have been from a ethical perspective. I will leave that for another day.

      Delete
  10. Wages have not been stagnant for 40 years (http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/stacking-decades-2.html). After tax income adjusted for inflation has gone up for all 5 quintiles and when you also look at the fact that consumption as a percentage of income has been mushrooming at an even faster rate (in 1961, consumption as a % of income in the bottom quintile was 112% and by 2007 it was 198% - this due to the generous number of transfer payments that this country has been doling out) the folks are doing OK.......As for trade, yes we have a deficit but it only represents -3% of the American economy and when you also consider the tremendous savings to consumers it is hardly a linear zero-sum game that's being played here.......That, I would also point out that these categories are hardly immutable. According to the IRS, 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005 and a fair chunk of them had in fact moved up 2 quintiles. Likewise, the top 1% - more than 50% of the people in that category were out of it in less than a decade. This whole idiotic notion by Obama and the progressives that people are somehow these powerless slaves unable to better themselves if not for the sluggish government and labor is borderline nauseating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your link does not work.

      Consumption increases as a percent of income from 112% to 198% and you claim this is due to "generous number of transfer payments" yeah right...maybe you need to think "easy credit" such as credit cards and home refinance.

      You might want to look into your consumption as a % of income numbers a little closer and it also might help if you realize that the "bottom quintile" is made up of senior citizens for the most part.


      Delete
    2. The consumption to income ratio going from 112% to 198% is for the bottom quintile and very few people in that grouping have credit cards.

      Delete
    3. And federal entitlement spending HAS skyrocketed - According to the historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget, federal social spending has increased markedly from 2000 to 2010. Here are the respective increases (adjusted for inflation) from specific areas; Medicaid and SCHIP 87%, Veteran's benefits 107%, Welfare and other income security programs 91%, Education 155%, Health resources and regulation 69%, Natural resources and the environment 47%, Unemployment compensation 559%, Medicare 81%, Housing assistance 108%, Food assistance 139%, WIC 52%, Child nutrition 47%, Child tax credit payments 2,155%, and the Earned Income Tax Credit 48%.......As for the composition of the bottom quintile, it isn't mostly the elderly. It isn't because more than half of the people in that group are out of it within a decade. Yes, it does include some people on SS (the elderly and the disabled) but it also includes a lot of single mothers on welfare, and a lot of young people working part-time and/or sporadically.......And my link, just cut and paste it.

      Delete
  11. In the American economy, consumption does follow taospeaks assertion. We have been living in a tilted consumption economy ever since the late-Carter/early Reagan years. The response, from the Fed and Treasury, has been to control inflation by deflating incomes from producers/consumers (Same thing. Right?). But by increasing capital to others - non-producers/and rare high-end consumers - real mass producers (the masses of people who actually make things happen) have less capital per capita to leverage. We have stifled upward mobility by favoring clever schemes over obviously productive mass-profitability.

    I have a serious argument with you Objectivists, Libertarians, Republicans, and Conservatives on this.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  12. TaoSpeaks said: "So, its 2013 and Dmark still rants about unions, like they matter! They haven't mattered since the 1970's"

    Only if you have been hiding in a cave the 1970s. Unions have "mattered" and have done plenty of damage since them. This is just one of the countless examples of a deplorable union action, in which lazy "workers" loafed around for a while in order to further the union's goal of increasing their excessive at-public-expense-pay by making disrupting the daily lives of as many New Yorkers as possible. Or the PATCO strike, also after the 1970s, in which other overpaid public servants tried to get planes to crash in order to get more money. Or the UAW's successful war against auto worker jobs in Michigan up until the present day which has resulted in so many factories offshored (or moved to North Carolina) and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. Or the many millions in non-right-to-work-states such as California and New York who are forced to join unions against their will and give thousands to political causes that go against their interests.

    Yeah, I will keep "ranting" about unions as long as they hate and distrust workers so much that they don't give them a choice in membership, work to degrade public service, and gleefully force companies to offshore jobs.

    In Michigan, a major labor union activists just a couple of months ago was railing against the state's new "right to work" protection for workers specifically because it would cause jobs to come back from China to Michigan.

    Les: Of course unions have their place. I just don't think that it should include coerced membership at all.

    As Ron Paul said, "right to work laws simply prohibit coercion". And the perpetrators of such coercion are unions, and the victims are always working people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dmarks,

    Union membership is at a 97 year low in 2012: its down to 11.6% of our workforce. While the productivity of our workforce has been increasing, up 110% from 1972 in 2011 real wages and benefits have dropped from a high of $20.11 in 1972 to $19.47 in 2011.

    You reference two strikes, both involving public sector employees, and then you use that data to discuss the private sector employment situation.

    The reality is you are a neo-liberal and the main features of neo-liberalism include macroeconomic policies focused on maintaining low inflation rather than full employment; reducing the public sector, including welfare programs; eliminating barriers to international trade; deregulating financial markets; and eliminating or weakening pro-worker labor laws.

    So you got what you worked so hard to achieve over all these years. You didn't get the prosperity that you envisioned for everyone, but in all honesty you really don't give a shit about that anyway.

    Yeah, if I owned a factory and I had a state, like Tennessee, or South Carolina, or North Carolina, or Alabama that was offering me hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and tax incentives to relocate I would have no qualms of sucking up all the free money that I could. Honda got over 12 million dollars (that is just state and local incentives, there is no telling how much the Feds kicked in to sweeten the deal) in cash and tax incentives for their latest 80 million dollar expansion in North Carolina.

    Of course you neo-liberals want to hide this extortion behind a veil of "right to work" and all of that...



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tao, I mentioned those strikes as just a few examples of how unions HAVE "mattered" after the 1970s. Just one of them proves what you said wrong.

      Tao said "The reality is you are a neo-liberal".

      Actually, that is not "Reality" at all. You listed several characteristics of neoliberalism (opposing full employment, etc) which I generally do not favor. I do not support reducing welfare programs except for the rich, for example, and I favor strengthening pro-worker labor laws (such as expanding right-to-work).

      "So you got what you worked so hard to achieve over all these years."

      If I favored your neo-liberalism, it has failed to happen in most aspects. The government sector has greatly expanded. Pro-worker labor laws (right to work) have only taken hold in a couple more states. But yes, there is more international trade. I do agree with the neo-liberals on that. But even here, there are massive barriers and tariffs. NAFTA itself limits trade with hundreds of pages.

      "You didn't get the prosperity that you envisioned for everyone, but in all honesty you really don't give a shit about that anyway."

      Seeing as I am no kind of neo-liberal, I support prosperity for everyone.

      "Honda got over 12 million dollars..."

      How much of that was a gift, as opposed to promising not to steal as much of Honda's propery (i.e tax breaks)?

      "Of course you neo-liberals want to hide this extortion behind a veil of "right to work" and all of that.."

      Read what Ron Paul said. All right to work means is no coercion against workers. I don't know what you are on about, and you are getting incoherent, so you probably do not either.

      In regards to whatever those "Extortions" are, I of course oppose any cash incentives. And in contrsat, the tax breaks (promises to steal less of someone's property, without giving or subsidizing even one dollar) are a pretty good idea.

      Delete
    2. Shaking me head reading back on the unfounded "neo-liberal" accusation. My views on such issues are more in line with Ron Paul than they are with neo-liberals.... though I do disagree with him on some things. Dr. Paul is a libertarian, not a "neo-liberal"

      And yes, Les, I do find myself gravitating toward Ron Paul and libertarians. I suppose a sufficient amount of time has passed since the local Ron Paul group trashed my church parking lot.

      Anyway, Tao, the neo-liberal accusation is entirely unfounded, just like on Leticia's blog when the Gibraltar guy called me a Marxist for opposing multi-million dollar flat-out gifts of government money to rich people.

      Delete
    3. Also, to address this, Tao...

      "real wages and benefits have dropped from a high of $20.11 in 1972 to $19.47 in 2011."

      For one thing, mentioning this has little to do with the discussion of forced unionization. Except perhaps to mention that in the private sector the unions have forced many factories to leave the country during this time and put many in the unemployment rolls. That surely has an effect on wages in some places, like Detroit for sure.

      But the real problem is with the numbers. They are not 'real' at all. They are cooked. Check out Will's comment for a more real-world link on this. The moderate here has even provided a link. Here is part of his comment from above: "Wages have not been stagnant for 40 years (http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/stacking-decades-2.html). After tax income adjusted for inflation has gone up for all 5 quintiles"

      Delete
    4. The "tax incentives" you keep harping about work this way:

      You deduct state income taxes from your employees paychecks, then you report these deductions but you do not forward said funds to the state. The company keeps these funds.

      Every state runs a program like this and they are run through the economic development finance authority.

      Here is some more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?pagewanted=all

      Oh, there is cash, there are tax breaks on corporate taxes, and lots of cities exempt companies from property taxes. There are buildings that are given away for free, paid for by tax dollars, for companies willing to relocate and hire people.

      Local governments give up 80 billion dollars a year in incentives and state and federal government gives up 170 billion dollars a year in incentives.

      Its extortion when economic development boards give employers the state income taxes of its employees as incentives to relocate.

      I just helped a company get 10 million dollars in grants along with KEDFA/KREDA/JDAF which basically got them a loan at 1% that was guaranteed by the state, a waiver from paying state income taxes for 10 years, and the right to keep employee state income tax deductions for 15 years.

      I know all about Ron Paul and the concept of "Right To Work" as I have been an employer for 25 years. As I put it, "Right to work" means I can fire an employee at anytime for any reason and there is nothing an employee can do except draw unemployment.

      Delete
    5. Tao said: "... The company keeps these funds"

      A gift of %0. No subsidy, no corporate welfare. The company is simply keeping its own money.
      "
      Here is some more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?pagewanted=all"

      That is misinformation. There is absolutely no 'taxpayers bankrolling' when people keep their own money. No transfer at all. Thanks for pointing me to some yellow journalism, though.

      O"h, there is cash, there are tax breaks on corporate taxes, and lots of cities exempt companies from property taxes. There are buildings that are given away for free, paid for by tax dollars, for companies willing to relocate and hire people."

      And now you do mention some taxpayer subsidies... these I do oppose entirely.

      "Local governments give up 80 billion dollars a year in incentives and state and federal government gives up 170 billion dollars a year in incentives."

      Again, that is a lie. Stealing less from someone is not 'giving'. Come back sometime with some honest numbers: separate out the actual gifts from the tax breaks. I am sure it is going to be far far far less than 80 billion.

      "Its extortion when economic development boards give employers the state income taxes of its employees as incentives to relocate."

      You are running with a weird definition of extortion there....

      "I just helped a company get 10 million dollars in grants along with KEDFA/KREDA/JDAF which basically got them a loan at 1% that was guaranteed by the state, a waiver from paying state income taxes for 10 years, and the right to keep employee state income tax deductions for 15 years."

      None of which is a gift. You helped the company keep more of its money, and this involved $0 given by the State. If there had been an instance of the state making a building for the company. then there might have been corporate welfare.

      "I know all about Ron Paul and the concept of "Right To Work" as I have been an employer for 25 years. As I put it, "Right to work" means I can fire an employee at anytime for any reason and there is nothing an employee can do except draw unemployment."

      Now, in this, as with the rest of if, the facts are not in your side. In fact, they are the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

      Right-to-work places MORE restrictions on employers. Specifically adding to the list of reasons that employers cannot fire employees. This new reason added is that employees can't be fired for refusing to cough up money to outside political organizations that have nothing to do with their ability to do their jobs. Under right-to-work, all of the reasons that employees can't be fired remain: racial, sexual, disability, job discrimination, all of it.

      So, no, it is entirely untrue that under right to work that workers can be fired "anytime for any reason"... employees end up being even more protected. And instead of your claim "there is nothing an employee can do", the reality is that the right to file a discrimination suit for unlawful firing remains intact.

      Sorry, Tao. You need to learn more of what you speak. Check the text of right to work. You seem to be talking of something entirely different, out of your imagination. Like some imaginary package of laws.

      Delete
  14. Just how much is the person responsible for the safe landing of planes full of people worth to you Dmarks?

    I do pity you for the misguided hatred that rules your life. I don't believe all bankers or ceo's are bad. Yet you hate unions because a few members misbehaved. You hate simply asking that promises made in contract negotiations be kept.

    I do hope you find peace one day Dmarks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amb: "Just how much is the person responsible for the safe landing of planes full of people worth to you Dmarks?"

      Nothing, if they were in PATCO, and loafed at home hoping that the planes would crash and they would get raises. A co-worker of mine in another field really wanted to be an air traffic controller. When the PATCO sociopaths quit their jobs, she was able to work in the field she wanted.

      "Yet you hate unions because a few members misbehaved."

      I hate them as much as they hate workers. And the unions which force members to join are indeed strongly disrespectful of them. Any union which favors "closed shop" and compulsory dues is misbehaving from the top.

      "You hate simply asking that promises made in contract negotiations be kept."

      Not at all. You are making this up. I never mentioned this.

      Delete
    2. And how about your hatred, Amb? I think you at one time were bashing workers who earn an honest living and fair reward for their work without benefit of union as "freeloaders". I suppose this comes from the same hateful mindset as those who call working people "scabs"..

      Delete
    3. Another union (mis)run convalescent home just bit the dust in CT. That makes over 30 now in less than a decade. Pro-worker, my ass.

      Delete
    4. Will: You have mentioned one of the main benefits paid for with union dues: loss of an entire workplace. What you speak of has happened on a massive scale in Michigan with auto plants, thanks to the UAW ("Union Against Workers").

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that have no value but to demean another commenter or spread fallacious statements meant to result in a food fight or crap fest.

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

A note to ALL, the blog Lying Lester, a spoof blog designed and set up by one extremely unscrupulous lying asshat is not the property of this site and there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two.

It is disturbed and dishonest individuals like Dervish Sanders of Sleeping with The Devil progressive blog that over time has caused this this unfortunate situation.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails