Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But for those who deal in realities instead of feel good socialist talking points, they would see that:
1) No truly successful company abuses its employees.
2) Companies who cut corners to save labor costs get the bottom of the barrel of available labor.
3) Companies that provide the best deal for their employees get the best employees. And they will thrive when others are floundering.
4) A healthy economy is the best incentive for companies to provide a good deal for their employees because everybody will be competing for good people.
That's how it works in the free market unfettered by government interference.
But in an economy that sucks as bad as the U.S. economy right now, I applaud those companies that have reduced hours across the board rather than lay more people off. A part time job generally pays better than unemployment, and it pay a whole lot better than no job and no unemployment.
Since 2001, over 5 million people have lost their health benefits while about 3 million quality manufacturing jobs disappeared. In his State of the Union speech of 2006, President Bush boasted his records of job creation and low unemployment rate. In reality, a bulk of new jobs that President Bushs economic policies created are low paying service jobs and part-time jobs. The working poor have swelled in number and are toiling in the minimum wage and dead-end jobs with no health and pension benefits. The middle class is rapidly thinning out.
The loss in manufacturing jobs causes compounding losses in suppliers and related quality service jobs.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
It's just More Class Warfare/Envy bullsqueeze. And of course none of these people will acknowledge that most hiring in this nation is by small business, nor will they ever admit that in their effort to squash and even take over corporations the damage it does to small businesses.
Oooooh, they were CRITICAL. Scary.
But for those who deal in realities instead of feel good socialist talking points, they would see that:
1) No truly successful company abuses its employees.
2) Companies who cut corners to save labor costs get the bottom of the barrel of available labor.
3) Companies that provide the best deal for their employees get the best employees. And they will thrive when others are floundering.
4) A healthy economy is the best incentive for companies to provide a good deal for their employees because everybody will be competing for good people.
That's how it works in the free market unfettered by government interference.
But in an economy that sucks as bad as the U.S. economy right now, I applaud those companies that have reduced hours across the board rather than lay more people off. A part time job generally pays better than unemployment, and it pay a whole lot better than no job and no unemployment.
I wholeheartedly agree with your four points. So why have they done it? (Again, not implying every company squeezes its employees, but a vast number of them have beginning only in the last decade.)
Dysfunctional Management Education and Declining Global Competitiveness of the United States Economy
Since 2001, over 5 million people have lost their health benefits while about 3 million quality manufacturing jobs disappeared. In his State of the Union speech of 2006, President Bush boasted his records of job creation and low unemployment rate. In reality, a bulk of new jobs that President Bushs economic policies created are low paying service jobs and part-time jobs. The working poor have swelled in number and are toiling in the minimum wage and dead-end jobs with no health and pension benefits. The middle class is rapidly thinning out.
The loss in manufacturing jobs causes compounding losses in suppliers and related quality service jobs.
... the New Deal innovations .... bailed the U.S. out of the Great Depression, won World War II, produced the Golden Age of the post-World War II era.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
It's just More Class Warfare/Envy bullsqueeze. And of course none of these people will acknowledge that most hiring in this nation is by small business, nor will they ever admit that in their effort to squash and even take over corporations the damage it does to small businesses.
But for those who deal in realities instead of feel good socialist talking points, they would see that:
1) No truly successful company abuses its employees.
2) Companies who cut corners to save labor costs get the bottom of the barrel of available labor.
3) Companies that provide the best deal for their employees get the best employees. And they will thrive when others are floundering.
4) A healthy economy is the best incentive for companies to provide a good deal for their employees because everybody will be competing for good people.
That's how it works in the free market unfettered by government interference.
But in an economy that sucks as bad as the U.S. economy right now, I applaud those companies that have reduced hours across the board rather than lay more people off. A part time job generally pays better than unemployment, and it pay a whole lot better than no job and no unemployment.
I wholeheartedly agree with your four points. So why have they done it? (Again, not implying every company squeezes its employees, but a vast number of them have beginning only in the last decade.)
Dysfunctional Management Education and Declining Global Competitiveness of the United States Economy
The author also says:
... the New Deal innovations .... bailed the U.S. out of the Great Depression, won World War II, produced the Golden Age of the post-World War II era.
New Deal innovation's worked WONDERS huh?
Yes, they did. The TVA is but one example. Here's an example of its influence on private enterprise development today:
TVA Economic Development
This is a college student's thesis that presents no opposing POV.
So? Finding a counterpoint is your job. But I don't think you'll find one.
It would fail anywhere outside of NYC, where he no doubt got an "A" from Socialist Professors. I bet he's now working at Burger King Flipping Hambugers
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
I really don't care if I win you over or not..
Clearly, since you offer nothing to prove your outrageously foolish, and dogmatically partisan froth.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
The market has been tanking all day after it was announced yesterday that productivity is at its lowest point in two years.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
The market has been tanking all day after it was announced yesterday that productivity is at its lowest point in two years.
Yes. I don't blame the President for that though. We never take the broad view of current events.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
The market has been tanking all day after it was announced yesterday that productivity is at its lowest point in two years.
Yes. I don't blame the President for that though. We never take the broad view of current events.
Of course you wouldn't blame the president, Sky. Fact is, all the money we have thrown at the economy and it's still tanking.....what has Barry done to stop the hemorage that has worked?
The only recovery is in the Government sector at the expense of the private sector.
None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.
In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.
Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.
Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.
Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.
The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.
A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).
Yes. I don't blame the President for that though. We never take the broad view of current events.
Of course you wouldn't blame the president, Sky. Fact is, all the money we have thrown at the economy and it's still tanking.....what has Barry done to stop the hemorage that has worked?
Nothing. Nothing's worked. We are paying for mistakes of the past.
I wholeheartedly agree with your four points. So why have they done it? (Again, not implying every company squeezes its employees, but a vast number of them have beginning only in the last decade.)
Dysfunctional Management Education and Declining Global Competitiveness of the United States Economy
The author also says:
... the New Deal innovations .... bailed the U.S. out of the Great Depression, won World War II, produced the Golden Age of the post-World War II era.
New Deal innovation's worked WONDERS huh?
Yes, they did. The TVA is but one example. Here's an example of its influence on private enterprise development today:
TVA Economic Development
This is a college student's thesis that presents no opposing POV.
So? Finding a counterpoint is your job. But I don't think you'll find one.
It would fail anywhere outside of NYC, where he no doubt got an "A" from Socialist Professors. I bet he's now working at Burger King Flipping Hambugers
Right. Yoshi Tsurumi was one of George W. Bush's economics professors at Harvard. I seriously doubt he's doing anything now but perhaps enjoying retirement.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
The market has been tanking all day after it was announced yesterday that productivity is at its lowest point in two years.
Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.
The market has been tanking all day after it was announced yesterday that productivity is at its lowest point in two years.
Dropping slightly signals that employers need to start hiring or working their existing employees even harder.
That's not why the market dropped. It was a reaction to the fed announcement that it would be buying more bad loans.
