Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

So you bang the table for capitalism on behalf of the Pro-Business party and then blame the other side when jobs get shipped to China and India and H1B's continue unabated. Well played Sir, well played. My feelings are that this administration has done NOTHING to stem the tide of business destroying the economic foundation of the country but the alternative I'm afraid would have accelerated the slide towards the bottom. Heads we lose Tails we lose faster.

One thing this administration is great at is knowing the media and playing the headline game. Don't like the statistics then change how they are calculated.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/07/man...l-you-make-it/

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

:tro:
I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

Yet in this country the poorest of the poor have subsidized, housing, food, water, heat, air-conditioning, schooling, healthcare (including birth control) cell phone and in some instances even WI-FI and cable TV ALL paid for by the taxpayer.

There is plenty of trickling down going on and most is getting flushed down a subsidized toilet.

'Strike the violins'

"What is Poverty in the United States Today?"

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

And free weed.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...265632571.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/oba...rterly-update/

I googled net jobs Obama administration.

Its from a year ago, but I didn't see anything newer.

Now, although more jobs than under last pres, more are on food stamps, I would think due to underemployment. And pay hasn't kept up either.

We celebrate capitalism, our products tion is incredibly high...with less pay and more automation. It used to be when demand was high, companies added jobs, now they just add more and faster machines.

Or ship jobs overseas or import cheap labor. The outcome is inevitable when no one is left that can afford to buy your stuff... Is this not clear as day?

That's actually not quite true. Reagan did cut the income tax rates, but the revenue collected actually tripled by 1989. So there was more money coming in.

However, the government (Reagan AND the Democratically held Congress) outspent the new higher revenue level, resulting in higher yearly deficits and accumulated national debt.

They are two separate things, and the conclusion would be easier if the revenue went down by slashing tax rates, but that's not what happened. More money left tax sheltering for investments, creating jobs (here then as opposed to abroad) and boosting the economy. But we did try to win the Cold War so military spending went up, social spending has never gone down. It all adds up.

It was a net negative but not due to loss of revenue - the spending exceeded the increased revenue resulting in a shortfall. Like most years except 1969 under Nixon and that is not a good thing.

Fox News was never called GOP TV. Don't believe everything you read from left-wing blogs without fact-checking it. Where did you read that?

Do you think there would be any way to incentivize corporations to build their factories here instead of overseas or to even close their factories overseas and re-open them here? If so, would you be in favor of trying to do that?

Even if the government had to give these companies huge tax breaks, it still may be worth it to the government's bottom line. With all the extra jobs that would be created here, there would be more people paying taxes and less people needing government benefits.

What in the last 25 years gives you an iota of evidence that given more money corporations will use it for anything other than lining the pockets of execs? Seriously Rupe your ideology is from a time long past or you are willfully ignorant of the current state of events. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is the former.

You misunderstood my question. I agree with you that most corporations are about the bottom line and maximizing profits. Right now it is more profitable for them to have their factories overseas. My question is whether there could be anything done that would make it more profitable for them to keep their companies here. When I mentioned a tax break, I meant that it would only be under the condition that the company have their factory here, and not overseas.

I suppose if we completely eliminate the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, allow unlimited H1B's, eliminate the FDA and EPA, eliminate welfare benefits and allow people to sell their children into slavery we can be competitive with China and India. In short I would trust a meth addicted degenerate gambler at Hawthorne to pay me back the 100 bucks he is asking for than corporate America to do what is right for the future of the country with any bribe money given them.

Looks like the sky may not be falling after all.....eventually it all about economics and certainty.

http://worldtonyc.com/us-manufacturing-making-comeback/

Awesome!!! I'm glad W2NYC is on the case and telling it like it is while the associated press is totally dropping the ball

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/b...n-worker-visas

:rolleyes:

The sky is not falling Geeker, it already fell and crushed the middle class. Can I ask if you are retired/semi retired and collecting a pension? Most folks in that age group see no problems at all cause they are still getting their pensions... For now that is. As far as "It's all about economics", the economics books have yet to be written on the long range detrimental effects of shipping buying power to the 3rd world.

Hahahahaha

No corporation is doing jack-sh1t in "the best interest of the communities they serve" if it doesn't pad their bottom line. Wake the fuc1< up.

Subsidizing corporations through massive tax breaks is the only way the ones that are still here stay here. And most all of those are national, not international corporations, as international corporations are required to pay taxes on revenues earned outside of the country.

Again, corporate tax rates are huge, relative to the rest of the modernized world, but the massive incentives they receive typically offset those rates.

Case in point - Walgreens being urged to move to Switzerland, by shareholders, to sidestep paying taxes on revenue raised outside US borders:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ate-tax-burden

The great news is, that for all of these corporations fleeing the country, there are no laws in place to keep them from forming PAC's and thus influencing our lawmakers. So they can willfully leave our country, continue to do business within our borders, and pay to play just like they were still here. Only heaping more of the tax burden onto small business and what is left of the middle class.

It's like beating your head into the wall. Another thread replete with 3 pages of Red vs. Blue hur hur hur and not one scintilla of outrage at how you are continuing to get screwed by both of them equally.


Wake up.

we still are the number one manufacturing country, but too much has gone to automation.
the paper mill still runs lights out here in this town, with a fraction of its former workforce.
they even have robot fork trucks to go with the robot trailers that move product around...along with robots that package, box, palletize, etc, etc.

we have corporations who love capitalism, and people who support rampant capitalism, and all it's done is made a lot of people obsolete. and then we blame the people for not working-when in fact there's no jobs for them. because they're either done by machine now, or gone overseas. and the top tier of the companies make loads more than ever before, while what workers remain get paid squat.

Wait until the hamburger-flipping robot comes out. Unemployment will really spike.

funny, but sad, because it's getting to that.

It will happen - and there is a legitimate discussion to be had about technology vs. traditional employment, and that would have happened anyway. But we are losing jobs to other countries without the automation as well, simply where the labor is cheap. A shirt made in Bangladesh isn't being made by robots - it's people sewing them but willing to do so for a lot cheaper than Americans can.

Remember the 1980's when a major news story was the decrease and disappearance of textile jobs in the south? That's a long time ago. There are very few of those jobs left compared to what we had.

Used to be a time when you could educate yourself and move to a white collar job. Not anymore. We are headed towards completely outsourced companies

nope. more people going to college than ever, and nothing to show for it.

i'd recommend anyone looking for a field to get into medical.

it's a shame tho that corporations are just looking at how to make every last dollar, while ruining the ability of their customers to continue to make purchases.

One would think that both effects you describe are self-correcting market forces. If people are not getting anything to show for college, less of them will go and the price for college will come down. If people can't buy goods, the profits for those companies will decrease, resulting in pressure to lower the price or do something different in their processes of manufacturing...

Or, if the past 6 years are any indication...you know, since this has been going on already.... no crystal ball is required.

They just manufacturer less and cut more jobs. Then hire a whole slew of part time / temp workers to fill in if/when necessary.

So then we can get threads like this one to celebrate how everything is back to normal because "teh jubs r back"

The 1% never gets hurt regardless of how desperate and bleak the economic picture becomes. The quality of life we enjoyed prior to the crash is never coming back - at least not in your or your children's lifetime.

Just simply applaud the amazing job this administration has done "creating" 288K new jobs and smile for 'Merica.

fat lot of good lower tuition would do all those that already went, and have student loans they can't pay.

:tro:

You misunderstood me. I was simply asking if there was anything that could be done to stop companies from outsourcing. I wasn't suggesting that companies would stay here due to altruism. I was wondering if there was any way to force them, either through reward, punishment or both, to stop outsourcing.

That is interesting. It shows that we have been bamboozled when they keep telling us that they need to bring in these workers because there is a shortage of skilled workers here. In reality, there doesn't appear to be much of a shortage. They just want cheaper labor.

No, I didn't. I was simply answering the rhetorical question you posed, though in an admittedly curt manner. My apologies.

If you'd prefer the thoroughly in depth version (which even you may find eye-opening) of where we are, where we came from to get here, and where we are going, I cannot suggest this enough:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674430006

Dr. Matloff has been pounding the table on this topic for 20 years. Of course main stream media has ignored him. Could it be because media companies also enjoy using the cheap slave labor.

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html

it's always about the money. the parties can talk the talk all they want about reform, but their puppet masters don't want reform. they like things just the way they are.

And now the puppet masters don't even have to be US-based in order to continue their influence peddling.

:tro:

Except by 1989 Reagan had raised taxes in other ways, many of which were much more regressive and put more stress on the middle class. The tax cuts didn't increase revenue; he had to broaden the tax base to try to make up some of the lost revenue.

True.

Of course, we are nation built on the backs of slaves, so one could say the people in power are just trying, bit by bit, to take us back to the good old days of a few rich people, a very small middle class and a very large underclass who have no freedom. We'll all owe our souls to the company store.

i did see yesterday while walking on the treadmill at the gym, that there's great economic news.
there are now only two unemployed people for every available job now, instead of three!

woohooo!

:rolleyes:

the underemployment also continues.