If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Duluth News Tribune)   Economists are puzzled about why the economy is recovering with no new jobs   (duluthsuperior.com) divider line 260
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9665 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2004 at 9:35 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-08 12:27:12 AM
ZipBeep

that wasnt MY point.
my point was that the economy had ALREADY turned the corner before clinton took office.
Clinton claimed NINE yrs of consecutive growth in his seventh year, AFTER insisting he was elected DURING a recession.

/fuzzy math
 
2004-01-08 12:28:15 AM
"
SEATTLE --In a troubling sign that accounting problems have grown beyond corporate balance sheets, two of the main economic gauges used by Wall Street, banks, and in the calculation of Social Security payments have been found to contain serious math problems. "


Hmmm
 
2004-01-08 12:29:48 AM
ZipBeep

I guess if you think the National Review, one of the most conservative publications in the country...

If you got nuthin, attack the messenger. Nice job.
 
2004-01-08 12:33:14 AM
Tinian
I guess if you think the National Review, one of the most conservative publications in the country...

If you got nuthin, attack the messenger. Nice job.


No, just pointing out another example of the NeoCons using data that supports whatever they want us to believe, while ignoring any other data.

That policy has had a long run in the Bush II administration.
 
sp
2004-01-08 12:34:46 AM
It's not that the Reagan economy "jumped" Bush I, it simply experienced a dip and then continued. The economy was rebounding even before the election.
 
2004-01-08 12:35:57 AM
inexplicable

ZipBeep

that wasnt MY point.
my point was that the economy had ALREADY turned the corner before clinton took office.
Clinton claimed NINE yrs of consecutive growth in his seventh year, AFTER insisting he was elected DURING a recession.

/fuzzy math


Well, you responded to what I said, and I didn't say anything about Clinton taking credit for any economy. My point was all about somebody crediting Reagan for Clinton's economy.

But, remember that until 1994 at least, Clinton's economy was not that great.
 
2004-01-08 12:36:33 AM
ZipBeep

are you sure that isnt just YOU using the term NEO-CON to attack whatever data you dont want us to believe?
 
2004-01-08 12:38:47 AM
Mr.LintYou cut taxes to corporations they in turn post profits and dont hire anyone.

Well, if they don't hire anyone with lower taxes, what makes you think they will hire people if their taxes are raised?

It's a competitive world, no question about it. I don't recall people complaining when the U.S. was providing people with jobs that paid them way more than what they were actually worth. The central concept of economics is equilibrium and, right now, we're just snapping back to equilibrium with the rest of the world. It's a nasty process for many in the U.S., but, for every person complaining about it in the U.S., there are 10 people around the world who now have greater opportunity than they've ever had before. I now that's a small consolation, but it's a fact.

It goes back to Ricardo and the comparative advantage concept. Stiglitz is right that up until now, our comparative advantage has been our university system, especially in science and engineering. We simply don't have enough people going into those fields and it seems like we're so tightly regulating entrepreneurs that the graduates we do have can't find enough innovative and dynamic companies to work for.

Also, Stiglitz is wrong about company valuations. Investors value companies based on ALL the cash flows that company will earn over the long-term. Any company that increases its current earnings, but decreases its overall cash flow by, say, failing to invest in plants and equipment or R&D, is NOT rewarded in the stock market. Any investor who doesn't value companies in this way is really more of a speculator than an investor. Stiglitz should farkin' know this, but he appears to have throw his hat in the ring with the idiot crowd who love to point out the alleged misalignment of short and long term incentives in corporations.

All the farkers complaining about CEO pay should consider that companies need to pay CEOs big-time because they need to give the rank-and-file workers something to aspire to while they underpay them throughout their careers. You are only really 'overpaid' when you get to the CEO level, or approximately equivalent, like CFO. All of the years you worked to get to that level, you were underpaid. That's why people compete so hard to get those jobs, ensuring the best get them, on average.
 
2004-01-08 12:39:42 AM
at least you responded to a rebuttal. ill give ya that, but if clinton claimed 9 yrs of growth in his seventh year (please dont make me google for a link, he did) doesnt that mean Bush 1 saw growth through at least half of his term?
 
2004-01-08 12:39:58 AM
sp

It's not that the Reagan economy "jumped" Bush I, it simply experienced a dip and then continued. The economy was rebounding even before the election.


Oh, come on. What? I know he is called "Saint Reagan", but he never really did any miracles, OK?

6 years after he's out of office, his policies are still affecting the economy? And that's after 4 years of a weak economy under his Vice-President?

If that's the case, then I'm saying that this latest economic mini-run was due to Bill Clinton, while the last 3 years were all Bush II's fault! You see how stupid that sounds???
 
2004-01-08 12:41:45 AM
OBVIOUSLY, people see all the earthquakes and know that the end of the world is near, so they are spending it all.

DUH.
 
2004-01-08 12:44:21 AM
inexplicable

at least you responded to a rebuttal. ill give ya that, but if clinton claimed 9 yrs of growth in his seventh year (please dont make me google for a link, he did) doesnt that mean Bush 1 saw growth through at least half of his term?


Again, I don't care about Clinton. That's not my point.

Whether he said that or not, I don't care, in this thread.
 
2004-01-08 12:45:21 AM
inexplicable

are you sure that isnt just YOU using the term NEO-CON to attack whatever data you dont want us to believe?


Sorry, I generally respond in kind and Tinian's a well-known troll.
 
2004-01-08 12:45:50 AM
The Realest
 
2004-01-08 12:48:17 AM
ZipBeep

Again, I don't care about Clinton. That's not my point.
Whether he said that or not, I don't care, in this thread.


my point remains... Bush the ONE saw at least 2 yrs of growth.
 
m00
2004-01-08 12:49:13 AM
fark_tard:

Well, if they don't hire anyone with lower taxes, what makes you think they will hire people if their taxes are raised?

You are 100% correct. A company will hire as few employees as possible, and pay them as little as possible. Today, that means outsourcing to India and China, laying off guys right before they retire to screw them out of benefits, avoid paying their taxes...

Specifically, CEOs tend to do things which benefit them personally rather than benefit their company. Usually this is the same thing (When Bill Gates doing the best thing for Microsoft is the same as Bill Gates doing the best thing for Bill Gates) but sometimes it isn't (Enron, CEOs that loot their companies)

The question is how to make companies act in a responsible manner when we NEED them to... and how to make CEOs act in a responsible manner when the shareholders NEED them to.

I don't think it's raising OR lowering taxes.
 
2004-01-08 12:50:40 AM
fark_tard
All the farkers complaining about CEO pay should consider that companies need to pay CEOs big-time because they need to give the rank-and-file workers something to aspire to while they underpay them throughout their careers. You are only really 'overpaid' when you get to the CEO level, or approximately equivalent, like CFO. All of the years you worked to get to that level, you were underpaid. That's why people compete so hard to get those jobs, ensuring the best get them, on average.


You actually had me thinking there until this last paragraph. Hahahahaaha. Everyone at upper management level is underpaid???

The rank-and-file workers are aspiring to CEO status? hahahaaha.

Talk about academics living in ivory towers. The wealthy really don't know how the other 90% lives.
 
2004-01-08 12:53:05 AM
i like fark_tard's post
being over-paid is something we should ALL aspire to
 
2004-01-08 12:55:51 AM
ZipBeep

inexplicable

are you sure that isnt just YOU using the term NEO-CON to attack whatever data you dont want us to believe?

Sorry, I generally respond in kind and Tinian's a well-known troll.


OH, and BTW, I really feel bad for you poor, poor NeoCons. After being called a hippy, a Libby, a commie, pussy, etc, etc., it really must be tough for you thin skinned conservative types to actually get back some of your own bullshiat.

But that's the new tactic I guess. The right is now complaining that Christians are being persecuted in the United States! Ha!
 
2004-01-08 12:57:27 AM
because BOTH parties laugh at retards...

Check This Out
 
2004-01-08 12:57:34 AM
undflickertail:

You're right on target with that China story. Couldn't the deficit problem be considered a National Security Issue?



And Bush, with his new immigration initiative, is playing right into the "cheap labor Conservative" label. This strikes me as a pure political ploy to avert a trade war with Mexico over government farm subsidies and garner support among typically Democratic voting demographic.


And I've searched the posts so far and not one you, "bleeding heart liberals" or "cheap labor conservatives", have mentioned a FLAT TAX?



Bremmer instituted a 15% flat tax in Iraq and we don't have the balls to do that let alone go back on the gold standard here in America? Pray that the Iraqis think we're nice folks in 10 years.



I weep for the future.



And in closing, your dollar is worth the least amount it has ever been worth.
 
2004-01-08 12:58:04 AM
"All the farkers complaining about CEO pay should consider that companies need to pay CEOs big-time because they need to give the rank-and-file workers something to aspire to while they underpay them throughout their careers"


-Congratulations! That is without a doubt the STUPIDEST THING I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS YEAR.
 
2004-01-08 12:59:40 AM
ZipBeep

did you think my post meant i was a "neo-con"?
im just a regular old "con".
wasnt offense taken, just a point made.
 
2004-01-08 01:01:32 AM
-And I don't go around calling people names, it cheapens the 'debate', but I mean , like ...Christ! That statement actually made sense to you!?
 
2004-01-08 01:01:54 AM
i am headed to the bar across the street. ill be there for an hour or so. when i come back you all better have your rooms cleaned!
 
2004-01-08 01:07:23 AM
ZipBeep
You could say that strictly speaking, upper management isn't underpaid because if they really were, they'd probably leave the company. If you're saying there's fat in corporate America, I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that the compensation structure of a typical public corporation is such that there's a non-linear relationship between rank and salary. At some point in the corporate hierarchy, you get a much larger raise than your talents would suggest you merit, as compensation for all the time you spent in a position you were underpaid relative to your talents. It's an incentive system that rewards long-term commitment to the company.

The rank-and-file workers are aspiring to CEO status?
OK, not every worker, but the competition for CEO status in any company of, say, 500 or more workers is pretty much a case study in corporate Darwinism.

Also, don't forget that surveys show that nearly 50% of men want to be CEO of a company some day, and nearly 33% of women say the same. That's a lot of folks out there wanting that top spot.
 
2004-01-08 01:08:38 AM
ZipBeep

No, just pointing out another example of the NeoCons using data that supports whatever they want us to believe, while ignoring any other data.

Hahaha! And that's why leftists read Krugman?

Read some of the Krugman watch blogs. They have caught him lying and distorting so much that he doesn't even try explain himself anymore. Because you can't defend yourself when you get caught doing shiat like using the 10 year tax cut figure divided by the number of jobs to be created in one year to determine the average (mean) cost per job created. Krugman does this kind of shiat all the time.

And you complain about National Review being dishonest? Find me some leftist critiques of NRO articles backed up by facts as thoroughly as what the Krugman watchers write. Otherwise, you got nothing -- absolutely nothing but non-specific biatching about NRO being wrong, with nothing to back up your claims.
 
2004-01-08 01:16:52 AM
Kinda misleading headline...

It ought to say "An economist is puzzled aboout why the economy..."
 
2004-01-08 01:19:56 AM
ZipBeep

OH, and BTW, I really feel bad for you poor, poor NeoCons. After being called a hippy, a Libby, a commie, pussy, etc, etc., it really must be tough for you thin skinned conservative types to actually get back some of your own bullshiat.

And the mere sight of my name makes you spaz and shiat your pants and mindlessly scream:
Neo-Con! NEO-CON! NEEO-CONNNN!!!

/laughs and laughs and laughs some more
 
2004-01-08 01:20:19 AM
AmigaJoe
I don't see where you have a leg to stand on with that comment. In my follow up to ZipBeep's post, I make it clear that this is a common practice designed to enable companies to extract long-term commitments from otherwise mobile employees.

Without going overboard making assumptions about you based on one post, you may simply not be the kind of person who will ever be the CEO of a company, in which case this kind of compensation system will be useless to you, because you have no desire to make a long-term commitment to a company. In that case, you'll always be underpaid because you won't work at any company long enough to get overpaid. That's an individual choice you're making and it does nothing to invalidate my original statement.

In fact, my original statement answers to major questions relating to perceptions of compensation. First, why do so many low-level employees think they are underpaid? Second, why do so many low-level employees think upper management is underpaid? I'm saying, if you read my theory carefully, that these perceptions derive from the fact that low-level employees are underpaid and upper management is overpaid. I'm also saying that's the only possible way it could be, given the need to get the right employees to commit to the company long-term. Other employees are really just temp labor in the long-term.

Anyway, if you have anything of substance to say on this topic, by all means, let it fly. I find it an interesting topic, to say the least, but I set a high standard for what I consider substantive and your last post didn't really reach it.
 
2004-01-08 01:37:27 AM
newmoonpuppyhead

you are more right than not right

/reality bites
 
2004-01-08 01:46:17 AM
flame on my fellow farkers, flame on.
 
2004-01-08 02:03:24 AM
Tinian,

I can't believe you turned this thread into a way to bash "hippies". Actually, I can.

But anyway, Krugman is a fearless and brilliant economist with an amazing BS detector and a gift for writing (who also grandstands more than your typical economist, it's true), who's been a voice in economics since long before Bush became president. He's the world's preeminent expert on currency crises and could win a Nobel for his work on international trade.

Krugman used to be just as savage to the Clinton-era "strategic trade" spinmeisters on their economic distortions before Bush II. Krugman's got a history of debunking political arguments that amount to bad economic policy. Don't be mad because your boy Bush fudges the numbers up so much to sell his economic policy that Krugman lays into him. That comes with the territory.

Krugman will rip future President Dean too, if he should let spin get the better of his economic policy.

Don't think the retaliatory hitjobs in NRO are indicative of Krugman's value as an economist. They're not. And Krugman hardly needs to make shiat up, because examples of BS abound throughout the Bush administration, especially on economic policy.
 
2004-01-08 02:15:49 AM
its the walmart effect

US consumers demand cheap stuff

costco, sams club, walmart, etc ... all competing for the same market share, the people who currently have the money or credit.

in their competitiveness (grossly simplifying and using a few companies to represent a larger macrocosm of continually globalizing multinationals) someone eventually went offshore to produce the goods available at said whole-resalers in order to deliver *widgets* more cheaply in an attempt to retain an ever tightening profit margin.

chasing lower cost production overseas is the natural path for companies that want to survive and flourish

/educate yourself and save for a rainy day!
 
2004-01-08 03:00:21 AM
There isn't a recovery. The administration is pulling an enron by cooking the books. With the best jobs still leaving and people getting laid off there is no recovery.
 
2004-01-08 03:27:32 AM
i would like to take this opportunity to thank my parents for being well-off because they work hard and liberal because they realize that compassion for fellow human beings is an admirable goal to strive for. okay, that's over-simplifying a bit, but generally rings true.
as for the economy? my co-workers are chemistry grad students. i have no clue what life is like now for people who work in offices, because i hope to god i never have to do that again in my life. i am fully capable of hating bush for reasons that have nothing to do with economics.
 
2004-01-08 03:37:41 AM
It's so easy to spot an idiot. They'll blame Clinton to exonerate Bush or they'll blame Carter to exonerate Reagan.

It's so old it's moldy.
 
2004-01-08 03:38:16 AM
Rayonic

newmoonpuppyhead said:
"Face it. The American Dream is over. Unless, of course, you've got at least a million in the bank...then keep on dreaming by all means."

That's the wonderful thing about The American Dream (tm) -- it's continually pronounced dead. Over and over and over again...



Often by the people for whom it's come true, in the hopes that repetition will make it fact in the minds of their audience, I might add.
But hey, they say the same thing about rock music, though I'll be damned if my Ozzman Cometh CD is going in the garbage any time soon.
 
2004-01-08 03:46:00 AM
"I listened to the words he'd say
But in his voice I heard decay
The plastic face forced to portray
All the insides left cold and gray
There is a place that still remains
It eats the fear
Eats the pain
The sweetest price he'll have to pay
The day the whole world went away..."

--NIN, The Day the World Went Away

Maybe money is everything, maybe it's the only thing, and maybe it does indeed rule our lives, and robs us of our identity by defining us by what we want, and wear, and the things we do with it.

Maybe money buys you happiness, and maybe it brings you grief. Does money define who you are? Are you a better person because of it? I mean, it CAN buy you anything.

Drugs, sex, and a mulitude of other unnameable vices. Our very lives are RULED by a farkin' piece of fabric currency. And this was a conversation I had with my fellow co-workers in a PIZZA HUT resturaunt, so anybody that automatically writes off young people who are forced to work in food service as morons needs to be attacked by rabid badgers.

I live in the real world. I SEE it. Do I accept it?

No. I won't accept the fact that the minority of this country's population has the majority of the wealth. I hope to live to see the day when those dynamics change, but I still think that eventually ALL people are going to realize that things are going to have to change, and THEY are going to have to bring it about, because our leaders aren't out for our sakes. Maybe they THINK they are, but THEY aren't living the real world, or maybe they just don't care about us.

I don't know, but then again, fark it. I'm still resigned to defining myself without having to use money to cheat at it. It's not easy, trying to figure out who you are, but I think I like the guy I am.

"I want you to remember all the things that I said
I want you to remember you're not better off--DEAD!!!
You only have a minute to go back in the line
To bring it on home and make up your mind

I want you to remember what you came here to do
I want you to remember that I'm talkin' about you

I love music and I love to feel
I love to get through I love to get through
I love music and I love to yell
In my soul I am running getting nearer
For many years of only hope you'd never leave
You are my faith You are my friend
You are my family And I am coming

So we can live forever more in total love

You're in my soul
And I am running
Getting nearer

For many years
Of only hope
You'd never leave
For many years I hoped you'd never leave

You are my faith
You are my friend
You are my family
And I am coming

So we can live
Forever more
In total love

I'm not about to die I'm not a setting sun
I look into your eyes and see what has begun

I'm not about to die
This time we will unite
I'm not a setting sun
This time we will not lose you
I look into your eyes
We look into your eyes and
And see what has begun
And see the world is...

In my soul I am running getting nearer
I'm always getting nearer
For many years of only hope you'd never leave

You are my faith you are my friend
You are my family and I am coming
So we can live forever more in total love

So we can be there when victory strikes again."

--Andrew WK, I Love Music
 
2004-01-08 04:02:29 AM
WAR WAR WAR. The only reason the economy is recovering.
 
2004-01-08 05:35:44 AM
Wow. I'm glad the economy has recovered.
Now I can exchange all these worthless Euros into valuable USD!
 
2004-01-08 06:12:01 AM
Uhhhh, pfalstad, thats what I said, look closely.....
 
2004-01-08 06:49:18 AM
There has been an increase in jobs. Premise of headline and article is false. Please stop lying.
 
2004-01-08 08:05:15 AM
I work for an employment agency. I have tons of new job openings and can't find anyone to fill them. People would rather collect unemployment benefits. Its sad that 80% of my time is now spent going to hearings and writing protest letters to fight people trying to collect rather than process payroll for people who are working.

"I was laid off from a job paying $15.00/hr. I'd rather collect unemployment than work for your $12.00/hr job. Its my money anyway."

Sheesh...
 
2004-01-08 08:40:39 AM
The whole story is fark'd. There are Jobs out there. They are not 6 figure jobs, becuase in a free market system the market dictates what things cost. If there is a product that is just as good and costs less, you have to be an idiot to buy the expensive one.

The same goes with labor. I know a guy who was making $80,000+ a year working from home in a community where $80,000 is pretty good. He got laid off and now he can't get work. Why? because he beleives that he is worth $80,000 when he should be happy with a $60,000 year gig. Once the market figured out that they could ditch over paid workers for younger, cheaper ones it only took a small recession for wages to correct themselves.

Get out there and work for goodness sake. I know tons of people who are just waiting for the phone to ring because they are not going to work for less than their perceived wage earning capicity. when there is a good paying job waiting for them.

You are only worth what the market says you are worth. I'm still holding out for that seven figure recording contract too... You don't see me biatching about record the big acts.
 
2004-01-08 08:59:10 AM
the headline could have been more terse:

"Economists are puzzled"

but then again, that's not news....
 
2004-01-08 10:11:29 AM
Tinian
Hahaha! And that's why leftists read Krugman?

Read some of the Krugman watch blogs. They have caught him lying and distorting so much that he doesn't even try explain himself anymore. Because you can't defend yourself when you get caught doing shiat like using the 10 year tax cut figure divided by the number of jobs to be created in one year to determine the average (mean) cost per job created. Krugman does this kind of shiat all the time.

And you complain about National Review being dishonest? Find me some leftist critiques of NRO articles backed up by facts as thoroughly as what the Krugman watchers write. Otherwise, you got nothing -- absolutely nothing but non-specific biatching about NRO being wrong, with nothing to back up your claims.


Let's be clear - you are the only one who has mentioned Krugman in this thread. So, you are trolling yourself.

I've never even heard of him before this and I follow economics. I guess I'll have to check him out.

Second, I never the NRO is wrong, I said this: "I guess if you think the National Review, one of the most conservative publications in the country, puts out facts that don't support the conservative of point of view...."

They slant everything so that it appears in the best possible Conservative light. Which is, of course, why you cited it and why ALL the NeoCon links have been from there. And you complain about Krugman????
 
2004-01-08 10:18:10 AM
Anybody care to define the "economy"? I have no idea what it is, myself. Seems like it means different things to different people.

I myself am earning half the salary I made during the illusionistic Clinton years. And it looks like offshore outsourcing is the next big thing.

Productivity is up? Well sure, when the remaining employees are doing their own work, plus the work of everyone who got laid off, the bottom line is bound to look better.

I'm sure stockholders are very pleased right now, since the Dow has floated above 10,000 several days in a row, here recently.

And even though the value of the US dollar is faltering against the euro and the yen, there's still enough money left to slide $87 billion toward the operation in Iraq, and to solidify those tax cuts Bush signed into law back when New York was home to two of the tallest buildings in the world.

So I guess everything's OK. Thank god! I was getting worried there for a minute.
 
2004-01-08 10:18:58 AM
fark_tard
You could say that strictly speaking, upper management isn't underpaid because if they really were, they'd probably leave the company. If you're saying there's fat in corporate America, I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that the compensation structure of a typical public corporation is such that there's a non-linear relationship between rank and salary. At some point in the corporate hierarchy, you get a much larger raise than your talents would suggest you merit, as compensation for all the time you spent in a position you were underpaid relative to your talents. It's an incentive system that rewards long-term commitment to the company.


The incentive system now is done before you take the job - it's what you negotiate as your golden parachute. Short term, do WHATEVER you can to try to increase the value of your stock options. Long term, who gives a fark? If it doesn't work, I've got my money. If it means moving all the jobs to China, BFD.

The rank-and-file workers are aspiring to CEO status?
OK, not every worker, but the competition for CEO status in any company of, say, 500 or more workers is pretty much a case study in corporate Darwinism.

Also, don't forget that surveys show that nearly 50% of men want to be CEO of a company some day, and nearly 33% of women say the same. That's a lot of folks out there wanting that top spot.

I'd like to see those surveys. Do you have a link? Were they done by Fortune Magazine or Forbes? It seems unlikely that 50% of the general population, including fast food workers, want to be CEO some day.
 
2004-01-08 10:34:40 AM
Poverty in Michigan is up 25%. The economy is kicking ass!
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report