Why hire?
jimbo
of 10.2% which is the highest since the 80's.
However, productivity is up at an annualized rate of 9.5% and labour
costs are down by 5.2%.
It looks like the fat has been trimmed out of corporations and I can't
see any reason to hire people unless their order book grows.
Jim
F.H.
What doesn't show is the percentage of folks that have exhausted their
unemployment and thus, no longer show up as unemployed. But they are.
Then there is underemployment, those who's hours have been cut back.
ByTor
33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, jbl...@videotron.ca says...
Are you kidding, we're creating jobs!
Back to the *OLD* ways again? Payback for China lending us money?
http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/06/schumer-writes-to-energy-sec-chu-
regarding-stimulus-funds-for-texas-wind-farm-going-to-chinese-company/
http://tinyurl.com/yztqwy9 (copy/paste impaired)
From Schumers letter:
"The purpose of the Recovery Act was to jump-start the economy to create
and save jobs ? American jobs. Yet, the Texas wind farm project would
create an estimated 2,000-3,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs ? in
China. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance those
Chinese jobs. I respectfully urge you to deny Recovery Act funding to
this project unless the majority of components are manufactured in the
United States."
S.LaRocca
e35224...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a country
produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
--
*************************************************************************
A fartin' horse is ready to retire....A fartin' man's the one to hire.
S.LaRocca
news:2009110709492816807-yexxxx@sbellnet:
>
> An excellent point, of course. Why, indeed? You don't see much of a
> breakdown on where people are being laid off but I know that in
> telecom, it's by the thousands. The last time I talked with my ex
> boss from Verizon, they were laying off 30,000 people. They've
> actually been doing layoffs for twice a year for at least the last 7
> years. Small business layoffs are, in large measure, due to cutbacks
> from large corporations. Always the interesting thing about large
> corporations is tnat not many VPs and above get laid off. Just think,
> if you laid off one executive who was pulling in 7 figures, how many
> low level jobs does that represent? Of course, its not about
> 'justice' or even the 'laws of economics'.
>
> There was a time when an AT&T and a SW Bell would not be allowed to
> 'merge'. But now bigs can acquire bigs and then slough off thousands
> of peons (you and me). That does impact the bottom line as long as
> revenues remain the same or better, but I don't think that's the case
> in the huge sector of telecom. And how do you like having to make a
> two year committment just for the privilege of being their customer?
> That's what huge can do that little cannot.
>
> I think the pendulum has swung and I don't think we are going back to
> any real 'competitive' market place now that large companies have been
> allowed to 'consolidate' Corporations, by and large, are run for the
> benefit of top executives (you though stockholders and customers,
> right?). In a choice between greed and anything else, greed will win
> and someone (guess who?) will pay those who want millions in pay.
> It's the Darwinian model when there are no cops around to restrain
> "crime" (excesses is the right word). The rich get richer wasn't just
> an idle statement from years past which our world class economic and
> political system creates opportunity for everyone. You do believe
> that, right? Work your way up and if you don't have the education to
> get on the starting line, you are just used and then tossed out like
> junk. We do create a lot of waste for some strange reason.
>
> As a young man, I used to somewhat believe that it was big government
> (big brother) that we had to look out for. Put the restraints on.
> But we got it anyway. But what I never suspected would emerge as a
> force that 'consumes' people and then throws away the 'waste' were
> large corporations run by people who a decade or two ago found out
> that they could dip their hands into the corporate till and take all
> they wanted.
> These, of course, are the people we look up to and admire, right?
> Accountable to a board of directors which have, for the most part,
> turned out to be part of the management team, and lead, in most cases,
> by the management team. Is the fox in the henhouse?
>
> Gary
>
>
In short, I believe you're saying...It's bend over & grab your ankles
time & I couldn't agree more.
Tara Green
> jimbo <jbl...@videotron.ca> wrote in news:0f943246-a41e-4083-ad6b-
> e35224...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The latest unemployment figure for the U.S. indicates a jobless rate
>> of 10.2% which is the highest since the 80's.
>>
>> However, productivity is up at an annualized rate of 9.5% and labour
>> costs are down by 5.2%.
>>
>> It looks like the fat has been trimmed out of corporations and I can't
>> see any reason to hire people unless their order book grows.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a country
> produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
>
Dildos are made in China.
(there's a whole movement about that because
a lot of women are getting location specific
cancers that may be linked to cheap materials
added in production)
mike
>>Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a
>>country produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
>>
> Nope.
>
>Dildos are made in China.
We knew you would set us straight on that.
F.H.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Same Store Sales *Mean* *Less* When There are *Fewer* *Stores*
Why do reporters and analysts always fail to take note of the fact that
there are fewer stores this year than last year? This is important when
we compare same store sales, because the stores that have survived over
the year now have a larger share of retail business.
In a normal year there is growth in the number of stores year to year,
so flat same store sales would be consistent with rising total retail
stores. With many chains having closed stores in the last year and many
smaller stores having gone out of business, flat same store sales would
imply a decline in total retail sales. Reporters and retail analysts
should know this.
Dean Baker
Sharx35
"Tara Green" <jellybea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7llsllF...@mid.individual.net...
You must be worried.
Mark Warner
> S.LaRocca wrote:
>>
>> Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a
>> country produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
>
> Nope.
>
> Dildos are made in China.
>
> (there's a whole movement about that because a lot of women are getting
> location specific cancers that may be linked to cheap materials added in
> production)
Does this mean I need to check where my socks are made?
--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying
F.H.
> Tara Green wrote:
>> S.LaRocca wrote:
>>>
>>> Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a
>>> country produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Dildos are made in China.
>>
>> (there's a whole movement about that because a lot of women are
>> getting location specific cancers that may be linked to cheap
>> materials added in production)
>
> Does this mean I need to check where my socks are made?
Probably not. Cat food either. But dog food..., yes, by all means.
Tara Green
> Tara Green wrote:
>> S.LaRocca wrote:
>>>
>>> Hell Jimbo, it's easy to raise productivity when the only goods a
>>> country produces anymore are dildos & Preperation H.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Dildos are made in China.
>>
>> (there's a whole movement about that because a lot of women are
>> getting location specific cancers that may be linked to cheap
>> materials added in production)
>
> Does this mean I need to check where my socks are made?
>
Probably.
You might wash them too, while you're at it.