Ideas/thoughts for a new pool room
Erik
opening a pool hall is closer than ever. Even though its probably 2-3
years away, I thought this would be a good time to gather information
on what the room needs to attract business especially from a players
standpoint. I want this room to be a place where serious players
attend but also at the sametime not shun away beginners.
Heres what Ive got so far
1) Tables - not sure of how big of an operation I would want but for
now I think 20 9ft tables and 1 billiard table should be considered a
medium size pool room.
2) Hours of Operation: 12pm - 2 or 3 am daily with
3) Table rates: For now here what Im thinking:
$5/hr for 1-player
$6/hr for 2-players
$7/hr for 3-players
$8/hr for 4 or more players
Daily specials on table rates: From 12pm-6pm, $10 all you can play.
4) Alcohol or No Alcohol: My intent is to make this room a more family
oriented room. Although alcohol will bring in lots of sales, but it
will also alienate the younger crowd which in itself will bring
business to the pool room. I would like to hear both sides of the
argument.
5) Video Game room - 5 to 6 of the latest arcade games
6) Internet Jukebox - armed with the latest hits from all genres
7) TV Lounge - an area where patrons can relax and socialize
8) Stadium type seating - 2 rows of seats where the second row is
higher than the front row
9) Food - snacks type food (nachos, chips, cnady bars) or grilled type
foods (hotdogs, burgers & sandwiches) or both
10) Weekly tourneys & leagues - Here I'm thinking a weekly 9ball,
8ball tourneys ($10 or $20 entry fees) and APA or BCA leagues on
weekdays.
Weekend tourneys held on Sundays:
1st Sunday of the Month: money added 9 ball tourney
2nd Sunday of the Month: 8 ball tourney
3rd Sunday of the Month: 14.1 tourney
4th Sunday of the Month: 1 pocket tournet
Will too many tourneys kill the business? Im thinking weekend
tourneys should at least have some green fees. Maybe like a $40 entry
+ $10 green fees seems reasonable. What do you think?
11) A pro shop - some cues, cases and accessories. Maybe some custom
cues too.
12) Any other ideas that you think thats helpful.
Hopefully your comments and ideas will help me fufill my dreams of
making this an excellent pool room. Thanks for your inputs.
WilleeCue
Wouldn't it be a bother to keep track of the number of players and how long they
played on each table?
All you other ideas seem good.
Defiantly have a Pro Shop with on site cue repair, custom cues, cases, and
accessories for sale.
If you are going to have food then a beer license should not be that hard to
get.
Video camera on one of the tables hooked up to a large screen TV for the final
games of a tournement or interesting road players matches. (birds eye view)
William Lee
"Erik" <dooz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bc159e5.02112...@posting.google.com...
Trevor Justinen
One of my biggest pet peeves is number three. Instead of charging multiple
players more to play on one table you should be glad to have more people to
spend money on coffee, soda, munchies, full menu, alcohol etc.
Your overhead does not change if one person plays or if four play on the
same table so how do you justify charging more?
If you charge 40 with 10 green fee for a tourney you should be kicking some
added cash back in, where I am that is a huge green fee.
Try to keep the video games as far as possible from the pool tables.
Good luck with your venture, if you think you can get away with it all ages
and smoke free are bonuses.
Roger Orsulak
I don't own a pool room, never have, probably never will. But, having said
that, let me offer some additional things to think about. There are a lot
of variables that go into the equation of success. In your case, you need
to complete a business plan.
You have a lot of the variables listed below, but things like "I'm thinking
$X/hr..." and how many tables, etc., need to be balanced by what market you
are serving and, really important, what your costs are. Have you looked at
rental rates for appropriate property? Can your area support 20 tables (and
the associated rental space for these tables)? Can your area support even 1
billiard table? As a customer/player I think including one is GREAT, but
will it pay for its space? Maybe yes, maybe no.
There are a lot of other cost-side things to consider when looking at the
many features you are considering. Go to several rooms that you know and
consider successful. Take mental notes of what they have, what the
occupancy of the tables is (don't forget to go on Mondays and Tuesdays
also), how many drinks or snacks they buy, and what the average time on the
table is. Look at the demographics, teens vs. older and see how the food,
music and other features may be different for the different groups. Note
how many people are employed there, also considering those that you can't
see (kitchen staff, etc.). Make estimates as to the fixed costs like
equipment, rent, lights, security etc.
I know that I've rambled quite a bit, and I'm not trying to dissuade you
from your dream, but giving you some other things to think about. Probably
the best advice that I can offer is from an old friend who owned a couple of
bars and a pool room among other business ventures over many years. His
advice about pool rooms was "You can't build a monument to yourself or
you'll go broke." He said this when I told him of all the things that "I"
would like to see in a pool room. His point is that you need to cater to
what your public will pay for, not what you yourself want - everything
within reason of course.
Good luck with your dream.
Roger
"Erik" <dooz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bc159e5.02112...@posting.google.com...
Otto
or
Ventilate the place properly so I can come with my family and not choke on
the smoke particulate fo your other customers.
Want me to stay and spend lots of money? No smoke.
Want me to leave because neither I nor my kids can breathe? Status Quo
Otto
jcg
expensive table or what.
jcg
"Erik" <dooz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bc159e5.02112...@posting.google.com...
> 3) Table rates: For now here what Im thinking:
Patrick Johnson
Because they can.
(Think there is more wear and tear, though...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
TheFLcueman
them in good shape , as james earl jones said in field of dreams,.....they will
come.
Dav1936531
><4bc159e5.02112...@posting.google.com>
>
>I want this room to be a place where serious players attend but also at the
sametime not shun away beginners. Heres what Ive got so far
To attract beginners into playing, I would recommend having good quality house
cues.
Sort through them once or twice a week and remove for repair any that are not
completely true, have mushroomed tips, etc.
There is only one thing worse for the beginning player then having to sort
through a complete pile of crappy cues looking for one that is playable.....and
that one thing is being unable to find one.
Good house cues will lead to repeat business from the beginners. The beginners
will then become regulars. The regulars will then buy a cue in your pro shop.
Dave
frank howe
a room now. What I have found is everything works great on paper but
in reality it is hard to get everything to work out right.
The biggest problem I have had is location. If I get a place for the right
money
its probably not in the best area. Better location more dollars. I will put
my views on what you have so far and maybe a couple of other things I
have been wondering about. Hopefully with the collective years around pool
that
comes here I/we can get a couple of good ideas/tips.
(snipped)
> Heres what Ive got so far
> 1) Tables - not sure of how big of an operation I would want but for
> now I think 20 9ft tables and 1 billiard table should be considered a
> medium size pool room.
Unless you have a great deal of space and/or alot of billiard players the
billiard
table maynot support the space being used. I have taken and tried to use
as much space as I can to make money. If it was down to a Pro shop
or extra seating for eating/relaxing I would give up the table. A good pro
shop
should pay for the space in my opinion. Also 20 9fts takes up alot
of room without an arcade and dining and seating. More space = more
codes the city can bust you with.
> 2) Hours of Operation: 12pm - 2 or 3 am daily with
> 3) Table rates: For now here what Im thinking:
> $5/hr for 1-player
> $6/hr for 2-players
> $7/hr for 3-players
> $8/hr for 4 or more players
> Daily specials on table rates: From 12pm-6pm, $10 all you can play.
I am going with a 1 person rate and a more than that rate. I dont want to
keep
up with people coming in and out of games and girlfriends playing a game or
two
here and there. I will have day prices and night prices. At night during
peak a single will
have to pay the 2 person rate if busy. With my prices being $4/hr-single and
$6/ 2 or more
I think this is fair. I will have some special but want set rates where
people can afford to
come even not during a special. I have seen a lot rooms that fill on special
nights/times
and are ghost town before and after.
> 4) Alcohol or No Alcohol: My intent is to make this room a more family
> oriented room. Although alcohol will bring in lots of sales, but it
> will also alienate the younger crowd which in itself will bring
> business to the pool room. I would like to hear both sides of the
> argument.
I will have alcohol because people want it. It makes money and is about the
only thing in a room that more than pays for its space. I dont think I will
have
an extensive bar but capable and I will get what the people ask for.
> 5) Video Game room - 5 to 6 of the latest arcade games
I think this is a must. I am going to have a vending company supply the
games with the exception of the Megatouch games. I had to give them
a better percentage because I will own my bar boxes and the Megatouches.
> 6) Internet Jukebox - armed with the latest hits from all genres
> 7) TV Lounge - an area where patrons can relax and socialize
A must. Keep them in and keep them happy and you get their money.
A place to watch games with friends and eat and drink is needed.
I hate rooms that have limited seating to rest/relax/socialize.
> 8) Stadium type seating - 2 rows of seats where the second row is
> higher than the front row
I am torn here because of the space it requires. I love to watch and dont
like to stand
all day to do it but the cost of the space is high. If large enough for
sure. Someone in
another post had a great idea!! I will use this for sure. He said to have a
closed circuit
on one or a few tables. Pipe this in to a couple of tvs in the sitting area
and around the room
and instant view. I like the idea and very inexpensive.
> 9) Food - snacks type food (nachos, chips, cnady bars) or grilled type
> foods (hotdogs, burgers & sandwiches) or both
I will have food and like to go to rooms that offer something decent. Pool
players
are tight so something in all price ranges. Keep people from having to leave
the room.
> 10) Weekly tourneys & leagues - Here I'm thinking a weekly 9ball,
> 8ball tourneys ($10 or $20 entry fees) and APA or BCA leagues on
> weekdays.
> Weekend tourneys held on Sundays:
> 1st Sunday of the Month: money added 9 ball tourney
> 2nd Sunday of the Month: 8 ball tourney
> 3rd Sunday of the Month: 14.1 tourney
> 4th Sunday of the Month: 1 pocket tournet
> Will too many tourneys kill the business? Im thinking weekend
> tourneys should at least have some green fees. Maybe like a $40 entry
> + $10 green fees seems reasonable. What do you think?
I will have a weekly tournament and an APA tournament every now and again.
Also
a regional sized event once a year to bring in the good players for the
locals
to see. I hate to see high greens fees. I might change as an owner but I
think the idea
of a tournament is to promote pool and the room. A $ 300 dollar added event
here now draws about 32 players and they charge a 10 dollar green fee. The
house isnt
adding anything the players are. I probably wont charge any fee but maybe a
2-3 bucks.
> 11) A pro shop - some cues, cases and accessories. Maybe some custom
> cues too.
I will sell cues very reasonable and believe that if a person buys one they
are more inclined
to play and upgrade later. I good repair guy is always needed and welcome. A
repair
shop should have set hours and be able to do tips and such then and/or leave
it for hi/her to
fix..
> 12) Any other ideas that you think thats helpful.
I am also welcoming any ides or thoughts. There is always different opinion
and
things forgotten. Sorry so long but I have been thinking and dealing with
decisions
everyday for a while now.
thanks
frank howe
Val
Val (i'm only half-kidding)
dooz...@yahoo.com (Erik) wrote in message news:<4bc159e5.02112...@posting.google.com>...
Jim Wyant
Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
I was looking for the smiley ;) at the end of your 'wear and tear' statement
and, finding none, I'm hoping you can explain how four players can put more
wear and tear on a table than 2.
Using the wear and tear logic, I'd say charge more for 8 & 9 ball than 14.1
and 1-pocket.
--Jim
Patrick Johnson
> wear and tear on a table than 2.
It's not just the tables, but all the equipment (more sticks in use, for
instance) and the whole place. I think groups tend to be livelier and just put
more "stress" on the whole joint (although it's probably an improvement for the
atmosphere), while single players tend to be quieter and more "contained". I
purposely didn't mention that groups are more trouble to clean up after because
I figure that's covered by their purchase of more refreshments, more money in
the jukebox, etc.
Generally, I'd expect maintenance costs to be less if the room had the same
number of players but one at a time.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Smorgass Bored
12) Any other ideas that you think thats helpful.
I am also welcoming any ides or thoughts. There is always
different opinion and things forgotten. Sorry so long but I have been
thinking and dealing with decisions everyday for a while now.
thanks
frank howe
(*<~ I can't remember if I've posted this here in the newsgroups or
not. Planet 9-Ball put a big plastic jug/jar on their front checkout
counter for business cards. They drew a business card at random
periodically (I believe that it was either weekly or monthly, to start).
The 'winning' card entitled the person that put the card in the
container and 7 of their co-workers to 2 hours of Free pool on 2 tables
and three or four (maybe five or six) Free pitchers of beer.
This went over exceptionally well in many respects. It brought people
to the room from 5:30-6:00 p.m. until 7:30-8:00 p.m. People that didn't
drink beer, bought their own mixed drinks. People that didn't drink
alcohol, bought their own sodas. If more than eight co-workers showed
up, they rented an extra table or two. The beer was usually consumed in
the first 30-45 minutes and the people bought their own pitchers and
drinks for the remainder of the two Free hours. They played the jukebox,
the video games and they ATE.
They ate burgers and fries and hot wings and appetizers and meals and
munchies. When the Free beer was gone and the two hours of Free pool
were up, many of them stayed and drank and rented tables. They had lots
of fun and returned often for pool, food, drinks, music, darts, games
and to watch sports on one of the many tvs.
It got to a point where they were having these Free pool & beer
drawings/parties 3-4 times a week. Yeehaaaaaaa !
Things that didn't work so well were "Comedy open mike nite", "Karoke"
and the movie "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" with customers dressed up
in outfits and interacting with the movie. Oy-Vey ! (it sounded like a
good idea on the drawing board).
The biggest money maker of all came about when P-9-Ball slid colored
plastic covers (red, blue, green, yellow, etc.) over the 8' foot
florescent bulbs over each table (P-9-Ball has 4'X8' light fixtures with
eight bulbs over each table) with seperate switches for the colored
bulbs. Two nights a week (Tuesday & Sunday) they would switch off the
normal/regular lights and switch On the colored lights. From 8:00 p.m.
until closing (3:00 a.m.) you may play "Cyber-Pool" all night for $5.
They crank up the music and the place is PACKED with young-uns whooping
& hollering and having fun. The kids (aged 18- late 20s) are carded at
the door and issued wrist bands. One color means 'sodas only' and one
color denotes drinking age.
All this typing has made me thirsty. I think I'll draw my own business
card right here at home and have 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6) pitchers of beer my
damnself......
NEXT,
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
TheRacker
be considered a big room and you'd play hell keeping them busy enough to pay
for themselves. As for charging more depending on the number of players I've
seen it done and think its actually quite a common practice. Try to get some
type of league action, a couple weekly touraments and the idea of some
attractive women would help attract the guys. The serious players probably
aren't going to be your main source of income. In the old days the guy that
owned the local pool hall usually had either a pea pool game going on one table
all day and night on Saturday and/or a nine ball ring game going. He had a guy
who shot for the house. Good luck with it. With the economy being what it is
I'd be reluctant to open any business unless it catered to the rich, they alway
have money to blow.
Dan White
involved with the pool industry, some things never change. I know you're
probably aware of these things, but along the same lines as the post below,
make sure you have a good idea of the big costs:
1. Payroll
2. Rent (make sure you have minimum 10 year lease. Getting one or two 5
year options would be good. If you ever want to resell, this will help
you.)
3. Utilities
4. Food cost and/or equipment lease or purchase costs. Figure about 65%
profit on food including cans/bottles of soda. A bit higher overall if you
have fountain drinks (if non-alcoholic). When you get closer to your
decision, you can refine the estimate, but you won't be far off with these
%'s.
5. Debt service if you use a bank.
Make sure you know how many man-hours of pool playing you need to cover the
above with a safety margin (figure a reasonable amount of food sales in
there). Also, don't overlook the importance of making a good deal on the
lease. A small change in the $/s.f. and in the yearly increases makes quite
a difference over time.
Good luck!
dwhite
Roger Orsulak <noma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VGyE9.25182$vM1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Gideon Forrest
"frank howe" <gf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OJAE9.31758$hK4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I am in the process of opening a room now. I should say trying to open
> a room now. What I have found is everything works great on paper but
> in reality it is hard to get everything to work out right.
> > 4) Alcohol or No Alcohol: My intent is to make this room a more family
> > oriented room. Although alcohol will bring in lots of sales, but it
> > will also alienate the younger crowd which in itself will bring
> > business to the pool room. I would like to hear both sides of the
> > argument.
>
> I will have alcohol because people want it. It makes money and is about
the
> only thing in a room that more than pays for its space.
Alcohol is a must, IMO. You make lots of money on it and it makes people
stay longer and play longer. I also doubt that kids are put off by the
alcohol - unless you mean that you can't let kids in at all in your area if
you serve alcohol.
> > 5) Video Game room - 5 to 6 of the latest arcade games
>
> I think this is a must.
Ugh. You may be correct, but I HATE loud games. Do whatever you can to
kill the sound before it hits the table area.
> > 6) Internet Jukebox - armed with the latest hits from all genres
Personally, I much prefer a place with good background music programmed by
the room - preferably blues or jazz. Even if you have more modern
selections, I still think I prefer that to a jukebox. (This opinion was
reinforced by having to hear Eminem about a dozen times this Saturday - it
seems 'dem youts love hearing the same songs over, and over, and over).
[snipped stuff I agree with]
> > 10) Weekly tourneys & leagues - Here I'm thinking a weekly 9ball,
> > 8ball tourneys ($10 or $20 entry fees) and APA or BCA leagues on
> > weekdays.
> > Weekend tourneys held on Sundays:
> > 1st Sunday of the Month: money added 9 ball tourney
> > 2nd Sunday of the Month: 8 ball tourney
> > 3rd Sunday of the Month: 14.1 tourney
> > 4th Sunday of the Month: 1 pocket tournet
Are you somewhere where monthly 14.1 and 1 pocket tourney's will fly? Also,
are the players really going to remember what happens on which Sunday?
If you are going to have $50 entry events, I would also try some cheap
events (like $10) geared towards a more novice type of crowd, who may get
more serious but won't throw $50 away.
> > Will too many tourneys kill the business? Im thinking weekend
> > tourneys should at least have some green fees. Maybe like a $40 entry
> > + $10 green fees seems reasonable. What do you think?
>
> I hate to see high greens fees
I agree, and whether you can get away with them will depend in part on how
much competition you have.
I agree with Otto about keeping the smoke level bearable - ventilation and
smoke eaters are key, IMO.
To me, the fundamental question is whether this a place I feel comfortable
hanging around. The specifics above all contribute to that (as do pretty
waitresses), but there is room to give on some issues if the other factors
make up for it.
Gideon
Jim Wyant
Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
That somewhat makes sense, but on the flip side, more sticks in use but
being used less pretty much balances out. I can agree with more stress on
the chairs, higher water usage (restrooms). I guess my perspective is more
like this (for a room with food and alcohol)
Table Time < 20% of revenue
Food = 30% of revenue - 100% profit margin plus tips for staff
Alcohol = 50% of revenue - 2-300% profit margin plus tips for staff
Merchandise = 2% - 50% profit margin, inventory turns of about 3
Bumping the cost of table time to get the number from 20% to 25% seems like
a way to drive away or limit customer time such that Food & Alcohol are
impacted. I guess if it was me, the additional wear and tear would not be
as much an issue if the more aggressive pricing kept the food and alcohol
moving. Those are really where the profit margin is and keeps staff wanting
to work there. JMO.
--Jim
Patrick Johnson
pj
chgo
TheRacker
put out money for drinks.
Jim Wyant
Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
That depends. We're they purchased outright or are they financed? Even
worst case of year 1 with purchased tables, lights and chairs, the
out-of-pocket costs come up to around $7K each and year 2 through n probably
around $500 each. Assuming you can keep a table in use by 2 players (@
$4/hr each) for 2 hours / day for 350 days in a year, that's $5600 per year.
Year 1 is a 25% loss, Year 2 - n is around 90%. But with that, I think most
room owners assume the rent, utilities, maintenance, insurance, staff, etc.,
come out of that table time number.
It would be interesting to see financial breakdowns with a room that does
true cost breakdowns per profit center. While it is easy to see the
profitability of food; the cost of equipment, staff, percent of utilities,
etc., haven't been broken out in numbers I've seen.
--Jim
Erik
here. So lets keep the ideas coming. Maybe I should have been clearer
in my initial post. The location I have in mind is in a suburb of
Chicago. Its a bit away from Chicago itself, but the location is
great. Its across the street from a major shopping mall. Theres tons
of residential areas around. And from a little research, theres not a
pool room around in a 15-20 mile radius except for the local bowling
alleys that have a few crummy tables. I dont think I would have
trouble attracting the top Chicagoland players coz the players goes to
where the money is. Having a money added tourney on the weekends
would surely bring them over. Ive seen this coz Ive been to several
local money added tourneys and the same crowd are there. Maybe even
hosting a Viking tour event if it comes to Chicago...
frank howe
area. I am in Alabama and was just wondering the difference. Good luck
frank howenews:4bc159e5.0211...@posting.google.com...
frank howe
I did. I have saw where people have talked about food profit % being very
high and beer
profit % being high and I think they need to look at
all factors involved in serving the 2. Someone mentioned
food at a 75% profit and that's not close. You have to factor in labor- not
only to serve and prepare right then but prep as well. Time going and
products as well. Cleaning time because you served also. You have to factor
in to each type of food/beverage waste/theft.
Theft will happen and waste sure occur naturally. You
need to figure in an acceptable figure for those. Equipment cost and
utilities to run them can be broken down into monthly expenditures with the
equipment cost
decreasing and the utilities staying basically the same.
There are so many factors to isolate and watch in a pool room that it is
impossible to track and view "products"
in a profit statement. How much utilities per table etc.
its too hard to figure. I will figure my food and beverage separate and
figure and acceptable profit range. I think somewhere around 50% if I sell
alot of food and cokes and 35-40% if more beer. Beer here is high from the
distributor and you have to sell it relatively cheap for most poolroom
attendees to buy them and not complain
too much. Its definitely a hard business to make it in but if
you can get in a good 3-4 years and keep customers after that it becomes a
good profit margin business.
Just some thoughts
frank howe
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA090531.8B40%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
Shadow
locally would question this practice. In fact, your increments are small by
Seattle standards. Topping out between $10 and $12 during peak periods is
not uncommon here. (Jillians, The Garage, Fremont Ball Room, 211-before
closing, and more)
I am sure you have surveyed Chicago Land pool rooms and know what the
locally accepted norms are. If charging more for more players is the norm,
by all means do it.
The only reason to knock out a legit revenue source is for promotional and
marketing purposes that will result in a net increase over time.
The only reason to charge for something for which your competitiors do not
charge is if you have value added benefits that will result in a net
increase over time.
--
Thomas M. Schmitz
E-mail me at l.o.o.p...@h.o.t.m.a.i.l.c.o.m
David Leis
I also am in the same boat of opening a room. However I have come to terms
that I will not finically be able to do the "temple" that I have dreamed
about. I am starting extrememly small. 6 Diamond Professional and 1 Barbox
along with 3-4 video games and a jukebox. I would highly recomend NOT going
with the Internet Jukebox you spoke about, according to my vendor, the cost
ration does not provide profit...figure that you have to probally split the
profits 50-50 with your vendor, however you must pay for the internet
service for the music, which was aproximately 80 dollars a month. If you
can make a profit off that, then go right ahead. I cant see my place doing
it. I am just gonna get a 400 disc CD player and keep it well stocked and
it will get played just as much. Beer.....no not here in Pennsylvania..I
dont think there is a pool hall in PA that serves beer outright....there are
a few that have a bar attached. Food...I am going with easy food....hot
dogs, burgers, pizza, and nachos....sodas will be 20 oz bottles..
I am only going into a building that is 1800 square. rent is 1250 a month
which is about $12 square. I am on prime location in a residental
area..that has over 1500 foot traffic per day and 30000 cars per day...i am
adjacent to a pizza shop and a dollar general...across the street from a car
stereo installation shop, and a tattoo parlor. I am also within 3 blocks of
every Middle and High School in the area. I have a private investor that is
helping me to open by backing me finacially, so that I may enjoy the
freedoms of operating my own business....If I can be of any other assistence
please feel free to email me directly.
David Leis
owner/operator
Two Biliards Guys, Incorporated
dba Corner Billiards and Supply
1640 Washington Blvd
Easton, PA 18045
610-653-9775
Gary Ives
The room I used to play in, in Binghamton, NY had plain-jane
McDermotts' that rented for $1.00 per hour. About eight, if I remember
right. These were in addition to decent house cues. The owner
replaced them about every two years, I think.
Gary
Jack Stein
TheRacker wrote:
>
> With the economy being what it is
> I'd be reluctant to open any business unless it catered to the rich, they alway
> have money to blow.
Out of curiosity, do you think the economy "being what it is" is good or
bad?
I'm looking for someone to tell me why they consider the economy bad
with unemployment way below 6%, interest rates lowest in 50 years or so,
and inflation super low as well? Just wondering what barometer people
are using to determine the economy is so damn bad, not that you said it
was other than "what it is" mind you, but your tone seems to point
towards this "bad economy" I keep hearing about, but not seeing?
I think I'm missing something?
Should I be paying more attention to what they are saying on the tube or
what?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
>
> Put out free popcorn. Its cheap and it makes people thirsty so then they will
> put out money for drinks.
How about free pool? One of the bars I go to has free pool all the
time. 3 very nice 8 foot tables. They have been going for almost 3
years with complete success it seems. Charge for the pop corn and
drinks though.
BTW, the food and drinks are very reasonable as well, cheaper than many
of the places that charge for pool.
Really, a bar is for food and drinks. A pool table is just a way to
attract customers. This guy gets a very good crowd of people every day
and I think he is on to something, at least I hope so...
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jim Wyant
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
Think of it this way. The major sector which has fueled the economy for the
last 10 years is the Tech Sector. Unemployment in that field is huge.
Recently a bank in town opened up 600 positions. They got over 10,000
resumes within the first week. My friend in HR said that if they were
remote and didn't indicate relocating at their own expense, they didn't even
consider the app. That reduced their count by a few hundred.
I've seen excellent quality people unemployed for up to 10 months, then
taking a real cut from their previous position when they finally got a job.
Companies are blaming IT for their problems, and neglecting to invest
smartly, instead pouring good money after bad. I see the IT management
people that have held onto their position caught up in the churn, simply
reacting and afraid to say "no, that's not a good idea". I see CEOs and
CFOs driving some of the goofiest IT initiatives (all the execs need a
Blackberry to stay in constant email connection - price tag including the
Blackberry server but not the recurring monthlies: $20,000, and that was
after dropping $20,000 trying to do the same thing with iPaq's..... Oh yeah,
we're talking for 7 people in a company of a few hundred.
IT is becoming a poorly understood utility, and yet companies are still
relying upon it to make their business successful. Is it any wonder that
same company that had the Blackberry expense also has sales down by 50% and
the sales reps major complaint is they can't get the current pricing info
out of their online systems. Of course, the IT people are re-configuring
Blackberry's every other day and they got rid of their online systems
database guy.
To me, the real issue is we've gotten exactly what we've bargained for. The
recent spate of commercials from Progressive Insurance and IBM hit the nail
on the head. Their is no UBA, no Magic Pixie Dust, no Time Machine, yet
every consumer wants to pay the absolute bottom dollar which continues to
drive prices down, yet they rarely get the value they want or need that goes
with these lowest prices. IOW, we are in Internet hell - JimboCT's
competitive post last week of "Mine's better and only $1200" regarding
another cue by the same manufacturer that was listed at $1400, was a perfect
exemplification of the problem.
--Jim
Donald Tees
Donald
Jack Stein
> >>
> >> With the economy being what it is
> <jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, do you think the economy "being what it is" is good or bad?
> >
> > I'm looking for someone to tell me why they consider the economy bad
> > with unemployment way below 6%, interest rates lowest in 50 years or so,
> > and inflation super low as well?
Jim Wyant wrote:
> Think of it this way. The major sector which has fueled the economy for the
> last 10 years is the Tech Sector. Unemployment in that field is huge.
I think the tech sector drove the stock market, not the economy. The
tech sector in the stock market was unbelievably over hyped and over
priced. As about everyone with a brain predicted, the fluff would
disappear sooner or later.
> Recently a bank in town opened up 600 positions. They got over 10,000
> resumes within the first week.
Are you saying unemployment is not at record low levels?
> I've seen excellent quality people unemployed for up to 10 months, then
> taking a real cut from their previous position when they finally got a job.
Unemployment rates are at record lows.
Everyone I know is working, that doesn't mean everyone in the country is
working any more than you knowing someone that is not working means
unemployment is high.
> To me, the real issue is we've gotten exactly what we've bargained for.
To me, since in this country unemployment rates, inflation rates,
interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
When unemployment rates hit around 10%, Inflation runs at 18-20% and
Mortgage rates are around 18% give me a yell about the "economy being
what it is"
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jim Wyant
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> TheRacker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With the economy being what it is
>
>> <jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity, do you think the economy "being what it is" is good or
>>> bad?
>>>
>>> I'm looking for someone to tell me why they consider the economy bad
>>> with unemployment way below 6%, interest rates lowest in 50 years or so,
>>> and inflation super low as well?
>
> Jim Wyant wrote:
>
>> Think of it this way. The major sector which has fueled the economy for the
>> last 10 years is the Tech Sector. Unemployment in that field is huge.
>
> I think the tech sector drove the stock market, not the economy. The
> tech sector in the stock market was unbelievably over hyped and over
> priced. As about everyone with a brain predicted, the fluff would
> disappear sooner or later.
The advances in the Tech Sector drove the cost of computing down and the
performance up at incredible rates. Seven years ago (1995) the "Internet"
was a vague concept to everybody outside of the tech world. Now, it is a
fact of life. Software Development provided a massive number of products to
use on the various platform of machines. Seven years ago, almost everyone
chuckled at the idea of a "home computer"; now, almost everybody wants to
know how to network their home computer'S'.
The "over hyped" problem was the expectation that the Internet, more
specifically eCommerce enabled web sites, would become hometown America
shopping malls. Investors fell all over themselves trying to become the
next big internet retailer, and thousands of Dot-Bombs failed. A huge
problem the American Investor failed to account for was the competitive
aspect once a Global shopping space existed. Not unlike the Japanese impact
on the automotive market of a few decades previous, we created a market then
started getting beat at it - this time at Internet speed.
>
>> Recently a bank in town opened up 600 positions. They got over 10,000
>> resumes within the first week.
>
> Are you saying unemployment is not at record low levels?
I guess if you listen to the spin doctors it is. But, if the bottom 75% of
wage earners unemployment level is at 2% and the upper 25% is at 10%, you
end up with a net 4%. Is that a fair reflection of the economy?
>> I've seen excellent quality people unemployed for up to 10 months, then
>> taking a real cut from their previous position when they finally got a job.
>
> Unemployment rates are at record lows.
>
> Everyone I know is working, that doesn't mean everyone in the country is
> working any more than you knowing someone that is not working means
> unemployment is high.
Working is a relative term. I know a many people that were laid off and
while several are working, they are all making 20-50% less than previously.
Many people haven't lost their jobs, but to remain employed they had to take
(in some cases up to) a 20% cut in salary. Notice the word SALARY - not
hourly people that can make it up with overtime when things start to get
better; these are long-term compensation adjustments.
What about contract employees / consultants that don't figure into this
equation as they are simply surviving on 10-20 hrs / week instead of 35-40
hours per week. Drastic reduction in hours may not drive someone to the
unemployment line because they are still better off working in the field for
less hours while waiting for things to expand again. This isn't just a
manufacturing economy where a line worker is either doing 40 hrs/wk or they
are laid off.
You also have to figure in that in many households, there are (were) two
wage earners. When one loses their job, unemployment benefits for the other
can be almost negligible if the household income gets them above a poverty
level (last I knew, in my state you are required to claim that other
household income which then offsets your unemployment comp).
>
>> To me, the real issue is we've gotten exactly what we've bargained for.
>
> To me, since in this country unemployment rates, inflation rates,
> interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
> realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
Whew, send me some of what you're smoking these days. I have several
friends that could use it.
Foreclosures are at an all-time high. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high.
Tens of thousands of people have had their retirement incomes devastated by
billions and billions of dollars that have been stolen from corporate
pension funds. Where did all that money go?
Look at companies like Worldcom. The entire tax-paying public is going to
pay to save that company because the US economy can't afford for it to fail.
Then on top of it all, we get to pay tax dollars to investigate all of these
crimes. The horse is gone but we're focused on shutting the barn door.
> When unemployment rates hit around 10%, Inflation runs at 18-20% and
> Mortgage rates are around 18% give me a yell about the "economy being
> what it is"
When US unemployment rates hit 10% we will be in the middle of an economic
meltdown. Inflation and mortgage rates won't matter much then.
--Jim
WilleeCue
I hope you are wrong but have this funny gut feeling you may be right.
William Lee
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA0FB8F3.8F35%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
Jim Wyant
ppsG9.91937$Kj1.3...@twister.austin.rr.com, "WilleeCue"
<n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> Jim, you paint a very lean picture for our future econmoy.
> I hope you are wrong but have this funny gut feeling you may be right.
>
> William Lee
If we can't get the upper 10% of business people to start acting like good
stewards instead of doing everything they can to "get their's first" this is
where we'll end up.
--Jim
Patrick Johnson
> interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
> realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
Inflation is so low because we've been in a DEflationary cycle that the Fed has
been frantically trying to correct. We WANT some inflation. Unemployment is
the HIGHEST it's been in five years. Interest rates are low because the Fed has
pushed them low in its efforts to IMPROVE the LAGGING economy.
Everything you've cited as indications of a robust economy are actually
indicating just the opposite.
(Are we surprised?)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
<patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
Amen.
--Jim
Raveloman
>If we can't get the upper 10% of business people to start acting like good
>stewards instead of doing everything they can to "get their's first" this is
>where we'll end up.
>
>--Jim
>
A good place to start would be for the SEC to put new rules in place that would
prohibit anyone from serving on more than one board of directors.
Jerry R.
Jack Stein
Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > To me, since in this country unemployment rates, inflation rates,
> > interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
> > realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
>
> Inflation is so low because we've been in a DEflationary cycle that the Fed has
> been frantically trying to correct.
Really?
> We WANT some inflation.
Do we? Lucky us, as the Consumer Price Index rose about 1.5% the last
12 months.
> Unemployment is the HIGHEST it's been in five years.
6% unemployment is considered full employment. We are at full
employment. It was not long ago that many considered it impossible to
get unemployment below 6%, and some thought it would not be good to be
below 6%. We are again, doing excellent either way, as the unemployment
rate is just below 6%
>Interest rates are low because the Fed has pushed them low in its efforts to IMPROVE the LAGGING economy.
Where is it lagging? Hard to convince me the economy is lagging when
inflation is low, unemployment is low and interest rates are low? What
rates would the great Patrick Johnson want these important economic
indicators to be?
> Everything you've cited as indications of a robust economy are actually
> indicating just the opposite.
Actually, I think you are delusional, and doing your usual
`shoot-from-the-hip posturing contrarian
bullshit'.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> The advances in the Tech Sector drove the cost of computing down and the
> performance up at incredible rates.
Yeah.
> Seven years ago (1995) the "Internet"
> was a vague concept to everybody outside of the tech world. Now, it is a
> fact of life.
Yeah.
> Software Development provided a massive number of products to
> use on the various platform of machines. Seven years ago, almost everyone
> chuckled at the idea of a "home computer"; now, almost everybody wants to
> know how to network their home computer'S'.
Close enough.
> The "over hyped" problem was the expectation that the Internet, more
> specifically eCommerce enabled web sites, would become hometown America
> shopping malls. Investors fell all over themselves trying to become the
> next big internet retailer, and thousands of Dot-Bombs failed. A huge
> problem the American Investor failed to account for was the competitive
> aspect once a Global shopping space existed.
I think that was not the main problem. I think investment brokers that
made it cost effective to buy and sell stock quickly, cheaply and easily
had an unbelievable effect on useless companies with nothing but hype
selling for tons of money. People with no business savvy well buying
and selling like wild fire. Once the smoke cleared, lot's of dead
bodies laying around.
> > Are you saying unemployment is not at record low levels?
>
> I guess if you listen to the spin doctors it is.
Whom do you suggest I listen to for the this information? You? PJ?
> But, if the bottom 75% of
> wage earners unemployment level is at 2% and the upper 25% is at 10%, you
> end up with a net 4%. Is that a fair reflection of the economy?
No, that seems impossible. If the bottom 75% are working, then the top
25% should be working?
> Working is a relative term. I know a many people that were laid off and
> while several are working, they are all making 20-50% less than previously.
Well, I guess if one person in the country is unable to find employment,
and you are it, then the rate is really, really, really high, in your
eyes. The rest of the economy could care less.
> Many people haven't lost their jobs, but to remain employed they had to take
> (in some cases up to) a 20% cut in salary. Notice the word SALARY - not
> hourly people that can make it up with overtime when things start to get
> better; these are long-term compensation adjustments.
I guess this happens all the time, in all economic states.
> What about contract employees / consultants that don't figure into this
> equation as they are simply surviving on 10-20 hrs / week instead of 35-40
> hours per week. Drastic reduction in hours may not drive someone to the
> unemployment line because they are still better off working in the field for
> less hours while waiting for things to expand again. This isn't just a
> manufacturing economy where a line worker is either doing 40 hrs/wk or they
> are laid off.
No, the economy is quite large, and some sectors can do better than
others at different times. That's why you can't look at one issue, you
need to look at overall productivity, inflation, unemployment and so on
to get a good feel for the state of the economy. The numbers all look
good to me.
> You also have to figure in that in many households, there are (were) two
> wage earners. When one loses their job, unemployment benefits for the other
> can be almost negligible if the household income gets them above a poverty
> level (last I knew, in my state you are required to claim that other
> household income which then offsets your unemployment comp).
>
What state is that? That is not how it is in my state. Now that you
mention it though, in the 1950's, when the economy was a booming, and
few women were in the workforce, unemployment rates were around 6%. Now
most all women are in the work force, and the unemployment rate is still
around 6%. I'd say that is interesting to say the least.
> >> To me, the real issue is we've gotten exactly what we've bargained for.
> >
> > To me, since in this country unemployment rates, inflation rates,
> > interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
> > realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
>
> Whew, send me some of what you're smoking these days. I have several
> friends that could use it.
Are you denying the unemployment rate is below 6%? What IS the
unemployment rate then, and where did you get your figures. Are you
saying the annual CPI rate is not around 1.5%? What then is it, and
where are you getting your information? Are you saying the stock market
was not way out of line the past few years? I say you are the one
smoking some strange stuff. You give me personal examples of people you
know not making as much as they use to make? Get real, you have to use
the numbers for the entire economy, not from one or two sectors, and
not from a few people you happen to know.
> Foreclosures are at an all-time high. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high.
That's more than likely from banning smoking in pool rooms:-)
Really though, Foreclosures and bankruptcies are always high. It is NOT
easy getting into business, and the large majority of businesses fail in
the first few years. A higher number than normal is probably a good
sign, as more people are taking the risk.
> Tens of thousands of people have had their retirement incomes devastated by
> billions and billions of dollars that have been stolen from corporate
> pension funds. Where did all that money go?
Yeah, where did it all go? Not much money though, very little actually,
considering how much money there is in the investment basket.
> Look at companies like Worldcom. The entire tax-paying public is going to
> pay to save that company because the US economy can't afford for it to fail.
We heard all that before, many times.
> Then on top of it all, we get to pay tax dollars to investigate all of these
> crimes. The horse is gone but we're focused on shutting the barn door.
You are way too pessimistic!
> > When unemployment rates hit around 10%, Inflation runs at 18-20% and
> > Mortgage rates are around 18% give me a yell about the "economy being
> > what it is"
>
> When US unemployment rates hit 10% we will be in the middle of an economic
> meltdown. Inflation and mortgage rates won't matter much then.
Well, it was only a few years ago that this was the exact situation, we
are near perfect shape at this
point in time, and people are bitching and moaning more now than when
inflation was at 20%.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
WilleeCue wrote:
>
> Jim, you paint a very lean picture for our future econmoy.
> I hope you are wrong but have this funny gut feeling you may be right.
Oh, I thought it was the current economy we were discussing. He could
be wrong, or could be right about the future, we just don't know.
The current economy looks really good from the numbers I see posted from
about every source there is.
Ignoring of course the Patrick Johnson's who thinks low inflation, low
unemployment and low interest rates are a bad thing? He of course runs
around looking for things to complain about. I think it's an internet
cop type of thing he has going for his self.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Patrick Johnson
> unemployment and low interest rates are a bad thing?
Well, since my information comes from sources like the Federal Reserve Board,
the Department of Labor and actual economic analysts instead of the lunatic
fringe web sites you frequent, I can see how you'd find it unfamiliar.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Smorgass Bored
Now that you mention it though, in the 1950's, when the economy was a
booming, and few women were in the workforce, unemployment rates were
around 6%. Now most all women are in the work force, and the
unemployment rate is still around 6%. I'd say that is interesting to say
the least.
(*<~ I usually stay out of conversations like these because I don't
know what I'm talking about and it's much harder to drink beer with my
foot in my mouth. The 6% confuses me. The U.S. population in 1950 was
152 million and on 1/1/01 it was 283 1/2 million, or almost double.
Wouldn't 6% unemployment now as compared to 6% then also be doubled ?
(Or, do figures lie and liars figure ?)
chug-a-lugging my beer to make room for my lying foot........
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Jim Wyant
are about as cast in concrete as one can be. But despite that, I'll make
one last comment on your points.
On 12/1/02 8:24 PM, in article 3DEAB676...@attbi.com, "Jack Stein"
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
On this we agree. The media created kazillions of experts, most of whom
were pimping the media to hype them. Experts present themselves with tons
of credentials but few real world successes. Then they advise people what
to do without bothering to expound on why it is right, why it is wrong, and
what are the real risks. Executives of failed companies get hired to run
new companies. Comp plans for the "boy's club" gave them sweetheart
packages that bonused them to get leave and companies were afraid to step up
and say "we screwed up, this person was dangerous with a capital D"; so the
clowns ended up spreading the poison elsewhere.
Wanna read a great book, try Built On Trust by Ciancutti & Steding. It is
scary how well they guys nail it on the problems in corporate America - and
that translates directly to the investment sector.
>
>>> Are you saying unemployment is not at record low levels?
>>
>> I guess if you listen to the spin doctors it is.
>
> Whom do you suggest I listen to for the this information? You? PJ?
Nope. Read into the numbers behind the numbers. It sounds like you think
you have, and as such I'm stunned that you haven't paid attention to the
amount of information that surrounds you.
>
>> But, if the bottom 75% of
>> wage earners unemployment level is at 2% and the upper 25% is at 10%, you
>> end up with a net 4%. Is that a fair reflection of the economy?
>
> No, that seems impossible. If the bottom 75% are working, then the top
> 25% should be working?
Let me try this a different way as I can see I should have phrased that a
bit better. If you take the actual people in each of the 25% strata's from
2 years ago and evaluate where they are at today, a good 10% of the upper
25% strata are either not working or have been shifted down at least one
level. The question is not so much what is the raw number, the question is
more "Are they working at the same type of job (and preferably comp level)
that they were at two years ago?" So, while unemployment may be
masquerading at a low level, real income has dropped - especially in
comparison to the rising cost of living (wanna guess how much The War and
Homeland Security is costing us).
>
>> Working is a relative term. I know a many people that were laid off and
>> while several are working, they are all making 20-50% less than previously.
>
> Well, I guess if one person in the country is unable to find employment,
> and you are it, then the rate is really, really, really high, in your
> eyes. The rest of the economy could care less.
Tacky Jack, even for you. I'm not talking about me, but one of the benefits
(I think) of the type of work I do is I see a lot of companies of different
types up-close. At least in the tech sector, these companies (mfg, medical,
banking, energy, insurance, University) are most all are reflecting the same
thing. That's why I'm so stunned by your rose-colored glasses. Yeah, I see
new construction. My brother-in-law works in the field. They are routinely
doing the same work for 20-30% less than two years ago, and getting stiffed
for terms like Net 90 and praying they get paid then. And if they don't
take it, someone else will.
>
>> Many people haven't lost their jobs, but to remain employed they had to take
>> (in some cases up to) a 20% cut in salary. Notice the word SALARY - not
>> hourly people that can make it up with overtime when things start to get
>> better; these are long-term compensation adjustments.
>
> I guess this happens all the time, in all economic states.
Really?
>
>> What about contract employees / consultants that don't figure into this
>> equation as they are simply surviving on 10-20 hrs / week instead of 35-40
>> hours per week. Drastic reduction in hours may not drive someone to the
>> unemployment line because they are still better off working in the field for
>> less hours while waiting for things to expand again. This isn't just a
>> manufacturing economy where a line worker is either doing 40 hrs/wk or they
>> are laid off.
>
> No, the economy is quite large, and some sectors can do better than
> others at different times. That's why you can't look at one issue, you
> need to look at overall productivity, inflation, unemployment and so on
> to get a good feel for the state of the economy. The numbers all look
> good to me.
When a sector which is a leading driver of your economy tanks, you have a
problem. Whether you like to admit it or not, the Tech Sector has been the
major driver for the last decade. Same as when the auto industry got
hammered back in the 70's. You couldn't just retool iron workers to be chip
designers. I know (ex)software developers that work selling clothes in a
department store. I met an (ex)lawyer that was selling lingerie. When
people are forced out of their field due to limited employment
opportunities, off-shore outsourcing or declining sales, that is
unemployment. Taking a job at the Arby's Drive-thru window and calling the
person "employed" does not solve the problem, it simply skews the
statistics. Take a look at the demographics of the statistics.
>
>> You also have to figure in that in many households, there are (were) two
>> wage earners. When one loses their job, unemployment benefits for the other
>> can be almost negligible if the household income gets them above a poverty
>> level (last I knew, in my state you are required to claim that other
>> household income which then offsets your unemployment comp).
>>
> What state is that? That is not how it is in my state. Now that you
> mention it though, in the 1950's, when the economy was a booming, and
> few women were in the workforce, unemployment rates were around 6%. Now
> most all women are in the work force, and the unemployment rate is still
> around 6%. I'd say that is interesting to say the least.
Ohio. You mean in your state if a married couple who each makes $50K per
year and one loses their job, that the state still pays full unemployment to
that person? Is that the way it is most places? While I don't have first
hand knowledge, the people who I know in that situation that went looking
for unemployment insurance had their already low number knocked down by
50-80%. As such, it wasnšt worth the headache for less than $100 / week.
>
>>>> To me, the real issue is we've gotten exactly what we've bargained for.
>>>
>>> To me, since in this country unemployment rates, inflation rates,
>>> interest rates are all at record lows, and the stock market is much more
>>> realistic than it has been in years, the economy seems in good shape.
>>
>> Whew, send me some of what you're smoking these days. I have several
>> friends that could use it.
>
> Are you denying the unemployment rate is below 6%? What IS the
> unemployment rate then, and where did you get your figures. Are you
> saying the annual CPI rate is not around 1.5%? What then is it, and
> where are you getting your information? Are you saying the stock market
> was not way out of line the past few years? I say you are the one
> smoking some strange stuff. You give me personal examples of people you
> know not making as much as they use to make? Get real, you have to use
> the numbers for the entire economy, not from one or two sectors, and
> not from a few people you happen to know.
The stock market was out of line, no question about it. If you're looking
at raw stats, the numbers mean one thing. What about when a company like
Cisco Systems - the absolute darling of the Tech Sector with average growth
of over 50% per year - last year laid of over 6,000 people (over 10% of
their workforce). Shifting workers for high-tech to low-tech, and low-tech
to service-industries may be a bit of a clue.
>
>> Foreclosures are at an all-time high. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high.
>
> That's more than likely from banning smoking in pool rooms:-)
>
> Really though, Foreclosures and bankruptcies are always high. It is NOT
> easy getting into business, and the large majority of businesses fail in
> the first few years. A higher number than normal is probably a good
> sign, as more people are taking the risk.
Or more people have to take the risk because they can't find jobs.
>
>> Tens of thousands of people have had their retirement incomes devastated by
>> billions and billions of dollars that have been stolen from corporate
>> pension funds. Where did all that money go?
>
> Yeah, where did it all go? Not much money though, very little actually,
> considering how much money there is in the investment basket.
>
>> Look at companies like Worldcom. The entire tax-paying public is going to
>> pay to save that company because the US economy can't afford for it to fail.
>
> We heard all that before, many times.
>
>> Then on top of it all, we get to pay tax dollars to investigate all of these
>> crimes. The horse is gone but we're focused on shutting the barn door.
>
> You are way too pessimistic!
Perhaps, but I know people that are far more pessimistic than I.
>
>>> When unemployment rates hit around 10%, Inflation runs at 18-20% and
>>> Mortgage rates are around 18% give me a yell about the "economy being
>>> what it is"
>>
>> When US unemployment rates hit 10% we will be in the middle of an economic
>> meltdown. Inflation and mortgage rates won't matter much then.
>
> Well, it was only a few years ago that this was the exact situation, we
> are near perfect shape at this
> point in time, and people are bitching and moaning more now than when
> inflation was at 20%.
>
So tell me Jack, what percentage of increase in both staff and salaries did
your company do over the last year. I know of a few that have grown, but
for the most part, consolidation and restraint are the orders of the day.
--Jim
Jim Wyant
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
Couple those "lows" with "low spending" and, as real orders for hard goods
go down, we'll all be safe in your view of things. Sheesh.
--Jim
WilleeCue
debt.
In the past when the credit cards started to reach saturation the companies
would raise the card limits.
This helped stimulate the economy with more consumer credit card spending.
But ...... Can that go on forever?
William Lee
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA10505F.8FB9%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
Smorgass Bored
much for your word to not post in RSB for a week unless asked or
invited. Jim replies to Jack and you jump in. I knew you were full of
shit. Remember saying this (just hours ago) :
Willy lied :
No More posts ....
I will take a hiatus from RSB for a week. I will answer questions
directed at me but will not initiate any new ones or jump in one
uninvited.
Don't you shit stirrers try to entice me into posting something here.
William Lee < ... lying Obsessive Compulsive poster.
(*<~ That was some 'enticing', what'd they do, breathe ?
it would be easier for you to simply die,
Jim Wyant
--Jim
On 12/2/02 2:06 AM, in article
5090-3DE...@storefull-2311.public.lawson.webtv.net, "Smorgass Bored"
Patrick Johnson
> prohibit anyone from serving on more than one board of directors.
I'm not sure where you're coming from with this, but it would at least
put an end to the "professional carpetbagger director" who sits on as
many boards as possible simply to collect fees of $10,000+ per meeting.
Times at least 4 meetings per year per company, that's a high-paying
profession that doesn't require you to know (or care) anything about the
company's business.
Company management, of course, wants this kind of director because they
can be easily manipulated. They're bought and paid for by definition.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jack Stein
Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > Ignoring of course the Patrick Johnson's who thinks low inflation, low
> > unemployment and low interest rates are a bad thing?
>
> Well, since my information comes from sources like the Federal Reserve Board,
> the Department of Labor
Well, then I guess you agree with me, because that is exactly where I
get my figures on unemployment (below 6%) Inflation very low and
interest rates very low.
> and actual economic analysts instead of the lunatic
> fringe web sites you frequent, I can see how you'd find it unfamiliar.
If you think low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment are
bad things, you are the lunatic.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
Smorgass Bored wrote:
>
> Jack confuses me with:
> Now that you mention it though, in the 1950's, when the economy was a
> booming, and few women were in the workforce, unemployment rates were
> around 6%. Now most all women are in the work force, and the
> unemployment rate is still around 6%. I'd say that is interesting to say
> the least.
> Jack
>
> (*<~ I usually stay out of conversations like these because I don't
> know what I'm talking about and it's much harder to drink beer with my
> foot in my mouth. The 6% confuses me. The U.S. population in 1950 was
> 152 million and on 1/1/01 it was 283 1/2 million, or almost double.
> Wouldn't 6% unemployment now as compared to 6% then also be doubled ?
> (Or, do figures lie and liars figure ?)
The unemployment rate is based on the work force. In the 50's, few
women were part of the work force, so 94% of the people were working,
but that was not such a big number. Today, the women are part of the
work force, so 94% of the work force is a very large number.
And no, figures don't lie, people lie.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Smorgass Bored
(*<~ Well Jack, that's certainly one way to look at and the reason I
stay out of these type threads (mostly). I guess I was looking at it as
(and I'm guessing figures to illustrate my point):
If the 1950 workforce were 50,000,000 and 6% were unemployed, then I
guess that'd be around (wait a minute... 1,2,3) ,oh, about 3,000,000
(did I do that right ?)..
And, if today's workforce were 200,000,000 and 6% were unemployed,
then that would be around (this may take longer... quite a bit longer),
let's see, carry the 2 and multiply by, ah, um, that would be around
12,000,000 (is that right ?)...
In my opinion, 12,000,000 out of work hungry broke dicks makes these
current times we live in a biatch.
chug-a-lugging some more beer before you my foot in my mouth.....
oy-vey !
Jack Stein
>
> One of the things I've learned from reading your posts, Jack, is that you
> are about as cast in concrete as one can be.
I was thinking exactly the same thing about you. You have not waivered
one iota in your position, despite the fact that I have presented easily
verifyable figures from the department of labor.
> But despite that, I'll make one last comment on your points.
Whole bunch of stuff you said that I agreed with and then you agreed
with me snipped?
> On this we agree.
> >>> Are you saying unemployment is not at record low levels?
> >>
> >> I guess if you listen to the spin doctors it is.
Are you saying the department of labor is a spin doctor? If so, then
where on earth are you getting your information?
> > Whom do you suggest I listen to for the this information? You? PJ?
>
> Nope. Read into the numbers behind the numbers.
Where do I find these so called numbers behind the numbers?
> It sounds like you think you have, and as such I'm stunned that you haven't paid attention to the
> amount of information that surrounds you.
Nope, havent read the numbers behind the numbers, just the numbers I see
say things are VERY good, about as good as could possibly be expected.
> >> But, if the bottom 75% of
> >> wage earners unemployment level is at 2% and the upper 25% is at 10%, you
> >> end up with a net 4%. Is that a fair reflection of the economy?
> >
> > No, that seems impossible. If the bottom 75% are working, then the top
> > 25% should be working?
>
> Let me try this a different way as I can see I should have phrased that a
> bit better. If you take the actual people in each of the 25% strata's from
> 2 years ago and evaluate where they are at today, a good 10% of the upper
> 25% strata are either not working or have been shifted down at least one
> level.
OK, I looked at the numbers behind the numbers, and found that the
unemployment rate of college grads over 25 years of age is even lower
than the rest of the population... 3.1%
The question is not so much what is the raw number, the question is
> more "Are they working at the same type of job (and preferably comp level)
> that they were at two years ago?" So, while unemployment may be
> masquerading at a low level, real income has dropped - especially in
> comparison to the rising cost of living (wanna guess how much The War and
> Homeland Security is costing us).
Excuse me? The rising cost of living is extremly low, so low in fact,
Pat Johnson thinks it is a BAD thing. Inflation btw, is the cost of
living, and it is very low. You say stuff that the figures do not
support.
> >> Working is a relative term. I know a many people that were laid off and
> >> while several are working, they are all making 20-50% less than previously.
> >
> > Well, I guess if one person in the country is unable to find employment,
> > and you are it, then the rate is really, really, really high, in your
> > eyes. The rest of the economy could care less.
>
> Tacky Jack, even for you.
What is tacky?
> I'm not talking about me,
Niether was I!
> but one of the benefits (I think) of the type of work I do is I see a lot of companies of different
> types up-close.
I don't give a damn, the department of labor looks at all aspects of the
economy, not just that little bitty segment you see.
> At least in the tech sector, these companies (mfg, medical,
> banking, energy, insurance, University) are most all are reflecting the same
> thing.
Yes, and that same thing is low unemployment, low inflation and low
interest rates. Banking and medical are doing really good.
> That's why I'm so stunned by your rose-colored glasses.
Not MY rose colored glasses, I only see what the Feds are reporting.
> Yeah, I see new construction. My brother-in-law works in the field.
Ah, again, I guess you think I should go by what you personally see
rather than what is reported by the department of labor? I'm not
unwilling to do that, but you sure as heck need more than what you
personally see. I personally see full employment, so what?
> They are routinely doing the same work for 20-30% less than two years ago, and getting stiffed
> for terms like Net 90 and praying they get paid then. And if they don't
> take it, someone else will.
My brother in law is in the construction industry and he just bought his
wife a new Lincoln, and last year he bought himself a new Jag.... Guess
we see different things, perhaps we should go with what the dept of
labor is saying until we can find a better method of figuring out a
multi-trillion dollar economy on what our relatives are doing.
> >> Many people haven't lost their jobs, but to remain employed they had to take
> >> (in some cases up to) a 20% cut in salary. Notice the word SALARY - not
> >> hourly people that can make it up with overtime when things start to get
> >> better; these are long-term compensation adjustments.
I don't know, productivity is up, inflation is down, seems purchasing
power had to have increased and the whole time unemployement is extremly
low. Doesn't get much better than this.
> > I guess this happens all the time, in all economic states.
>
> Really?
> >> What about contract employees / consultants that don't figure into this
> >> equation as they are simply surviving on 10-20 hrs / week instead of 35-40
> >> hours per week. Drastic reduction in hours may not drive someone to the
> >> unemployment line because they are still better off working in the field for
> >> less hours while waiting for things to expand again. This isn't just a
> >> manufacturing economy where a line worker is either doing 40 hrs/wk or they
> >> are laid off.
Whatever it is, there is still some inflation, so we are NOT in a
deflationary state as the dumbass Patrick Johnson stated. This means
people over all are making more money. Your statements don't hold water
with the real numbers presented by the department of labor.
> > No, the economy is quite large, and some sectors can do better than
> > others at different times. That's why you can't look at one issue, you
> > need to look at overall productivity, inflation, unemployment and so on
> > to get a good feel for the state of the economy. The numbers all look
> > good to me.
>
> When a sector which is a leading driver of your economy tanks, you have a
> problem.
Obviously we don't have a problem because the overall numbers simply
don't support your FUD.
> Whether you like to admit it or not, the Tech Sector has been the
> major driver for the last decade.
No, I think just the opposite, the tech sector was out of control in a
big way. I think our economy has been so strong, that it is looking
very good despite the goof balls in the tech sector, and despite 911
disaster. I don't base this on my brother-in-law either, but base it on
the numbers presented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> Same as when the auto industry got hammered back in the 70's. You couldn't just retool iron workers to be > chip designers. I know (ex)software developers that work selling clothes in a department store. I met an > (ex)lawyer that was selling lingerie.
Again, your personal friends and relatives are meaningless in a
multi-trillion dollar economy. I will take the DOL numbers before your
personal experiences with friends and relatives.
> When people are forced out of their field due to limited employment
> opportunities, off-shore outsourcing or declining sales, that is
> unemployment.
Yep, hasn't happened though, as unemployment is below 6%, which is
considered full employment by most all non-fanatical economist's.
> Taking a job at the Arby's Drive-thru window and calling the
> person "employed" does not solve the problem, it simply skews the
> statistics. Take a look at the demographics of the statistics.
You take a look, you would be surprised. Since you are into personal
experiences, go to Arby's Drive through and notice how completly stupid
the people are that work there. They are NOT paying them minimum wages
either, because there is a shortage of people looking for work, the fast
food chains have had to pay over minumum wage, and they have to hire
about anyone that comes by. Sorry, but I am not running into
ex-software developers nor ex-lawyers at these low paying jobs, exactly
the opposite as a matter of fact.
... Now
> > most all women are in the work force, and the unemployment rate is still
> > around 6%. I'd say that is interesting to say the least.
>
> Ohio. You mean in your state if a married couple who each makes $50K per
> year and one loses their job, that the state still pays full unemployment to
> that person?
Yes, thats right, it matters not how much the spouse makes. This is
Pennsylvania. I'm amazed Ohio is any different, but it's your state.
> Is that the way it is most places? While I don't have first
> hand knowledge, the people who I know in that situation that went looking
> for unemployment insurance had their already low number knocked down by
> 50-80%. As such, it wasn¹t worth the headache for less than $100 / week.
They were not in PA, thats for certain. I can't speak for any other
state.
> >> Whew, send me some of what you're smoking these days. I have several
> >> friends that could use it.
> >
> > Are you denying the unemployment rate is below 6%? What IS the
> > unemployment rate then, and where did you get your figures. Are you
> > saying the annual CPI rate is not around 1.5%? What then is it, and
> > where are you getting your information? Are you saying the stock market
> > was not way out of line the past few years? I say you are the one
> > smoking some strange stuff. You give me personal examples of people you
> > know not making as much as they use to make? Get real, you have to use
> > the numbers for the entire economy, not from one or two sectors, and
> > not from a few people you happen to know.
>
> The stock market was out of line, no question about it. If you're looking
> at raw stats, the numbers mean one thing.
Well perhaps the numbers are not always totally indicative, but they are
pretty much all we have to go on.
Economists argue over what they may mean to the future every day, but I
have yet to hear anyone explaing how the economy could be bad with the
numbers presented for the 3 main things that show how the economy is
doing.
> What about when a company like Cisco Systems - the absolute darling of the Tech Sector with average growth
> of over 50% per year - last year laid of over 6,000 people (over 10% of
> their workforce). Shifting workers for high-tech to low-tech, and low-tech
> to service-industries may be a bit of a clue.
Meaningless obviously. I guess either that was rare in our economy or
they got jobs someware else. 10% of our workforce is not laid off, in
fact, close to 95% is working, about as good as it gets.
> >
> >> Foreclosures are at an all-time high. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high.
> > Really though, Foreclosures and bankruptcies are always high. It is NOT
> > easy getting into business, and the large majority of businesses fail in
> > the first few years. A higher number than normal is probably a good
> > sign, as more people are taking the risk.
>
> Or more people have to take the risk because they can't find jobs.
Difficult taking a risk when you have nothing to risk?
> >> Tens of thousands of people have had their retirement incomes devastated by
> >> billions and billions of dollars that have been stolen from corporate
> >> pension funds. Where did all that money go?
My pension fund lost 300 million, and didn't even BLINK an eye?
> > You are way too pessimistic!
>
> Perhaps, but I know people that are far more pessimistic than I.
>
Yeah, me too, Pat Johnson for one.
> So tell me Jack, what percentage of increase in both staff and salaries did
> your company do over the last year.
My company hasn't changed at all, but like I said, would not matter at
all, it's the whole picture, and for the picture to look as good as it
does, most business must be doing just fine.
> I know of a few that have grown, but
> for the most part, consolidation and restraint are the orders of the day.
Yes, that is not wrong, but that is not bad either.
Certainly much better than 10% unemployment, 20% inflation and interest
rates.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Patrick Johnson
> get my figures on unemployment (below 6%) Inflation very low and
> interest rates very low.
Those things are true, but (as I've already explained to you) you don't know
what they mean in today's economy.
I doubt that we'll ever agree on much. For that to happen, you'd have to say
something that actually makes sense somewhere other than in your own mind.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Newt Eby
"Jack Stein" <jbst...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DEAAF1F...@attbi.com...
Patrick Johnson
> work force, so 94% of the work force is a very large number.
That's a major factor. From 1970 to 2000 employment increased from 39% to 49%
of the population, and 80% of that increase was women (increasing from 38% to
47% of the workforce).
Unfortunately, productivity doesn't necessarily rise in lockstep with the size
of the workforce. Gross National Product grew by 10%-20% annually during the
70s and 80s, but that has come to a screeching halt in the past several years.
It's about 3% now. That sort of thing will leave a mark, and lots of companies
and people are going head first through the economic windshield.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> own mind.
I stand corrected. You actually made sense to me in another post.
(Will wonders never cease?)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
jcg
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DEC2903...@attbi.com...
>
> Unfortunately, productivity doesn't necessarily rise in lockstep with the
size
> of the workforce. Gross National Product grew by 10%-20% annually during
the
> 70s and 80s, but that has come to a screeching halt in the past several
years.
> It's about 3% now. That sort of thing will leave a mark, and lots of
companies
I think you will find that the 10 to 20% increase in GNP was more than eaten
up by double diget inflation. I for one don't want to go back to that, once
in alifetime is enough.
jcg
Jack Stein
>
> > Well, then I guess you agree with me, because that is exactly where I
> > get my figures on unemployment (below 6%) Inflation very low and
> > interest rates very low.
>
> Those things are true,
Oh, so you implying my figures were wrong was just more Pat Johnson BS.
What a surprise!
> but (as I've already explained to you) you don't know what they mean in today's economy.
No, you didn't explain a thing. You incorrectly stated we are in a
deflationary period the Feds were "desperately trying to correct" when
the truth is we are in a slightly INFLATIONARY period. You can't have
both, so where are you getting your figures? You stated unemployment is
at it's highest rate in 5 years or some nonsense which implies things
are bad, however the fact that 6% is considered full employment and we
have been below 6& in the past 5 years is excellent, not something to be
used against the economy.
> I doubt that we'll ever agree on much. For that to happen, you'd have to say
> something that actually makes sense somewhere other than in your own mind.
Oh my, your lame personal attacks are so inspirational...
Making sense in your mind would certainly not inspire self confidence.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
Newt Eby wrote:
>
> is it just me od is this thread a little bit off topic???
> > Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > > Inflation is so low because we've been in a DEflationary cycle that the
> > > Fed has been frantically trying to correct.
Careful, you are telling the self proclaimed, wannabee, RSB Cop that he
is posting in an off topic thread that he appears interested in, so you
may be stepping on the wrong toes. He has different laws for different
folks so you could be in danger ... of some sort.
The topic is about starting a new business, a pool room specifically.
Some think the economy is in the toilet, I think it looks rather good.
Some have said record numbers of businesses have tanked, so it may be a
bad time to start a pool hall. Once we work out the economics of it, we
will progress to should the government let the guy allow smoking or
force him to cater only to the non smoking majority, or, heaven forbid,
let him make up his own damn mind.
So as you see, most everything is "on topic" if you look under the
surface. It's not all about eye dominance and "hit, or whether Willee
is really a cue maker or just a spammer. It's all perspective.
Start something you think is on topic, and lets see what we can do with
it.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jim Wyant
you maintained how the unemployment numbers were extremely low and how
robust the economy was.
One of the main stories on the news last night was November's unemployment
numbers were (at 6%) the highest in 9 years. Amazing at how we went from
that low to a 9 year high in just one month. Time to wake up and smell the
coffee.
--Jim ==> BTW, these were your precious DOL statistics, so even the Fed
Spin Doctors have to admit when they're really sick.
On 12/2/02 7:06 PM, in article 3DEBF617...@attbi.com, "Jack Stein"
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> 50-80%. As such, it wasnšt worth the headache for less than $100 / week.
WilleeCue
When state unemployment benefits are exhausted I don't think they count them
anymore.
This could lower the number of unemployed considerably.
William Lee
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA179734.94F0%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
Jim Wyant
LPsI9.122472$Kj1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com, "WilleeCue"
<wil...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> Jim, don't people drop off the unemployment rolls after about 6 months or so?
> When state unemployment benefits are exhausted I don't think they count them
> anymore.
> This could lower the number of unemployed considerably.
>
> William Lee
I don't know the laws of all the states, but most have some limitation on
them. You also don't see people who are unemployed but given a severance
packages that stipulates not being able to claim unemployment for the time
duration of the severance. I'm certain DOL has some way of reintegrating
these numbers, but your point is in earnest. At 6% and the highest in 9
years, that's more than just handwriting on the wall.
--Jim
Jack Stein
Jim Wyant wrote:
>
> Just as a point of correction Jack; over the entire series of this dialogue
> you maintained how the unemployment numbers were extremely low and how
> robust the economy was.
>
> One of the main stories on the news last night was November's unemployment
> numbers were (at 6%) the highest in 9 years. Amazing at how we went from
> that low to a 9 year high in just one month. Time to wake up and smell the
> coffee.
Yeah, that made me laugh. 6% is what was always considered full
employment, and a goal we try to reach.
The fact that we have been there or below for the past few years is
GOOD! How the hell can all of a sudden everyone is looking at it as
bad? I'm not an economist, but I'm also not stupid. If 6% was great
and a goal in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, then why all of a sudden
are we in economic hell because unemployment suddenly went all the way
up to yeah, 6%?
> --Jim ==> BTW, these were your precious DOL statistics, so even the Fed
> Spin Doctors have to admit when they're really sick.
No shit, read what I've said. We have been below 6% for years, we are
doing good. November we went all the way up from 5.5% to 6%. Big deal,
we are at full employment. Inflation and Interest rates are the lowest
in a long time. What is the problem then? Looks really good to me.
Like I said, call me when inflation is 18-20%, unemployment at 10% and
interest rates 15-20%. Thats what we had not all that long ago, and it
was not good. THIS is good, particularly considering what 911 has done
to parts of the economy.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
>
> Jim, don't people drop off the unemployment rolls after about 6 months or so?
> When state unemployment benefits are exhausted I don't think they count them
> anymore.
> This could lower the number of unemployed considerably.
No that's is not what unemployment figures are based on. Much more
complicated than that.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jim Wyant
<jbst...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Wyant wrote:
>>
>> Just as a point of correction Jack; over the entire series of this dialogue
>> you maintained how the unemployment numbers were extremely low and how
>> robust the economy was.
>>
>> One of the main stories on the news last night was November's unemployment
>> numbers were (at 6%) the highest in 9 years. Amazing at how we went from
>> that low to a 9 year high in just one month. Time to wake up and smell the
>> coffee.
>
> Yeah, that made me laugh. 6% is what was always considered full
> employment, and a goal we try to reach.
> The fact that we have been there or below for the past few years is
> GOOD! How the hell can all of a sudden everyone is looking at it as
> bad? I'm not an economist, but I'm also not stupid. If 6% was great
> and a goal in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, then why all of a sudden
> are we in economic hell because unemployment suddenly went all the way
> up to yeah, 6%?
Perhaps in some impoverished areas 6% is considered good, but for as long as
I can remember 4% was the target number to define full employment. I
actually thought you were making typos before, but seeing how you're hanging
on to 6% as the holy grail, I figured it was worth recalibrating.
And don't you think that Bush's firing of some of his top economic aides
midway through a first term is a little indicative of his concern over the
economy.
>
>> --Jim ==> BTW, these were your precious DOL statistics, so even the Fed
>> Spin Doctors have to admit when they're really sick.
>
> No shit, read what I've said. We have been below 6% for years, we are
> doing good. November we went all the way up from 5.5% to 6%. Big deal,
> we are at full employment. Inflation and Interest rates are the lowest
> in a long time. What is the problem then? Looks really good to me.
> Like I said, call me when inflation is 18-20%, unemployment at 10% and
> interest rates 15-20%. Thats what we had not all that long ago, and it
> was not good. THIS is good, particularly considering what 911 has done
> to parts of the economy.
Interested rates are incredibly low to try to stimulate people to buy. Why
aren't Americans buying? In a stagnant or declining economy people tend to
think that hanging onto their money and making do with what they have is a
good thing. This is America, if we had the money and the confidence in the
economy, we'd be spending it.
On the bright side, I believe we're going to begin to see a rebound in the
first quarter of next year. How we react to it (interest rates staying down
instead of spiking a bit, Wall St. not going stupidly over the top, no more
big corporate accounting scandals, lawmakers not spending money they don't
have) will play a big part in determining if it sticks.
--Jim
nos...@nospam.prodigy.net
wrote:
I agree it's more complicated, but he is right about this particular
factor. In fact, a number of changes have been implemented as to how
we figure unemployment, all made by politicians looking for a way to
keep the number low. The way it was figured in the '70s is not the
same as it is figured now (I think we'd be at 8% or 9% by the '70s
calculations).
But the problem isn't really the unemployment rate. As many economists
keep harping on, the problem is really the number of people who earn
at or below the poverty line. For a long time the poverty line was
figured at a ridiculous $12,000 (Anyone ever tried to house and feed a
family on a grand a month? Even with section 8 benefits it is a real
challenge.). There have been recent adjustments that have doubled that
amount, which reveals how many people earn below it. The minimum wage,
in fact, does not put people above the poverty line. It's great when
so many people are employed, but when 20% or more live below the
poverty line it is hardly an indicator of a strong economy.
Rob
Jack Stein
Jim Wyant wrote:
> > Yeah, that made me laugh. 6% is what was always considered full
> > employment, and a goal we try to reach.
> > The fact that we have been there or below for the past few years is
> > GOOD! How the hell can all of a sudden everyone is looking at it as
> > bad? I'm not an economist, but I'm also not stupid. If 6% was great
> > and a goal in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, then why all of a sudden
> > are we in economic hell because unemployment suddenly went all the way
> > up to yeah, 6%?
>
> Perhaps in some impoverished areas 6% is considered good, but for as long as
> I can remember 4% was the target number to define full employment. I
> actually thought you were making typos before, but seeing how you're hanging
> on to 6% as the holy grail, I figured it was worth recalibrating.
Well, perhaps you are on to something. It was always 6% as long as I
can remember. It could have changed, but when? Point me to that
information and I'll have a look.
> And don't you think that Bush's firing of some of his top economic aides
> midway through a first term is a little indicative of his concern over the
> economy.
Liberals like Bush always amaze me.
> >> --Jim ==> BTW, these were your precious DOL statistics, so even the Fed
> >> Spin Doctors have to admit when they're really sick.
> >
> > No shit, read what I've said. We have been below 6% for years, we are
> > doing good. November we went all the way up from 5.5% to 6%. Big deal,
> > we are at full employment. Inflation and Interest rates are the lowest
> > in a long time. What is the problem then? Looks really good to me.
> > Like I said, call me when inflation is 18-20%, unemployment at 10% and
> > interest rates 15-20%. Thats what we had not all that long ago, and it
> > was not good. THIS is good, particularly considering what 911 has done
> > to parts of the economy.
> Interested rates are incredibly low to try to stimulate people to buy.
Well the prime rate of 21% in the late early 80's was because of what?
Let me guess, the economy was too good so everyone was buying too much
stuff. Inflation of 20% was good because anyone that saved a buck was a
jerk, right? And lets see, 16% unemployment was good because we could
pay low wages with the super big supply of labor, right?
> Why aren't Americans buying?
I didn't know Americans were not buying, first I heard of that? I guess
everyone is working for the government, so all those employed people are
not really producing anything, so there is nothing to buy. I can't
think of too many other ways we could have 94% of our workforce employed
with nobody buying anything?
> In a stagnant or declining economy people tend to think that hanging onto their money and making do with > what they have is a good thing. This is America, if we had the money and the confidence in the
> economy, we'd be spending it.
Confidence in the economy? If we have no confidence in an economy with
6% unemployment, super low inflation and interest rates, what will it
take to have confidence in the economy? Give me some figures please...
what would you like these rates to be to give you some confidence?
> On the bright side, I believe we're going to begin to see a rebound in the
> first quarter of next year. How we react to it (interest rates staying down
> instead of spiking a bit, Wall St. not going stupidly over the top, no more
> big corporate accounting scandals, lawmakers not spending money they don't
> have) will play a big part in determining if it sticks.
Got news for you, as long as the Republicans control the government, you
will not have confidence in the economy. The media, which is about 95%
liberal democrats will make you think 6% unemployment is bad, 2%
inflation rate is no good, and prime rates as low as they can go are
terrible things.
You could be right though, I wonder what percent of our "work force"
actually produces anything? A large part is working for the government
which produces nada!
The bad news is every day the government gets bigger, and bigger and
more socialist and more socialist. That is what you need to be worrying
about, unless of course you are a socialist. In that case, things are
going just fine. Soon they [big government] will be talking about
socializing medicine again, probably the air line industry as well.
They already are taking over sports it seems, building zillion dollar
stadiums whether the tax payers want them or not (Allegheny County voted
against paying for 2 huge sports arena's in Pgh, and guess what, they
got to pay for them anyway, people whined a bit, but no problemo) They
about own all gambling in the country, and around here at least, they
also own all the "public" parking, all the liquor stores, and who knows
what else, or what's next.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
nos...@nospam.prodigy.net wrote:
> It's great when
> so many people are employed, but when 20% or more live below the
> poverty line it is hardly an indicator of a strong economy.
> Rob
Well Rob, we are in good shape then, because according to the US Census
Bureau, Poverty level isn't even half of what you are stating here, and
it has hardly changed at all? Where are you getting your 20% figure?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
jcg
Economist are either giving us warnings that Americans are not spending
money or they are warning us that Americans are over spending and not saving
any money. They can't have it both ways.
jcg
"Jack Stein" <jbst...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF800D8...@attbi.com...
Smorgass Bored
Whenever anyone talks about the economy all we ever hear is doom and
gloom. Economist are either giving us warnings that Americans are not
spending money or they are warning us that Americans are over spending
and not saving any money. They can't have it both ways.
jcg
(*<~ You know, this reminds me of someone I once knew:
<insert long story music Here>
A fellow gets fed up with the hustle & bustle, politics and economy
and heads for Tibet to join a monastery of Brothers. He is admitted and
takes the vows of celibacy, poverty and silence. He works daily in the
gardens and fits right in with all the other Brothers.
One day, out of the blue and after 10 long years he is taken by one of
the Brothers up to the Forbidden Room to meet the High Priest. He is
told that he will be allowed to break his vow of silence and utter two
words, but only two words. He says, "hard bed." The High Priest only
nods his head and dismisses him from the room.
Another 10 years pass and the fellow is once again escorted to the
Forbidden Room to meet with the High Priest. He is told that he will be
allowed to break his vow of silence once again and utter two words, but
only two words. He says, "cold food." The High Priest nods his head
slowly and dismisses him from the room.
Finally, after 30 long years, the fellow is brought once again before
the High Priest and allowed to speak only two words. He says, "I QUIT."
The High Priest jumps to feet and says, " I've been expecting this.
All you've done since you got here is complain."
I never was any good at analogies, what were we talking about
again.....
na...@centtel.net
commercial place I would go to:
(Not in any particular order, they are all important).
1. Ambiance: am I comfortable in the atmosphere here?
2. Do you provide the service I expect here?
3. Is the price resonable?
That's it! Gimme those three and I'l be here/there. :)
Nat
>I don't own a pool room, never have, probably never will. But, having said
>that, let me offer some additional things to think about. There are a lot
>of variables that go into the equation of success. In your case, you need
>to complete a business plan.