Bernie Marcus, Home Depot co-founder: The Biggest Impediment to Job Growth Today

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:20 PM GMT
    The brutal reality is that the only people who benefit from the poor and poor job growth are the bureaucracies that serve them. It certainly doesn't benefit business or "the rich". Predictably there are many who continue to blame "business" as if it is some amorphous blob for the failings of policy and government - particularly of this Administration.

    From an interview with Investor's Business Daily:
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578920/201107201835/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews

    IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

    Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

    If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

    IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

    Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.


    More here:

    IBD: Why don't more businesses speak out?

    Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.


    Some business leaders are speaking out like Democrat Steve Wynn - http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1690042 (more here - http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda )
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 21, 2011 12:24 PM GMT
    i have a couple of friends who work at/used to work for home depot.

    i'm told that their barely above minimum wage salary is a Big Impediment to Family Growth Today.


    i wonder why Marcus doesn't mention this.......





    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:26 PM GMT
    rnch saidi have a couple of friends who work at/used to work for home depot.

    i'm told that their barely above minimum wage salary is a Big Impediment to Family Growth Today.


    i wonder why Marcus doesn't mention this.......





    icon_rolleyes.gif


    Would not having a job, or not having access to much cheaper home reno products be a better alternative?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 21, 2011 12:30 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidi have a couple of friends who work at/used to work for home depot.

    i'm told that their barely above minimum wage salary is a Big Impediment to Family Growth Today.


    i wonder why Marcus doesn't mention this.......





    icon_rolleyes.gif


    Would not having a job, or not having access to much cheaper home reno products be a better alternative?





    spoken (typed) by a man who has obviously NEVER worked in a retail store before!

    your snide, superior, elitist, reality challenged "internet atitude" is becoming quite tiresome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:35 PM GMT
    rnch said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidi have a couple of friends who work at/used to work for home depot.

    i'm told that their barely above minimum wage salary is a Big Impediment to Family Growth Today.


    i wonder why Marcus doesn't mention this.......





    icon_rolleyes.gif


    Would not having a job, or not having access to much cheaper home reno products be a better alternative?





    spoken (typed) by a man who has obviously NEVER worked in a retail store before!

    your snide, superior, elitist, reality challenged "internet atitude" is becoming quite tiresome.


    So you are saying that he should quit and he would be better off? And you call me "snide, superior, elitist, reality challenged"? Are personal attacks the best you can do at reason?

    It's really a simple simple question. I don't doubt that it's difficult living off the minimum wage, but Marcus's comments were specifically as to why there isn't job growth. Your remarkably snide response is that the co-founder of a successful retail chain has no business talking about such things because of the minimum wage jobs his company offers. So is unemployment a better alternative - given that this is a lot of what we have now?

    You seem to believe the answer is yes. Let's be honest here - what you find tiresome isn't so much my attitude but the simple fact that I disagree with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:41 PM GMT
    Oddly, a Wall Street Journal report from earlier this week puts the lie to Marcus' ideological ravings:

    Wall Street JournalThe main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.

    "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

    "We're hiring a little here and there—but it's not what it should be," said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. "And it's because of the lack of demand."

    A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that concerns about demand remain a major obstacle to growth and hiring. When asked the single most important problem facing their businesses, 24% cited "poor sales"—a percentage that remains above highs seen in the recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s.


    And that's consistent with the argument the left has been making.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwODExNDgyWj.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:46 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOddly, a Wall Street Journal report from earlier this week puts the lie to Marcus' ideological ravings:

    Wall Street JournalThe main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.

    "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

    "We're hiring a little here and there—but it's not what it should be," said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. "And it's because of the lack of demand."

    A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that concerns about demand remain a major obstacle to growth and hiring. When asked the single most important problem facing their businesses, 24% cited "poor sales"—a percentage that remains above highs seen in the recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s.


    And that's consistent with the argument the left has been making.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwODExNDgyWj.html


    I have always found it bizarre that that "demand" is cited as a reason for a lack of business confidence. That's almost a tautology. This assumption by the "left" and some journalists as you put it, that demand comes like manna from the sky is absurd on its face - it's a cop out in an attempt to find cause. In that same article - "Among economists who see uncertainty as the primary obstacle to hiring is Sean M. Snaith of the University of Central Florida. "The black cloud of policy uncertainty still hangs over the private sector," Mr. Snaith said."

    Furthermore it is a bizarro world where the "left" or anyone with a functioning level of reason can actually believe that implementing additional regulations en masse will stimulate any form of demand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:46 PM GMT
    This will be a pattern.

    Steve Wynn made the same points, subject of an earlier thread. Steve Wynn has been a Democratic party supporter. I also saw him interviewed several weeks ago and he described how he sought to take care of his employees. I read other reports that indicated how highly he was regarded by his employees, in turn.

    It has become clear to many of us, and in the coming months as more business leaders speak out, more people not blinded by their left wing ideology will realize the dampening impact this administration has towards job growth.

    This administration is nothing but a malignancy, and as soon as it's gone, things will improve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:50 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThis will be a pattern.

    Steve Wynn made the same points, subject of an earlier thread. Steve Wynn has been a Democratic party supporter. I also saw him interviewed several weeks ago and he described how he sought to take care of his employees. I read other reports that indicated how highly he was regarded by his employees, in turn.

    It has become clear to many of us, and in the coming months as more business leaders speak out, more people not blinded by their left wing ideology will realize the dampening impact this administration has towards job growth.

    This administration is nothing but a malignancy, and as soon as it's gone, things will improve.


    I am not entirely convinced that as soon as it's gone things will improve. There is a lot of work that will need to be done to bring down the walls of regulation that have been put up. Maybe the current fiscal crisis will help but given how Republicans are also unreliable advocates of free markets. The irony is that it would seem that the Democrats are far more the crony capitalists than the Republicans ever were - GE, GM anyone?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:01 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness saidThis will be a pattern.

    Steve Wynn made the same points, subject of an earlier thread. Steve Wynn has been a Democratic party supporter. I also saw him interviewed several weeks ago and he described how he sought to take care of his employees. I read other reports that indicated how highly he was regarded by his employees, in turn.

    It has become clear to many of us, and in the coming months as more business leaders speak out, more people not blinded by their left wing ideology will realize the dampening impact this administration has towards job growth.

    This administration is nothing but a malignancy, and as soon as it's gone, things will improve.

    I am not entirely convinced that as soon as it's gone things will improve. There is a lot of work that will need to be done to bring down the walls of regulation that have been put up. Maybe the current fiscal crisis will help but given how Republicans are also unreliable advocates of free markets. The irony is that it would seem that the Democrats are far more the crony capitalists than the Republicans ever were - GE, GM anyone?

    It will take time to undue the damage, but a number of companies have indicated they could start hiring, but, contrary to what some say here, are not because of the various uncertainties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:01 PM GMT
    rnch saidspoken (typed) by a man who has obviously NEVER worked in a retail store before!

    your snide, superior, elitist, reality challenged "internet atitude" is becoming quite tiresome.

    There's a small group of right-wing fanatics here who are constantly pushing conservative politics & economics. And that's about all they do, on a site for gay men's health & fitness. Without their daily propaganda to refute I bet there'd be very little political debate here, and we could concentrate on the core subjects that interest gay men.

    As for the specifics of job growth, it's now been shown that the incentives and tax breaks, to both corporations & wealthy individuals, have NOT been used to generate jobs. They took the money & ran. It turned up in even more bloated executive compensation and bonuses, not in expanded hiring in most cases. The US auto industry appears to be a happy exception.

    The Republican formula that riddler78 espouses is quite transparent: convince everyone to hate "bureaucrats" and regulators against their own interests because these agencies actually protect the people from corporate predation, and curb their 19th-Century robber baron ways. Cut taxes, but mostly on the corporations and wealthy who contribute to Republicans. Oh, and hate the unions too, because they won't accept the bare minimum wage, and insist on work safety standards, decent hours & vacations, and other things that cut into the excess profits the Republicans expect to have donated to their campaigns.

    Neither big business nor their Republican puppets want to see any limits placed on what they can do in the marketplace, the public be damned. And they're developed a wonderfully Orwellian explanation for this, which riddler and others here parrot quite well: "But we're really just doing it for YOU, the public."

    No, what they're really doing is raiding the cookie jar for profits they keep for themselves, while the working public gets the crumbs. It's the foxes guarding the hen house scenario, and guess who the chickens are? No wonder some of them here refer to us as "liberal hens" because that's how they view us - as the prey of corporate interests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:05 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    rnch saidspoken (typed) by a man who has obviously NEVER worked in a retail store before!

    your snide, superior, elitist, reality challenged "internet atitude" is becoming quite tiresome.

    There's a small group of right-wing fanatics here who are constantly pushing conservative politics & economics. And that's about all they do, on a site for gay men's health & fitness. Without their daily propaganda to refute I bet there'd be very little political debate here, and we could concentrate on the core subjects that interest gay men.

    As for the specifics of job growth, it's now been shown that the incentives and tax breaks, to both corporations & wealthy individuals, have NOT been used to generate jobs. They took the money & ran. It turned up in even more bloated executive compensation and bonuses, not in expanded hiring in most cases. The US auto industry appears to be a happy exception.

    The Republican formula that riddler78 espouses is quite transparent: convince everyone to hate "bureaucrats" and regulators against their own interests because these agencies actually protect the people from corporate predation, and curb their 19th-Century robber baron ways. Cut taxes, but mostly on the corporations and wealthy who contribute to Republicans. Oh, and hate the unions too, because they won't accept the bare minimum wage, and insist on work safety standards, decent hours & vacations, and other things that cut into the excess profits the Republicans expect to have donated to their campaigns.

    Neither big business nor their Republican puppets want to see any limits placed on what they can do in the marketplace, the public be damned. And they're developed a wonderfully Orwellian explanation for this, which riddler and others here parrot quite well: "But we're really just doing it for YOU, the public."

    No, what they're really doing is raiding the cookie jar for profits they keep for themselves, while the working public gets the crumbs. It's the foxes guarding the hen house scenario, and guess who the chickens are? No wonder some of them here refer to us as "liberal hens" because that's how they view us - as their prey.


    A prime example of what it means to hate the people who create the jobs. As if placing ever greater burdens in taxes and regulations will make them want to hire more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:16 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidOddly, a Wall Street Journal report from earlier this week puts the lie to Marcus' ideological ravings:

    Wall Street JournalThe main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.

    "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

    "We're hiring a little here and there—but it's not what it should be," said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. "And it's because of the lack of demand."

    A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that concerns about demand remain a major obstacle to growth and hiring. When asked the single most important problem facing their businesses, 24% cited "poor sales"—a percentage that remains above highs seen in the recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s.


    And that's consistent with the argument the left has been making.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwODExNDgyWj.html


    I have always found it bizarre that that "demand" is cited as a reason for a lack of business confidence. That's almost a tautology. This assumption by the "left" and some journalists as you put it, that demand comes like manna from the sky is absurd on its face - it's a cop out in an attempt to find cause. In that same article - "Among economists who see uncertainty as the primary obstacle to hiring is Sean M. Snaith of the University of Central Florida. "The black cloud of policy uncertainty still hangs over the private sector," Mr. Snaith said."

    Furthermore it is a bizarro world where the "left" or anyone with a functioning level of reason can actually believe that implementing additional regulations en masse will stimulate any form of demand.


    I'm sure you find anything that fits outside your narrow ideological view "bizarre."

    Our economic problem is simple and it has nothing to do with "uncertainty." The right wing and major corporations have been engaged in a 30 year war on the middle class that has decimated its purchasing power.

    Joshua HollandThat the wealthy are “job creators,” and therefore have interests that must be defended by the public at large, is a talking-point that, however facile, is so popular it slips effortlessly from the lips of conservatives every day.

    It's also complete nonsense; the opposite of the truth. Sure, the wealthy create a few jobs – people who offer exclusive services or sell them high-end goods. But the overwhelming majority of jobs in this country are “created” by ordinary Americans when they spend their paychecks.

    Consumer demand accounts for around 70 percent of our economic output. And with so much wealth having been redistributed upward through a 40-year class-war from above, American consumers are too tapped out to spend as they once did. This remains the core issue in this sluggish, largely jobless recovery. The wealthy, in their voracious appetite for a bigger piece of the national pie, are the real job-killers in this economic climate.

    Discounting those in the top 20 percent of the pile – according to economists Emanuel Saez and Thomas Picketty it's actually the top 10 percent – Americans haven't seen their real incomes rise in the past 30 years.

    Paul Buchheit, a professor with City Colleges of Chicago, crunched some numbers using IRS data and found that “if middle- and upper-middle-class families had maintained the same share of American productivity that they held in 1980, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year.” In other words, because the share of income going to the top has increased so dramatically, ordinary people have $12,500 less in their wallets today. Studies have shown that when wealthy people grab more post-tax income they're more likely to bank it than to spend it, so much of that $12,500 also represents lost demand, and hence less jobs. Wealthy Americans' avarice is a job-killer.


    [url]http://www.alternet.org/story/151705/why_the_wealthiest_americans_are_the_real_%27job-killers%27?page=entire[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    lol, so what exactly are these walls of regulations?

    Up here Home Depot is far from the cheapest place to shop.

    A flood of minimum wage earners can't be consumers for much more than basics. They usually rent, so aren't (and can't afford to) buying a lot of Home Depot's stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 2:14 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidOddly, a Wall Street Journal report from earlier this week puts the lie to Marcus' ideological ravings:

    Wall Street JournalThe main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.

    "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

    "We're hiring a little here and there—but it's not what it should be," said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. "And it's because of the lack of demand."

    A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that concerns about demand remain a major obstacle to growth and hiring. When asked the single most important problem facing their businesses, 24% cited "poor sales"—a percentage that remains above highs seen in the recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s.


    And that's consistent with the argument the left has been making.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwODExNDgyWj.html


    I have always found it bizarre that that "demand" is cited as a reason for a lack of business confidence. That's almost a tautology. This assumption by the "left" and some journalists as you put it, that demand comes like manna from the sky is absurd on its face - it's a cop out in an attempt to find cause. In that same article - "Among economists who see uncertainty as the primary obstacle to hiring is Sean M. Snaith of the University of Central Florida. "The black cloud of policy uncertainty still hangs over the private sector," Mr. Snaith said."

    Furthermore it is a bizarro world where the "left" or anyone with a functioning level of reason can actually believe that implementing additional regulations en masse will stimulate any form of demand.


    I'm sure you find anything that fits outside your narrow ideological view "bizarre."

    Our economic problem is simple and it has nothing to do with "uncertainty." The right wing and major corporations have been engaged in a 30 year war on the middle class that has decimated its purchasing power.

    Joshua HollandThat the wealthy are “job creators,” and therefore have interests that must be defended by the public at large, is a talking-point that, however facile, is so popular it slips effortlessly from the lips of conservatives every day.

    It's also complete nonsense; the opposite of the truth. Sure, the wealthy create a few jobs – people who offer exclusive services or sell them high-end goods. But the overwhelming majority of jobs in this country are “created” by ordinary Americans when they spend their paychecks.

    Consumer demand accounts for around 70 percent of our economic output. And with so much wealth having been redistributed upward through a 40-year class-war from above, American consumers are too tapped out to spend as they once did. This remains the core issue in this sluggish, largely jobless recovery. The wealthy, in their voracious appetite for a bigger piece of the national pie, are the real job-killers in this economic climate.

    Discounting those in the top 20 percent of the pile – according to economists Emanuel Saez and Thomas Picketty it's actually the top 10 percent – Americans haven't seen their real incomes rise in the past 30 years.

    Paul Buchheit, a professor with City Colleges of Chicago, crunched some numbers using IRS data and found that “if middle- and upper-middle-class families had maintained the same share of American productivity that they held in 1980, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year.” In other words, because the share of income going to the top has increased so dramatically, ordinary people have $12,500 less in their wallets today. Studies have shown that when wealthy people grab more post-tax income they're more likely to bank it than to spend it, so much of that $12,500 also represents lost demand, and hence less jobs. Wealthy Americans' avarice is a job-killer.


    [url]http://www.alternet.org/story/151705/why_the_wealthiest_americans_are_the_real_%27job-killers%27?page=entire[/url]


    What remarkable drivel. Of course, considering the source, it's not terribly surprising. Do you have any evidence from people who are respected in finance or economics or from sources that aren't at the extrema of leftwing thought? e.g. how Joshua Holland somehow reinterpreted that productivity has not remained consistent for middle and upper middle class Americans means that it's the rich who have taken that income away from them is a ridiculous logical leap. Further, this idea that savings is somehow inferior to spending given that savings get redeployed as investment by the finance industry shows the level of ignorance the author has of finance, economics and even math.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidWhat remarkable drivel. Of course, considering the source, it's not terribly surprising. Do you have any evidence from people who are respected in finance or economics or from sources that aren't at the extrema of leftwing thought? e.g. how Joshua Holland somehow reinterpreted that productivity has not remained consistent for middle and upper middle class Americans means that it's the rich who have taken that income away from them is a ridiculous logical leap. Further, this idea that savings is somehow inferior to spending given that savings get redeployed as investment by the finance industry shows the level of ignorance the author has of finance, economics and even math.


    Dude - Read the article before embarrassing yourself again. Several well-known and respected economists and their studies are quoted throughout, all in support of Holland's contention that working and middle-class wages were driven downward while those in the top 2% scooped up an increasing share of the profits.

    That is also reflected in the explosion of CEO compensation from 25 times the average worker to over 500 times the average worker.

    And productivity for middle and working class workers has increased over the same period, so people are producing more from less. According to your "free market" theories that shouldn't happen. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 12:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat remarkable drivel. Of course, considering the source, it's not terribly surprising. Do you have any evidence from people who are respected in finance or economics or from sources that aren't at the extrema of leftwing thought? e.g. how Joshua Holland somehow reinterpreted that productivity has not remained consistent for middle and upper middle class Americans means that it's the rich who have taken that income away from them is a ridiculous logical leap. Further, this idea that savings is somehow inferior to spending given that savings get redeployed as investment by the finance industry shows the level of ignorance the author has of finance, economics and even math.


    Dude - Read the article before embarrassing yourself again. Several well-known and respected economists and their studies are quoted throughout, all in support of Holland's contention that working and middle-class wages were driven downward while those in the top 2% scooped up an increasing share of the profits.

    That is also reflected in the explosion of CEO compensation from 25 times the average worker to over 500 times the average worker.

    And productivity for middle and working class workers has increased over the same period, so people are producing more from less. According to your "free market" theories that shouldn't happen. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Dude - read your own article - and look how Holland twists what they say in a supposed attempt at supporting his convoluted argument. icon_rolleyes.gif. Sure, productivity has increased for the middle class and they have also gotten more on an absolute basis over time though their overall share may have fallen. At least you keep your politics of envy and class warfare remarkably transparent. The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

    Another day, another "unexpected" piece of bad economic news.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

    Putting pressure on an already lousy job market, the mass layoff is making a comeback. In the past week, Cisco, Lockheed Martin and Borders announced a combined 23,000 in job cuts. (See: Another Retailer Bites the Dust: Borders Doomed by Amazon Deal, Davidowitz Says)
    Those announcements follow 41,432 in planned cuts in June, up 11.6% from May and 5.3% vs. a year earlier, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

    Meanwhile, state and local governments have cut 142,000 jobs this year, The WSJ reports, and Wall Street is braced for another round of cutbacks. This week, Goldman Sachs announced plans to let go 1000 fixed-income traders.

    If these trends continue, we may soon be talking about losses in the monthly employment data -- not just disappointing growth, says Howard Davidowitz, CEO of Davidowitz & Associates

    "Everything in business is confidence," Davidowitz says. "You lose confidence and businesses can't deal with that [and] who could have confidence with what's going on in Washington?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 12:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat remarkable drivel. Of course, considering the source, it's not terribly surprising. Do you have any evidence from people who are respected in finance or economics or from sources that aren't at the extrema of leftwing thought? e.g. how Joshua Holland somehow reinterpreted that productivity has not remained consistent for middle and upper middle class Americans means that it's the rich who have taken that income away from them is a ridiculous logical leap. Further, this idea that savings is somehow inferior to spending given that savings get redeployed as investment by the finance industry shows the level of ignorance the author has of finance, economics and even math.


    Dude - Read the article before embarrassing yourself again. Several well-known and respected economists and their studies are quoted throughout, all in support of Holland's contention that working and middle-class wages were driven downward while those in the top 2% scooped up an increasing share of the profits.

    That is also reflected in the explosion of CEO compensation from 25 times the average worker to over 500 times the average worker.

    And productivity for middle and working class workers has increased over the same period, so people are producing more from less. According to your "free market" theories that shouldn't happen. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Dude - read your own article - and look how Holland twists what they say in a supposed attempt at supporting his convoluted argument. icon_rolleyes.gif. Sure, productivity has increased for the middle class and they have also gotten more on an absolute basis over time though their overall share may have fallen. At least you keep your politics of envy and class warfare remarkably transparent. The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

    Another day, another "unexpected" piece of bad economic news.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

    Putting pressure on an already lousy job market, the mass layoff is making a comeback. In the past week, Cisco, Lockheed Martin and Borders announced a combined 23,000 in job cuts. (See: Another Retailer Bites the Dust: Borders Doomed by Amazon Deal, Davidowitz Says)
    Those announcements follow 41,432 in planned cuts in June, up 11.6% from May and 5.3% vs. a year earlier, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

    Meanwhile, state and local governments have cut 142,000 jobs this year, The WSJ reports, and Wall Street is braced for another round of cutbacks. This week, Goldman Sachs announced plans to let go 1000 fixed-income traders.

    If these trends continue, we may soon be talking about losses in the monthly employment data -- not just disappointing growth, says Howard Davidowitz, CEO of Davidowitz & Associates

    "Everything in business is confidence," Davidowitz says. "You lose confidence and businesses can't deal with that [and] who could have confidence with what's going on in Washington?"


    There is no "twisting" just a statement of facts, but that's a good try at ignoring the unpleasantness caused by the actual perpetrators of class warfare.

    And the article you reference proves the general contention that the rich are responsible for the bad economy. Why is Goldman Sachs, which has reaped (skimmed? stolen?) enormous profits in the past three years laying anyone off? Because they are putting the short-term profits of a relatively small group of senior executives ahead of what is best for their employees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThere is no "twisting" just a statement of facts, but that's a good try at ignoring the unpleasantness caused by the actual perpetrators of class warfare.

    And the article you reference proves the general contention that the rich are responsible for the bad economy. Why is Goldman Sachs, which has reaped (skimmed? stolen?) enormous profits in the past three years laying anyone off? Because they are putting the short-term profits of a relatively small group of senior executives ahead of what is best for their employees.


    Right. Because pulling random facts and pulling up the least probable explanation for them isn't twisting - just plain dishonest.

    The article that I reference does nothing of the sort. Not only do you manage to attempt to paint all rich with the same brush and you have apparently have no concept of the relationship between productivity, profitability and job growth. Newsflash: businesses aren't charities to employ employees - they are organizations built to perform a service/product and the best do so efficiently/productively and they innovate which results in profit. What of all the companies that have failed because their executives have not been good stewards of their resources? You would rather they be bailed out like GM and Ford? Because that's worked out so well?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:15 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThere is no "twisting" just a statement of facts, but that's a good try at ignoring the unpleasantness caused by the actual perpetrators of class warfare.

    And the article you reference proves the general contention that the rich are responsible for the bad economy. Why is Goldman Sachs, which has reaped (skimmed? stolen?) enormous profits in the past three years laying anyone off? Because they are putting the short-term profits of a relatively small group of senior executives ahead of what is best for their employees.


    Right. Because pulling random facts and pulling up the least probable explanation for them isn't twisting - just plain dishonest.

    The article that I reference does nothing of the sort. Not only do you manage to attempt to paint all rich with the same brush and you have apparently have no concept of the relationship between productivity, profitability and job growth. Newsflash: businesses aren't charities to employ employees - they are organizations built to perform a service/product and the best do so efficiently/productively and they innovate which results in profit. What of all the companies that have failed because their executives have not been good stewards of their resources? You would rather they be bailed out like GM and Ford? Because that's worked out so well?


    I'm not painting the "rich" with the same brush, but speaking very specifically about those who have sought relentless tax cuts and sucked up an increasingly large share of profits to enrich themselves at the expense of their employees and market stability.

    Businesses need not be charities to have a long view and a culture that values and takes care of their employees. The reason they do not is simple greed and the increasing need to jack up short term profits to appease Wall Street.

    What I understand is that the productivity of the American worker has increased substantially over the last 40 years as their wages and benefits have declined. Again, something foisted upon them by greed, deregulation and the relentless attacks on unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    There is no "twisting" just a statement of facts, but that's a good try at ignoring the unpleasantness caused by the actual perpetrators of class warfare.



    Yes, I do wish Obama and the Democrats would stop playing the class warfare card.


    “There’s class warfare, all right,” but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffet

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 22, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 said....“There’s class warfare, all right,” but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffet

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html



    Sad but True.




    icon_cry.gif