-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Email
Print
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: SocEtTuem on 9/24/09
I wonder if those who are unbale to pay their bills share Ritter's rose colored vision for the future? In an economy where people are celebrating the loss of "only" 530,000 jobs per week I don't see a hell of a lot of reason to be optimisitic.
I wonder if those who are unbale to pay their bills share Ritter's rose colored vision for the future? In an economy where people are celebrating the loss of "only" 530,000 jobs per week I don't see a hell of a lot of reason to be optimisitic.
By: Geana on 9/24/09
I don't share it at all :( I had hoped for a predictably shorter time frame. 2014?!?! I'm also aware that unemployment claims does not fully gauge the true number of unemployed out there. There are many who for one reason or another, are ineligible for unemployment, including those who worked for non-profits. As far as the housing prices coming up again? I've been watching my own yo-yo back and forth.
I don't share it at all :( I had hoped for a predictably shorter time frame. 2014?!?! I'm also aware that unemployment claims does not fully gauge the true number of unemployed out there. There are many who for one reason or another, are ineligible for unemployment, including those who worked for non-profits. As far as the housing prices coming up again? I've been watching my own yo-yo back and forth.
By: abide on 9/24/09
We need JOBS in AMERICA not CHINA and elsewhere thats the problem with the economy.
We need JOBS in AMERICA not CHINA and elsewhere thats the problem with the economy.
By: Farmall on 9/25/09
He could be right, but I'll believe it when I see it. He mentioned savings, why would anybody save money when interest rates on savings accounts are around 1%. I miss the Carter error when rates were as high as 18%.
He could be right, but I'll believe it when I see it. He mentioned savings, why would anybody save money when interest rates on savings accounts are around 1%. I miss the Carter error when rates were as high as 18%.
By: dnewton on 9/25/09
US manufacturing jobs have gone down every year since 1979 and in Tennessee they have been going down every year since the mid Eighties. It did not matter who the president was or if good times or bad. It does not matter what subsidy is given. It did not matter how many industrial parks were built along the interstate or any other factor. Tennessee has 84 square miles of empty industrial parks. To buy all of this land at $3000 per acre, manufacturing output in the state would have to expand 113 times the 2007 level.
This loss of jobs is due to increasing manufacturing productivity. The dollar value of US stuff made stays about the same fraction of world production but the number of US manufacturing jobs is declining. Manufacturing wages are increasing every year but below the inflation rate. The only thing that would stop this pattern is the average manufacturing wage falling to Wal-Mart levels or a major war between India and China. If we increase the number of manufacturing jobs it will only be a temporary increase over a temporary low point. There is nothing on the horizon that will reverse the net loss of manufacturing jobs because all of the force and fury of the economy is targeting people related costs. Along with this phenomenon is the weird idea that we need to reduce consumption of energy, toilet paper and old fashion light bulbs. Reduced consumption will mean fewer jobs.
US manufacturing jobs have gone down every year since 1979 and in Tennessee they have been going down every year since the mid Eighties. It did not matter who the president was or if good times or bad. It does not matter what subsidy is given. It did not matter how many industrial parks were built along the interstate or any other factor. Tennessee has 84 square miles of empty industrial parks. To buy all of this land at $3000 per acre, manufacturing output in the state would have to expand 113 times the 2007 level.
This loss of jobs is due to increasing manufacturing productivity. The dollar value of US stuff made stays about the same fraction of world production but the number of US manufacturing jobs is declining. Manufacturing wages are increasing every year but below the inflation rate. The only thing that would stop this pattern is the average manufacturing wage falling to Wal-Mart levels or a major war between India and China. If we increase the number of manufacturing jobs it will only be a temporary increase over a temporary low point. There is nothing on the horizon that will reverse the net loss of manufacturing jobs because all of the force and fury of the economy is targeting people related costs. Along with this phenomenon is the weird idea that we need to reduce consumption of energy, toilet paper and old fashion light bulbs. Reduced consumption will mean fewer jobs.
By: jg13 on 9/28/09
dnewton,
I agree with you on most points but not that "reduced consumption will mean fewer jobs." I don't doubt that it will have some impact but it won't be a reduction as much as a shift. Low tech manufacturing jobs will be traded for hi tech engineering. Look at Pittsburgh as a prime example. The decline of the steel business left the city in shambles but they are experiencing a renaissance due to an surge of tech companies entering the area. Detroit, though a long long way from the finish line, is experiencing similar success. Old parts and assembly plants are being turned into manufacturing plants for green technologies. I also think that while there are extenuating circumstances that have lead to the decline in manufacturing jobs over several decades, it's certainly not the crux of the issue now. Today's problems can be traced back to many of the tenants of Reaganomics and the idea of trickle down economics, followed by Clinton's refusal to regulate the CDS marketing, topped off by the eight years of the Bush administration's complete reign of destruction, from deregulation of mortgage and credit industries, to starting two wars, to giving substantial tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, who did nothing to reinvest in the U.S.
dnewton,
I agree with you on most points but not that "reduced consumption will mean fewer jobs." I don't doubt that it will have some impact but it won't be a reduction as much as a shift. Low tech manufacturing jobs will be traded for hi tech engineering. Look at Pittsburgh as a prime example. The decline of the steel business left the city in shambles but they are experiencing a renaissance due to an surge of tech companies entering the area. Detroit, though a long long way from the finish line, is experiencing similar success. Old parts and assembly plants are being turned into manufacturing plants for green technologies. I also think that while there are extenuating circumstances that have lead to the decline in manufacturing jobs over several decades, it's certainly not the crux of the issue now. Today's problems can be traced back to many of the tenants of Reaganomics and the idea of trickle down economics, followed by Clinton's refusal to regulate the CDS marketing, topped off by the eight years of the Bush administration's complete reign of destruction, from deregulation of mortgage and credit industries, to starting two wars, to giving substantial tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, who did nothing to reinvest in the U.S.
Login and voice your opinion!